Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A lot of people like southern culture because that smile and hello is not cheesy or fake. There is a genuine undertone. I quite enjoy visiting my dad in Georgia, the people around are usually quite nice. It's everyone, of course, but you can tell the difference in general.
A lot of people like southern culture because that smile and hello is not cheesy or fake. There is a genuine undertone. I quite enjoy visiting my dad in Georgia, the people around are usually quite nice. It's everyone, of course, but you can tell the difference in general.
I will say that is true. Southern nice is different from Northern nice. I find people in the Midwest to be fake nice and pretty passive agressive. I find people in the south to be nice, but in a more genuine way, and at the same time not really give a ****, so they don't come off as passive agressive.
Actually, I agree this is an area for improvement. For a city that is so dependent on tourism, we don't do nearly enough to welcome people that visit.
Two main issues I see:
1) the low wages paid to many in the hotel and restaurant sector. (Just waiting for the usual suspects to blow a gasket about this). Honestly, if you're running a high-end hotel, and not paying a premium wage for those who interact with your guests... you're a fool.
2) the fact that many of those workers are not required to be fluent in English... far too often I have people pretend to not understand what I'm saying in English... which just means that I switch to Spanish and then complain to the manager. If you're a service employee.. your manager should expect you to cater to the customer's preferences not your own. I actually see this one getting better... but I know that a lot of my English only friends run into this issue routinely.
Agree 100%. You really want multilingual staff nowadays. And by multilingual I mean English, Spanish, and another European language like French or German. Of course, then you can't just pay minimum wage or just tips or "under the table cash," could you?
In the end, "it's the economy, stupid." Lots of poverty and income inequality in our City, and hospitality, retail, food, and service workers are not machines no matter how much some would want them to be.
Travel + Leisure has a number of very well-known biases. The most obvious one is that most of their lists are based on responses to questionnaires filled-out by their readers. Their readers are not a remotely representative sample of people, skewing significantly whiter, significantly older, significantly wealthier, and hailing from a relatively narrow geographic area. They are typically white suburban retirees. So there is massive polling error introduced into their lists that goes completely unacknowledged or uncorrected-for.
The second most obvious bias is that since the lists are based on voluntary responses, they tend to be very easy to game by cities with a dedicated PR department. PR agencies are very well known for both expressly soliciting residents of a city to vote a certain way, as well as actually filling out hundreds and sometimes thousands of ballots themselves. Since T+L does not disclose the actual ballots or verify their methodology with an independent third-party, these efforts are incredibly effective and largely unchallenged. I actually personally know that this happens, since I run a marketing/PR company and have spoken about this with a PR rep for a city which I won't name here in which we discussed some of the underhanded tactics they use to appear at the top of lists.
The last, and most insidious bias is editorial bias. Both Travel+Leisure and Conde Nast as a whole are well known to people in journalism circles (I was press for several years in NYC, and know several current and former Conde Nast EICs personally) to have some very shady conflicts of interest. A certain city (which will remain unnamed), for example, regularly appears on their "Best Cities" and "Best Vacation Destinations" lists largely because the former editor of T+L was in a relationship with one of the largest commercial property developers in that city that focused on tourism and lifestyle development. This was such a well-known bit of insider journo gossip that it was the source of many long-running jokes in the magazine writer community.
Essentially, the cities that always end up on the top of T+Ls favorable lists are cities that either spend tons on tourism PR or cities that have personal connections to the editors, with a distant third being cities that are predisposed to being liked by upper-middle class retirees living in suburbs in flyover country.
So long story short, these lists can be essentially ignored. They don't mean anything. They aren't going to seriously impact Miami tourism, since tourism to Miami is not driven by upper-middle class white retirees from suburbs in flyover country.
Travel + Leisure has a number of very well-known biases. The most obvious one is that most of their lists are based on responses to questionnaires filled-out by their readers. Their readers are not a remotely representative sample of people, skewing significantly whiter, significantly older, significantly wealthier, and hailing from a relatively narrow geographic area. They are typically white suburban retirees. So there is massive polling error introduced into their lists that goes completely unacknowledged or uncorrected-for.
The second most obvious bias is that since the lists are based on voluntary responses, they tend to be very easy to game by cities with a dedicated PR department. PR agencies are very well known for both expressly soliciting residents of a city to vote a certain way, as well as actually filling out hundreds and sometimes thousands of ballots themselves. Since T+L does not disclose the actual ballots or verify their methodology with an independent third-party, these efforts are incredibly effective and largely unchallenged. I actually personally know that this happens, since I run a marketing/PR company and have spoken about this with a PR rep for a city which I won't name here in which we discussed some of the underhanded tactics they use to appear at the top of lists.
The last, and most insidious bias is editorial bias. Both Travel+Leisure and Conde Nast as a whole are well known to people in journalism circles (I was press for several years in NYC, and know several current and former Conde Nast EICs personally) to have some very shady conflicts of interest. A certain city (which will remain unnamed), for example, regularly appears on their "Best Cities" and "Best Vacation Destinations" lists largely because the former editor of T+L was in a relationship with one of the largest commercial property developers in that city that focused on tourism and lifestyle development. This was such a well-known bit of insider journo gossip that it was the source of many long-running jokes in the magazine writer community.
Essentially, the cities that always end up on the top of T+Ls favorable lists are cities that either spend tons on tourism PR or cities that have personal connections to the editors, with a distant third being cities that are predisposed to being liked by upper-middle class retirees living in suburbs in flyover country.
So long story short, these lists can be essentially ignored. They don't mean anything. They aren't going to seriously impact Miami tourism, since tourism to Miami is not driven by upper-middle class white retirees from suburbs in flyover country.
Honestly, it really depends on a person's tastes too. I know people that love Miami to visit but don't want to live there. I know people that hate Miami in regards to visiting and living. Las Vegas is always seen as a top destination to visit. For me? Not so much. One of the most disappointing places to visit yet it attracts millions of people like crazy and always a top tourist destination.
I have been to Miami about 10 times if not more. I really don't find the people to be rude. I don't find them to be particularly friendly, but not particularly rude.
However, outside major US cities (especially the more urban and denser ones), Americans tend think that if you don't greet and smile at someone that walks by you, goes inside the elevator with you, sits next to you a the theatre, etc., then you are rude.
What most people that don't live in those big cities get is that, what' the point? I live in Chicago and people that move from smaller places to Chicago think we are rude. Because we don't say hi as we pass you by on the street or want to strike up a conversation. It's part of city life. When I walk out the door and do my 10 minute walk to the train I pass at least about 30 people or so on my walk. Am I going to smile and say hi to each one? When I get on the train I am usually in car train with about 40-60 people, sometimes we are packed in like sardines. Am I going to say hi and smile to each one? When I get off the train and walk to my office, a 5 minute walk, I pass about 200-250 people also heading to work. Shall I say hi and strike up conversations with them?
When you live in a big city you come across so many people in your daily life that are strangers that you will most likely never see again. So what's the point? So you better bet when I am walking and someone says hi to me who is a complete stranger and I will most likely never see again, you better bet I will not say hi back. I tend to look at them and carry on. I just don't understand what the point is.
It's one thing for two people to pass by each other and neither one says a word, but ignoring someone who acknowledges you is simply rude. No way around that. It isn't going to kill you to say "hi" back and you might be improving their day.
With that said, I've never had a problem in Miami. The rudest city I ever experienced would have to be DC.
It's one thing for two people to pass by each other and neither one says a word, but ignoring someone who acknowledges you is simply rude. No way around that. It isn't going to kill you to say "hi" back and you might be improving their day.
With that said, I've never had a problem in Miami. The rudest city I ever experienced would have to be DC.
Nothing to be flippant about. Rudeness contributes to negative energy in the environment.
It actually blows my mind that you have to explain to people why it's necessary to be cordial to their fellow human beings.
I'm just joking about being proud of being rude.
I'm not rude, it's just part of city life. I probably cross paths with about 1,000 people per day every day in my daily routine (or moreso in the weekdays when I go to work). People just don't say hi at all to each other when you are in a big city environment like that.
For example, there are always homeless people begging EVERY morning at my train stop. When the guy asks for money/food 90% of the people ignore him and pretend he doesn't exist when he looks at them and ask them. I actually don't, I say "Sorry man I don't have anything on me". Same deal when there are kids selling candy or some religious type. 90% of the people ignore the person that is addressing them.
If a stranger sneezes next to me on the train, I always say bless you. I give my seat on the bus/train to pregnant or the elderly. If someone asks me for something (like a homeless guy, kids selling candy, someone for directions) I am always polite and respond. With that being said I would say it's a minority of the people who say "thank you" when I say "bless you" on the train or bus. The thing is I actually don't care if they do or don't. You accept living in the city respect from strangers is expected, but those little things like saying "hi" or "bless you" quite frankly aren't necessary and your average city dweller won't care that you are saying that to them.
But, when I am walking by and someone just says hi to me, yeah I ignore them. I just don't understand the point? Either ask me a question because you need something, or if you are going to say hi, then do it because you want to strike a conversation with me. Not because I am just passing by you. Same deal with the elevator.
Maybe if I lived in a small town it would be different. But living in a city where I come across 1,000+ people or more per day, I don't think it's rude to ignore someone just because they decided to say hi to me as I pass them by.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
? 
