3 ms·
Yeah I can't believe more people don't just travel for a decade.
by bongodongobob 3y ago
Yeah I can't believe more people don't just travel for a decade.
- rcbdev 3y agoIt's not as unreasonable as you think - even in lower income / high tax burden countries like Austria an avg. net salary is enough to keep on travelling to all kinds of places. I know people who work for the state government who keep appearing in India, Thailand, Brazil etc. when we're in meetings - usually they're billed as external consultants to avoid tax liability issues. The true crux is that most people don't actually want the digital nomad lifestyle, humans naturally seek out some form of stability.
- dougmwne 3y agoExactly this. But I disagree that settled is natural. Humans evolved in nomadic tribes that followed the herds. Stability is a social technology that was developed alongside agriculture. Stability feels unnatural to me and I get the itch after too many months in one place. My two bases are near family and I have developed friendships with other traveling people. I’ll meet up this weekend in Miami with a Swede that I met in Portugal and last saw in New York.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dougmwne 3y agoCertainly many people on this website could if it were their priority. Some money is required, but not very much. I’m sure I make less money than many here because I take jobs that prioritize remote work and flexibility. So what’s really the blocker for many is a choice of priorities. I won’t have children. I don’t have a strong need to play homemaker or gardener. My lifestyle is pretty similar to a lot of retirees who have second homes and travel between them. I talk to quite a few in one of my home bases and we have a lot of the same travel plans as well as it’s common for them to try to spend a month or two a year traveling to new places.
- dingnuts 3y agoworking and travelling on occasion -- "on an average net salary" implies not actually quitting your job -- is not what the GP described. The GP described quitting their job and going traveling for an entire decade, which is an incredible luxury over an enormous timespan that only the luckiest will ever be able to enjoy. The fact that the GP then chooses to treat this gift as though it makes him better than his colleagues who had to stay and work for that decade is.. frankly just gross. "They stood still" no bud, they had a life experience that 99% of the world population has no choice but to experience. Maybe instead of being pretentious about your experiences, try gratefulness? I say this as a "privileged" tech worker, with "only" a six figure salary. I could quit my job and go traveling, maybe for a year, and then be broke and set far back on my retirement goals, and my hopes of ever retiring. And I could only do that if I was tremendously selfish, like you: choosing to have no kids, choosing to allow the elders in my family to face poverty instead of proper end of life care, etc. If you have the ability to not work and travel for a DECADE of your life, I suggest you have an immense gratitude towards everyone else keeping society running while you luxuriate, instead of pretending as though the fact that you've had this opportunity somehow makes you superior to those who had to work
- xp84 3y agoYou’ve already been called out but I feel like confessing that I thought the “no kids” decision was selfish until I had kids. For various reasons I won’t bore people with, I now go out of my way to tell young people that they should feel absolutely no obligation to do have kids. Yes, as animals it’s our collective responsibility to bring up the next generation of our species, but that doesn’t mean every individual should, and it’s awful to feel forced into doing so if you aren’t comfortable with the very real risks. And the risks are worse than I ever thought. And I don’t even have it the worst.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- wing-_-nuts 3y agoI had a whole rant queued up until I realized you were being sarcastic. /me with my 15 days of vacation a year
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]