3 ms·

I've only spent a couple months in India as a tourist, but if I was to move there I would actually not prefer one of the mega cities like Delhi or Mumbai just b

by ido 10y ago

I've only spent a couple months in India as a tourist, but if I was to move there I would actually not prefer one of the mega cities like Delhi or Mumbai just because of how polluted they are (among other issues such as crime). Some of the nicer himalaya hill stations seem like a better idea for a retirement destination.

sfifs 10y ago
Sure... until you want good medical care, or want to watch a play or that latest Oscar winning "art" movie... or even moderately interesting work at which point one of the mega cities is your only option.
- ido 10y ago
  Well if we're talking about retirment you don't need to find work. What you say is otherwise true but for me the only real argument is medical care, and if it's not an emergency you can still travel a couple hours to the nearest major city[1] to get the rare treatment. If you're not retired or working remotely I would never suggest living in India or anywhere in the third world for that matter - making money is so much easier in the west. [1] random example: https://www.google.de/maps/dir/Shimla,+Himachal+Pradesh,+India/Chandigarh,+India/ https://www.google.de/maps/dir/Shimla,+Himachal+Pradesh,+Ind... almost every Indian town will have a major city within a couple hours' distance, the country is very densly populated.
jogjayr 10y ago
> but if I was to move there I would actually not prefer one of the mega cities like Delhi or Mumbai just because of how polluted they are I feel you. I grew up in Mumbai but I don't live there at present. The pollution seems to be worse every time I visit; I think it'll get worse before it gets better. Violent crime isn't that much of a problem in Mumbai in my experience (I've heard Delhi is pretty bad). > Some of the nicer himalaya hill stations seem like a better idea for a retirement destination. Can't say I haven't considered that also. Though a lot of them (eg. Manali) are horrible tourist traps. I guess it might work if you can build up a social circle there and you prefer outdoor activities (hiking, climbing, rafting) over city attractions (art, theater, restaurants and bars). And the Internet is going to be very slow. And every time you want to travel it's going to be an 8+ hour train or bus ride to the nearest major city airport. And even then $2k/yr is not going to be enough (unless you live like some of the poorer than median locals). So it's really not for everyone. If you could see yourself retiring to a remote part of say Wyoming or Montana (comparing just the relative isolation), then you might have the right personality to make a success of it.
- ido 10y ago
  Only difference being that remote parts of Wyoming or Montana are a lot more remote than most himalaya hill stations. There is literally nowhere in India that's as far removed from other people as remote parts of the US or Canada.

by ido 10y ago

sfifs 10y ago

Sure... until you want good medical care, or want to watch a play or that latest Oscar winning "art" movie... or even moderately interesting work at which point one of the mega cities is your only option.

ido 10y ago
Well if we're talking about retirment you don't need to find work. What you say is otherwise true but for me the only real argument is medical care, and if it's not an emergency you can still travel a couple hours to the nearest major city[1] to get the rare treatment. If you're not retired or working remotely I would never suggest living in India or anywhere in the third world for that matter - making money is so much easier in the west. [1] random example: https://www.google.de/maps/dir/Shimla,+Himachal+Pradesh,+India/Chandigarh,+India/ https://www.google.de/maps/dir/Shimla,+Himachal+Pradesh,+Ind... almost every Indian town will have a major city within a couple hours' distance, the country is very densly populated.

jogjayr 10y ago

> but if I was to move there I would actually not prefer one of the mega cities like Delhi or Mumbai just because of how polluted they are I feel you. I grew up in Mumbai but I don't live there at present. The pollution seems to be worse every time I visit; I think it'll get worse before it gets better. Violent crime isn't that much of a problem in Mumbai in my experience (I've heard Delhi is pretty bad). > Some of the nicer himalaya hill stations seem like a better idea for a retirement destination. Can't say I haven't considered that also. Though a lot of them (eg. Manali) are horrible tourist traps. I guess it might work if you can build up a social circle there and you prefer outdoor activities (hiking, climbing, rafting) over city attractions (art, theater, restaurants and bars). And the Internet is going to be very slow. And every time you want to travel it's going to be an 8+ hour train or bus ride to the nearest major city airport. And even then $2k/yr is not going to be enough (unless you live like some of the poorer than median locals). So it's really not for everyone. If you could see yourself retiring to a remote part of say Wyoming or Montana (comparing just the relative isolation), then you might have the right personality to make a success of it.

ido 10y ago
Only difference being that remote parts of Wyoming or Montana are a lot more remote than most himalaya hill stations. There is literally nowhere in India that's as far removed from other people as remote parts of the US or Canada.