Quite often you see people saying “tourists need to go home” or “we need less tourists” and there are some valid issues with how people can be, but overall, having tourists is a good thing. It shows that the middle class actually has means of traveling. It also tends to stimulate a local economy with additional revenue and can offset taxes for locals through hotel and other tourism fees. Those that do travel also tend to develop a broader world view then being in their own little sphere.
A reduction in tourism means that only the rich will end up traveling, and everyone else will be stuck only in the place they’re born, relegated mainly to pictures and videos “of a far off land” and will foster deeper divides of “well that’s just them over there” instead of getting to experience it firsthand.
You seem to be conflating two unrelated points. When people say “tourists need to go home” or “we need less tourists,” they aren’t referring to some philosophical argument for the existence of tourism as a gauge of economic health for the middle class.
These phrases are almost exclusively speaking in regards to tourism’s negative effects on the local environment and population. Heavy tourism has a tendency to cannibalize an areas resources and then alienate or push out the native population.
Also tourism shows that the middle class elsewhere can afford to travel. You don’t hear people complain about Indonesian tourists in Europe, for example. But Bali on tge other hand is truly suffering the consequences of Western tourism.