Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At first I thought they would pay me $30,000 and I was like "hmmmm, probably not." Then I see I would pay them? Lol. No.

Haha, sounds like hell on earth.

It’s almost as if different people like different things.

DH and I would 100% do this for 1 year when we retire or even before once our kids were out of the house if the wifi was good. But 3 years, no. That's too long.

DH and I have been planning for a long time to do an "around the world" cruise once we retire. It sounds like an amazing way to see the world. Though three years is too long. We would do a year max.

My spouse wants to do this as well - we've been looking at Semester at Sea, which takes a number of retired people each cruise. The bonus are the courses you can attend (without exams/papers for the returned people).

I imagine by the time it pulls into the final port order will have broken down entirely. The passangers will have divided into warring tribes separated by no-go zones. Disease and bloodshed will have thinned their numbers and alcoholism and cannibalism will be rampant.

DH and I have been planning for a long time to do an "around the world" cruise once we retire. It sounds like an amazing way to see the world. Though three years is too long. We would do a year max.

I would keep in mind a few things when judging this:

1. This is not a 5 day Carnival cruise to Jamaica. It would not be crowded with drunks.
2. Over 1/3 of the days are in port, and more than half of those are overnight stays. You are not "stuck on a ship" for three years.

This basically amounts to taking 3 years to travel the whole world- without packing and unpacking and spending time and aggravation traveling between destinations. (Yes, you only have time for a very small glimps at each place. This is by no means immersive travel.)

I think it would be pretty awesome for a few years when I was older and wanted to travel without the physical toll of jet lag and long flights. My relative pays $6k/month for an apartment in a senior living facility (no medical care or assistance, just meals and house keeping and some activities). This is half the cost and bonus that you get to see the world in a low key way.

It is a narrow slice of the population they are targeting (retired, physically healthy, fairly well to do, desire to travel) but for the right person it sounds awesome.

3 years is a long time though. 6 months or a year seems more reasonable to commit to.

I think it sounds like a fun and relatively easy way to see a lot of the world but you’d clearly need a lot more than 30K to actually see stuff because it doesn’t include any activities on shore. I think it’s an interesting variation on the RV life or van life. I’d also be nervous about the open sea crossing — I feel the same way flying over the open sea but boats are worse because you’re there for longer. My husband loves the sea and would not be at all bothered by being in the middle of the ocean. I like to see land! Alaska cruise was perfect for me because you look out your window and the land is always right there!
I think the biggest problem might be that in three years you could get seriously sick of your fellow passengers. Sort of like high school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait... you have to PAY to live on a cruise ship for 30k? The cruise ship company isn't paying people to do this?!

What kind of hell-like shenanigans is this? Pay 30k to live among drunks, constant norovirus, no nature or ability to escape thousands of people? WHY?!

With you, whole heartedly. My ILs love cruises and try to talk us into them even though they know we hate (and have had sick cruises with them) . My theory has been: suburban/rural people experience a version of city life (convenient amenities, nearby entertainment, friends down the street), but do not have to experience any of the city things they are not trained for. But a cruise ship is not a city. It's a place where people who can afford a cheap vacation sit in hot tubs together. And most of them are white. Cruises are disgusting, full stop.

I’m not white, am a “city person”, and don’t go on cruises, but you sound like a disgusting (truly rude and nasty) person.

Anonymous wrote:Wait... you have to PAY to live on a cruise ship for 30k? The cruise ship company isn't paying people to do this?!

What kind of hell-like shenanigans is this? Pay 30k to live among drunks, constant norovirus, no nature or ability to escape thousands of people? WHY?!

With you, whole heartedly. My ILs love cruises and try to talk us into them even though they know we hate (and have had sick cruises with them) . My theory has been: suburban/rural people experience a version of city life (convenient amenities, nearby entertainment, friends down the street), but do not have to experience any of the city things they are not trained for. But a cruise ship is not a city. It's a place where people who can afford a cheap vacation sit in hot tubs together. And most of them are white. Cruises are disgusting, full stop.

This guy, work-from-cruise for Meta, pay $300,000 for 12 years.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11568221/Meta-employee-28-buys-12-year-lease-cruise-ship-studio-300-000-WFH-worldwide.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Live on a cruise ship for $30k per year. Must commit to 3 years. Travel 130K miles.

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/3-year-cruise-mv-gemini/index.html

My idea of a nightmare. Not appealing at all to me.

Same.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The norovirus lifestyle, coming to a port near you!

There is no more norovirus on cruise ships than in hospitals, schools and nursing homes and more.

Sure, but the one time all the family members got it was on a cruise, and we were trapped in a tiny room with one toilet.

I can't imagine... I think I'd go crazy- (though the traveling sounds great)

Anonymous wrote:At first I thought they would pay me $30,000 and I was like "hmmmm, probably not." Then I see I would pay them? Lol. No.

Haha, sounds like hell on earth.

Sounds fun