7 ms·

"rich vacationers" ? Most American adults can afford $100/year. Edit: I'll even add: most american adults spend $100 per month, not per year, on frivolous stuf

by mrb 3y ago

"rich vacationers" ? Most American adults can afford $100/year. Edit: I'll even add: most american adults spend $100 per month, not per year, on frivolous stuff. Fast food. Cable TV. Unnecessary high-end phones (instead of mid-range phones). All these people could definitely afford $100/year.

kevinsundar 3y ago
You can't use land camp if you don't own a home / property that has parking space and restrooms. At least after your 3 free stays are done.
- mrb 3y ago
  Correct, but solardev was criticizing the $100/yr price, specifically.
  - jmspring 3y ago
    And if you own a home, $100 is NOTHING compared to all costs incurred.
- notahacker 3y ago
  Or put another way, you pay at least $33/night for the right to park a van in one or more undisclosed locations in California for a maximum of three nights. Not sure how that compares with local campsites cost-wise, but it isn't quite free. Any additional benefit you may be able to obtain is contingent upon other people wanting to park on your lawn for an equivalent number of nights first, which implies you're probably not in the can't afford a campsite bracket, is probably more hassle than paying for a campsite, and isn't much use if you're looking to stop for four nights somewhere in the near future... Other sites charge less for the right to stay 365 days a year at thousands of actual photographed locations without being a California homeowner with parking space, and waive the fee if you host.
solardev 3y ago
I think that's a pretty privileged viewpoint. That's $100/year of disposable income for maybe a parking spot where you want to go, maybe available when you want to go. That's definitely not a trivial dollar amount for something like that, especially when there are free alternatives (strip mall parking lots, rest stops, federal lands, moving between neighborhoods, etc.). Then there's the question of being able to offer a designated parking spot (hosting) in exchange for staying credits. Paid private parking, especially extra spots, is an absurd luxury in much of the country, for many people. I knew many people -- climbers, travelers, dirtbaggers, backpackers -- who really wanted to see the public lands that they partially own but could not afford to travel in luxury, people who ate ramen and rice and beans for months just to be able to afford to see the lands. There are also people who live in campers and vans because they can't afford rent. That $100 could definitely go to better uses. If $100 is nothing to you, perhaps you're the kind of traveler this website is targeting. It's definitely not for everyone. I've met many amazing people on Couchsurfing and Warmshowers, which (at the time) were totally free and still today are much cheaper. The vast majority of the people I hosted were very poor but very well traveled, with stories to tell and friendships across the world. Very few of the rich people I've met have had the same experiences to share. Hosting them was a privilege, and not something I would've wanted to charge them for even if I could. I also met very interesting hosts traveling the same way, because at the end day doing that becomes way more relational and way less transactional -- the opposite of luxury travel.
- jmspring 3y ago
  $100/year, $0.27/day is not in the realm of privilege. The groups you mention spend more than that a year to upgrade gear/etc. I call bollocks on this.
  - solardev 3y ago
    I think this is missing the point. It's not "Can I afford $100 for a year's worth of travel", it's that communities have been sharing hosting/staying for a long time already, for free or nearly free. Then suddenly a new company shows up, offers the same service, but now wants to charge hosts and guests $100/yr for doing the same thing as before. Why should they pay that? What does the new company offer? FWIW, it is a genuine question, and depending on the answer could make the service actually very valuable. For example (only): * If they manually vet each member not just with a basic ID check (ID.me etc.) but also with a background check and a Zoom interview, or otherwise improve community trust and relationships * If they provide a built-in calendar/scheduling system and provide support for last-minute cancellations, rebookings, etc. * If they provide vastly superior UX or support compared to Couchsurfing and Warmshowers * If they provide support for international travelers, especially for accidents, medical issues, translations, whatever. But so far this seems to be within California only. But from their website it's not clear that such value-adds are being done, so then the question is not whether $100/yr is affordable, it's what $100/yr gives you that $30/yr does not. If you're rich, that's not a big deal. If you're poor, that $70 a year DOES make a difference.
isatty 3y ago
Not personal but I absolutely hate your edit. Frivolous stuff that you mentioned is _important_ for mental health and hence not.
- throwawaaarrgh 3y ago
  Therapy is important for mental health. Exercise is important for mental (and physical) health. Cable and McDonald's isn't. I don't think I've met a single millennial in the past year that cooks their own food. I'm worried for them.

by mrb 3y ago

kevinsundar 3y ago

You can't use land camp if you don't own a home / property that has parking space and restrooms. At least after your 3 free stays are done.

mrb 3y ago
Correct, but solardev was criticizing the $100/yr price, specifically.
- jmspring 3y ago
  And if you own a home, $100 is NOTHING compared to all costs incurred.
notahacker 3y ago
Or put another way, you pay at least $33/night for the right to park a van in one or more undisclosed locations in California for a maximum of three nights. Not sure how that compares with local campsites cost-wise, but it isn't quite free. Any additional benefit you may be able to obtain is contingent upon other people wanting to park on your lawn for an equivalent number of nights first, which implies you're probably not in the can't afford a campsite bracket, is probably more hassle than paying for a campsite, and isn't much use if you're looking to stop for four nights somewhere in the near future... Other sites charge less for the right to stay 365 days a year at thousands of actual photographed locations without being a California homeowner with parking space, and waive the fee if you host.

solardev 3y ago

I think that's a pretty privileged viewpoint. That's $100/year of disposable income for maybe a parking spot where you want to go, maybe available when you want to go. That's definitely not a trivial dollar amount for something like that, especially when there are free alternatives (strip mall parking lots, rest stops, federal lands, moving between neighborhoods, etc.). Then there's the question of being able to offer a designated parking spot (hosting) in exchange for staying credits. Paid private parking, especially extra spots, is an absurd luxury in much of the country, for many people. I knew many people -- climbers, travelers, dirtbaggers, backpackers -- who really wanted to see the public lands that they partially own but could not afford to travel in luxury, people who ate ramen and rice and beans for months just to be able to afford to see the lands. There are also people who live in campers and vans because they can't afford rent. That $100 could definitely go to better uses. If $100 is nothing to you, perhaps you're the kind of traveler this website is targeting. It's definitely not for everyone. I've met many amazing people on Couchsurfing and Warmshowers, which (at the time) were totally free and still today are much cheaper. The vast majority of the people I hosted were very poor but very well traveled, with stories to tell and friendships across the world. Very few of the rich people I've met have had the same experiences to share. Hosting them was a privilege, and not something I would've wanted to charge them for even if I could. I also met very interesting hosts traveling the same way, because at the end day doing that becomes way more relational and way less transactional -- the opposite of luxury travel.

jmspring 3y ago
$100/year, $0.27/day is not in the realm of privilege. The groups you mention spend more than that a year to upgrade gear/etc. I call bollocks on this.
- solardev 3y ago
  I think this is missing the point. It's not "Can I afford $100 for a year's worth of travel", it's that communities have been sharing hosting/staying for a long time already, for free or nearly free. Then suddenly a new company shows up, offers the same service, but now wants to charge hosts and guests $100/yr for doing the same thing as before. Why should they pay that? What does the new company offer? FWIW, it is a genuine question, and depending on the answer could make the service actually very valuable. For example (only): * If they manually vet each member not just with a basic ID check (ID.me etc.) but also with a background check and a Zoom interview, or otherwise improve community trust and relationships * If they provide a built-in calendar/scheduling system and provide support for last-minute cancellations, rebookings, etc. * If they provide vastly superior UX or support compared to Couchsurfing and Warmshowers * If they provide support for international travelers, especially for accidents, medical issues, translations, whatever. But so far this seems to be within California only. But from their website it's not clear that such value-adds are being done, so then the question is not whether $100/yr is affordable, it's what $100/yr gives you that $30/yr does not. If you're rich, that's not a big deal. If you're poor, that $70 a year DOES make a difference.

isatty 3y ago

Not personal but I absolutely hate your edit. Frivolous stuff that you mentioned is _important_ for mental health and hence not.

throwawaaarrgh 3y ago
Therapy is important for mental health. Exercise is important for mental (and physical) health. Cable and McDonald's isn't. I don't think I've met a single millennial in the past year that cooks their own food. I'm worried for them.