Anonymous wrote:Well, would you prefer that I lie and say that that shit interests me because I want to appear a certain way? I also don't listen to NPR or read the NY Times because I feel it will impress people. And I eat lots and lots of red meat and high fructose corn syrup.

No, I wouldn't. Just say "That shit does not interest me". Case closed.

That said, there are people who actually ENJOY traveling for its own sake, not because it makes them "appear in a certain way'. And I'm going to go out on a limb here and add that not everyone who listens to NPR and reads the NY Times does it to impress other people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people don't like airports and their intrusiveness
some people don't have the $$
some people are homebodies
I know of a lawyer family in the metro area who have never traveled outside maryland/Pennsylvania/VA; so it's not likely $ alone...I meet people in their 20"s who have never been on a plane...

I went to undergrad in upstate New York, 200 miles from New York City. Some locals living in that town have never travelled to New York in their entire lifetimes - and it was a four-hour-drive, at best. When I asked some of them "Why?", the answer was "Never wanted to".

So I believe it's not just about the money (although, international travel can be prohibitively expensive for a lot of people), it's about a person's interest in what's going on at the other side of the fence, so to speak. Some people are amazingly apathetic.

I know people from NYC who have no desire to travel because they feel all the culture/everything is already in their city so why bother?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yup, I know people like this too.

But how many people in Brazil have no desire to travel to Sao Paolo, or outside the country? I'm guessing there's a group in every country like this. It's not an exclusively American problem.

It's Sao PaUlo!

And you don't know the culture. Over there, the poor want to see the "gringos" and the rich want to explore their own country.

Holy cr@p, did you just make an argument this hypocritical?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ooops, for five nights in that lovely fishing destination, it would be $4,300, not $4,600 which is the price for a week.

But still a lot higher than $900 for the beach house. Honeybunch.

I don't think you're following me here.

The lovely fishing destination is 58 minutes driving from the airport and the shuttle is FREE. Bfast is included and in Brasil you don't tip (BTW, food there is CHEAP). You just don't want to see it, do you?

And the ILs you keep posting about who insist in ruin your vacations won't be there

Anyway, this topic is about people who NEVER have been out of the country. It's not about traveling with family. I went on my own and spent very little money compared to a weekend trip to Vegas or Miami.

If you want to drag your little ones with you it's a whole different story.

Oh yes, I'm following your every deviation from the bottom line. Now you've redefined this to say it's "not about traveling with family" or "dragging your little ones with you."

The same calculations still hold, just scaled down from 4 persons to 1 person. If you subtract the family, then I'm also going to have to assume that a single person would share the beach house (totally typical), so now the beach house is down to $200 or $300 a week. Against a single $550 airplane ticket and $1000 for a week in your fishing villlage, unless you travel with a friend and share that 2-person bedroom, in which case your hotel room is down to $500 a week. Neither of us has addressed food, although it's pretty obvious that cooking in your beach house kitchen is cheaper than eating out for 3 meals a day in Brazil.

So a total of $1,550 to go to Brazil, against a $300 beach house. A comparison that totally favors Brazil, because I'm assuming you'll never, ever, have to face those Thanksgiving relatives when you return, like over Christmas, so you're traveling in November not July. And we're excluding the cost of eating in Brazilian restaurants.

In any case: lots of college students, and lots of young people starting out on a job, are in no position to take a $1,550 trip to Brazil (and dumpster dive for their food when they get there). And then they have families, and it becomes even more expensive to travel.

You need to get out of your little fairy castle and look at how most of the world lives. Maybe your next trip should be to some working class areas of DC, so you can talk to the "natives" about why they don't engage in recreational travel?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, would you prefer that I lie and say that that shit interests me because I want to appear a certain way? I also don't listen to NPR or read the NY Times because I feel it will impress people. And I eat lots and lots of red meat and high fructose corn syrup.

Sorry, should have clarified--I am the person who doesnt want to fish or watch some random person crochet.

Believe it or not, I have done a fair amount of traveling and find that when you are in places like Brazil, or Mexico, or most islands if you are caucasian like I am, you get a lot of "impress the American" shows intended to make it appear as if you are experiencing something super duper unique and novel and native. I have seen enough dog and pony shows (ooh! watch the native climb the coconaut tree and bring down a real coconut! Oooh--they gave me a piece of real live sugar cane!) that I would rather save my money and if I want a beach, go somewhere either local or in Florida.

And watch the locals do their flash mob thing Lovely!

Anonymous wrote:Well, would you prefer that I lie and say that that shit interests me because I want to appear a certain way? I also don't listen to NPR or read the NY Times because I feel it will impress people. And I eat lots and lots of red meat and high fructose corn syrup.

I like you!

Anonymous wrote:Yup, I know people like this too.

But how many people in Brazil have no desire to travel to Sao Paolo, or outside the country? I'm guessing there's a group in every country like this. It's not an exclusively American problem.

It's Sao PaUlo!

And you don't know the culture. Over there, the poor want to see the "gringos" and the rich want to explore their own country.

Anonymous wrote:Well, would you prefer that I lie and say that that shit interests me because I want to appear a certain way? I also don't listen to NPR or read the NY Times because I feel it will impress people. And I eat lots and lots of red meat and high fructose corn syrup.

Sorry, should have clarified--I am the person who doesnt want to fish or watch some random person crochet.

Believe it or not, I have done a fair amount of traveling and find that when you are in places like Brazil, or Mexico, or most islands if you are caucasian like I am, you get a lot of "impress the American" shows intended to make it appear as if you are experiencing something super duper unique and novel and native. I have seen enough dog and pony shows (ooh! watch the native climb the coconaut tree and bring down a real coconut! Oooh--they gave me a piece of real live sugar cane!) that I would rather save my money and if I want a beach, go somewhere either local or in Florida.

Anonymous wrote:I have no desire to fish or watch people I don't know do crafts. If I am on a beach I want a waiter bringing me cocktails.

All inclusive, babe! Way to go!

Anonymous wrote:Well, would you prefer that I lie and say that that shit interests me because I want to appear a certain way? I also don't listen to NPR or read the NY Times because I feel it will impress people. And I eat lots and lots of red meat and high fructose corn syrup.

Since when does "intentionally missing the point" constitute an argument?

Lots of us love to travel. I do - I've been to four continents.

But blaming poor people because they can't afford to travel is snotty, elitist, and just plain dumb if you understand anything about household budgeting. It's also sleazy if you use examples ($12 hotels in Vietnam, $550 plane tickets to Brazil over Thanksgiving) that leave out a whole lot of important details.

Anonymous wrote:Ooops, for five nights in that lovely fishing destination, it would be $4,300, not $4,600 which is the price for a week.

But still a lot higher than $900 for the beach house. Honeybunch.

I don't think you're following me here.

The lovely fishing destination is 58 minutes driving from the airport and the shuttle is FREE. Bfast is included and in Brasil you don't tip (BTW, food there is CHEAP). You just don't want to see it, do you?

And the ILs you keep posting about who insist in ruin your vacations won't be there

Anyway, this topic is about people who NEVER have been out of the country. It's not about traveling with family. I went on my own and spent very little money compared to a weekend trip to Vegas or Miami.

If you want to drag your little ones with you it's a whole different story.

Well, would you prefer that I lie and say that that shit interests me because I want to appear a certain way? I also don't listen to NPR or read the NY Times because I feel it will impress people. And I eat lots and lots of red meat and high fructose corn syrup.

Simple math, folks. Some of us may be well-traveled, but we can't add.

Anonymous wrote:I have no desire to fish or watch people I don't know do crafts. If I am on a beach I want a waiter bringing me cocktails.

OK, but you're feeding into the jerk's narrative.

Bottom line - even traveling over Thanksgiving (and pissing off your relatives), at $550 per ticket you're spending $2,200 on plane tickets alone for two adults and two kids. Add another $1,000 for hotels, and another $500-$1000 for food. It doesn't matter where you stay, on the beach, fishing, or on a mountaintop. The total of $4,000+ (and this is incredibly conservative) is more than a $900 beach house.

Anonymous wrote:I have no desire to fish or watch people I don't know do crafts. If I am on a beach I want a waiter bringing me cocktails.

Very hoity toity. And so DCUM-like.