Granted, I haven't read this entire thread, but lots of people think traveling abroad means London or Paris.

This is a big wide world out there. And many countries are cheaper to travel to than Western Europe. We took the kids to Croatia, and it was cheaper than a week at the beach.

Anonymous wrote:A friend of mine at the last minute backed out of coming to our wedding in Europe (I am from there) due to financial reasons. She showed up in her new Lexus soon after. She was from WV and never had a passport. Enough said.

A few thousand on your wedding might be frivolous to some one who worked hard and was from West Virginia.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People saying it's expensive doesn't know what they're talking about!

Seriously? It IS expensive.

No, it is not!

You just have to be smart. Travel out of season, pick the right hotel, wait for tickets to go on sale, be frugal and watch your priorities at home.

Like a PP said it can be cheaper than renting that stupid huge house to spend 2 miserable weeks with your ILs and drive 10 hours back.

I have always enjoyed going to the beach and it doesn't have to be 10 hours. We have been to the Cape, Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket, etc and each time said we did nothing that could not be done in DE or NJ so why travel further? People who have never traveled have limited funds and vacation time. It is so pretentious to consider them beneath you all.

A friend of mine at the last minute backed out of coming to our wedding in Europe (I am from there) due to financial reasons. She showed up in her new Lexus soon after. She was from WV and never had a passport. Enough said.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will not be friends with people who haven't left the USA. I grew up outside the USA and it's hard to deal with people.

As a first generation who's traveled, I understand you a tad bit . However, you're arrogant, too, and while I usually hang with travelers, too, you would be off my list.

+1000

I'm 32 and have never been to a country you couldn't access by cruise ship, so I am sure many would consider that untraveled. DH and I would love to travel more. The reality is, we both grew up working class where vacations were usually long weekend car trips. In college, I opted to spend a semester interning rather than travelling abroad because I knew I needed more work experience to help me when I was done with school. Shortly after college we got engaged, were struggling to pay off student loans on entry level salaries while saving for a modest wedding since parents couldn't help. Our families aren't close by so those years with 10 vacation days a year meant most of our vacation was spent visiting relatives or maybe taking a quick, inexpensive cruise. Then it was saving for a house, and now it's juggling kids, mortgage, daycare, limited vacation time, and family still far away. As much as I would like to see Europe, I wouldn't want to take away Christmas or our summer visit to Grandma because our kids are too young to appreciate real travel anyhow. FWIW, I traveled all over the U.S. for work. I've been to almost every state, and feel like there is a lot of value in domestic travel.

I've only gotten to page 3 of this discussion, but in reference to everyone saying it's expensive to travel, it's because they're talking about Europe. I've done a lot of travel, but I wouldn't go to Europe right now! Asia and South America can be very inexpensive, depending on where you go. But, I understand that could be a more challenging first trip.

Vietnam is a great inexpensive first outside-the-US destination. Cabbies speak enough English to get you where you're going, food is great and dirt cheap, and the country (and cities) are small enough to feel manageable. They love children there too, so easy for kids to come along.

I've been to Europe - as a child, and again for one trip as an adult. I wish I was more well-traveled, but I've never really had the money and vacation time simultaneously. Had a series of low-paying, dues-paying type jobs during college and after college, and then the higher-paying jobs came with a ton of hours and very little free time. I'm single, so I would have had to find friends to go, or travel by myself. Plus I bought a house by myself at 27, which sucked up a lot of money. Probably would have started traveling more once my income hit $100K at 35, but then got laid off and then pregnant. Now I'm waiting till my daughter's old enough to appreciate Europe, and then we'll go. (There's not enough money to go now, with a $2600/month mortgage and a $1400/month preschool on a single income.)

Until then, I'll make my lists of all the places I want to see in a few years! I'm really into the fine arts, good food and architecture, so I'll probably stick to the major European cities for awhile and be happy.

There are two main kinds of people who haven't been out of the country, we shouldn't group them together. There are people who would like to travel abroad but can't, and people who have no interest in traveling abroad.

Let's not kid ourselves, traveling IS expensive no matter how wisely you plan it. Even if you can find an amazing deal on a roundtrip ticket to India for $700 as opposed to $1200, some people still don't have that $700 to spend. They can also be tied down to work and family and can find absolutely no time to go on their dream vacations.

Some people just don't find traveling as exciting a thought as the rest of us do. I love the idea of exploring foreign lands, and for the longest time, was puzzled at how anyone could not want to experience the excitement and adventure of exploring foreign lands... but then I realize that we all have different ideas of "fun." Some of us love to travel, some of us don't, and I think the majority of the population is somewhere in between. It's all a matter of preference.

It's true, traveling DOES broaden one's horizons in ways that books and television cannot. However, I don't think it necessarily makes non-travelers ignorant. We have to accept that not everyone finds joy in traveling, and not everyone is under the same circumstances, either.

Someone in a previous comment said that they can learn about the Chinese culture by reading books as opposed to visiting China. That's not true and indeed a narrow-minded view. You can read all you want about a country and still not know as much as someone who has been there first hand. However, not all people who are uninterested in traveling abroad think that, but those who do, I would consider to be narrow-minded.

It's ridiculous how some travelers are saying they would never associate themselves with a non-traveler b/c they're ignorant, because that's not always the case. Similarly, I've heard many non-travelers say the same thing about travelers because "people who travel are spoiled," whatever that means. I work hard for all the money I use to travel, and am in no way spoiled. Anyway, both sides just need to understand the other a little bit more. Non-travelers aren't necessarily narrow-minded, and likewise, not all travelers are spoiled or stuck up.

I haven't read all 15 pages but I can see how some people have never traveled. I have traveled to many countries but I had access to family money before I was working. When I was single and working, I had a high income and didn't have any of the family expenses (childcare, mortgage, college saving, kid stuff, family groceries). I was also very comfortable traveling by myself which made it very easy. Before 2005, there were always cheap fares. As long as my work schedule permitted it, I could fly to Paris or Rome for a few days on a cheap ticket. Since I lived in area where everyone travels, I could get lots of good tips on where to stay that was nice and reasonably priced. I didn't need much luggage. I can completely understand that for someone who was struggling to pay for college, pay off loans or had other expenses taking a gamble on a trip abroad would be foolish. If you aren't around people who can give lots of tips its hard to know where to stay without overpaying.

Even now with money, we are putting off international travel until our kids are older. The fuel prices are outrageous and when you multiple it times 4 it seems foolish to spend all that money to sit on an international beach rather than a domestic beach. I don't need bragging rights since I've been to these places already. Its easy to hop trains and visit lots of cities when you don't have much luggage. The idea is carting around all the kid stuff, our luggage, and carrying the kids half the time makes this logistically undesirable.

The key to successful travel with kids is to not mess with their sleep. An adult or even a teen can push past jet lag but it is difficult to go forward 7-9 hours. I wouldn't want to push young kids into this. Kids can be picky eaters. I have one adventure eater and one picky eater. Italy would be the only option for DC#2 and yes he would starve himself rather than try new foods. I have tried.

Anonymous wrote:What I got from this thread. Is I should not travel and go on a poverty tour to Appalachia.

Oh, and I'm a bad parent for taking my kid out of the country.

I love the way you define travel to exclude anything within the US. Even though some parts, like Appalachia, are like different countries. I says a lot about you, and I don't mean that in a good way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who will not associate with people in the US who don't travel abroad: When you get to another country, do you also refuse to talk to anyone there who can't afford to travel outside their own country? If not, what's the difference?

You missed the part when this same question was answered earlier in the thread. The answer, apparently, is that Brazilians often don't leave the country because they want to explore Brazil, and that's just fine. But if Americans want to explore Glacier or Bryce, that's not fine at all.

Is it clear now?

Okay, got it! Thanks.

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read through all of this, so I apologize if this is a repeat, but...

I say it's all a question of priorities, even moreso than money. Betting that 90% of the people who claim they can't afford overseas travel have cable TV.

Yeah, we pretty much debunked the whole priorities argument earlier in this thread. For many Americans, the priority is fixing the roof or paying your doctor or repairing the 10-year-old car so you can get to work. And 9% of Americans who want to work still can't find jobs (not even counting those who have given up looking for jobs).

Foregoing cable at $60/month means saving, what, $720 a year - not enough to get you to Miami for a week, let alone Costa Rica. And if you take away peoples' cable, then they can't watch the news re what happens overseas....

Anonymous wrote:What I got from this thread. Is I should not travel and go on a poverty tour to Appalachia.

Oh, and I'm a bad parent for taking my kid out of the country.

Actually, in your case, the advice seemed spot-on. You apparently have no compassion for people who can't afford $1,000 tix (multiplied by the number of family members) to travel outside the US. A little more understanding of how real people really live might be the sort of "tourism" that could really help your "worldview."

Anonymous wrote:For those who will not associate with people in the US who don't travel abroad: When you get to another country, do you also refuse to talk to anyone there who can't afford to travel outside their own country? If not, what's the difference?

You missed the part when this same question was answered earlier in the thread. The answer, apparently, is that Brazilians often don't leave the country because they want to explore Brazil, and that's just fine. But if Americans want to explore Glacier or Bryce, that's not fine at all.

Is it clear now?