Why is the U.S. wealthier than Europe? Give credit to its cities. (Report)

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by R@ptor

Prices aren't that different in Europe. Return fares to most intercontinental destinations are usually above $1000 as well. Here's what you pay for a return ticket these days:

Europe - US East Coast = €500 / $675
Europe - India = €700 / $945
Europe - US West Coast = €750 / $1015
Europe - China = €800 / $1080
Europe - Japan = €900 / $1215
Europe - Sub-Saharan Africa = €1000 / $1350
Europe - South America = €1100 / $1485
Europe - Australia = €1200 / $1620
Europe - New Zealand = €1500 / $2025

What's missing from that list is all of Western Europe, North Africa, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East.

So a set of very popular vacations... just a few from my list:

Morocco; Spain/Portugal; Italy; France; Germany; England/Scotland/Ireland; Central European Circuit (Poland/Czech/Hungary/Austria);Egypt;Israel/Jordan; Turkey; Moscow/St.Petersburg (and/or Scandinavia)...

Those are probably at the tops of most Americans' dream travel lists. (Right up there with Japan, Australia, and New Zealand.)

A person could do two decades worth of fascinating vacations without traveling "intercontinentally" from a European perspective.

Compare that to what an American can travel to before stomaching the $1,000+ per person flight. Mexico, Canada, Central America, the Caribbean... that's it. Those are all of our cheap travel options. Everything else is expensive (or domestic).

So basically, your average European has about 5-times the "interesting" international travel options in the under-$1,000 transport range as your average American.

I know my personal travel expenditures, because I am a dork and I keep a spreadsheet.

For two people, in the last 4 years or so... Belize/Guatemala cost us $2,700, whereas Spain/Portugal/Morocco cost $5,300, almost double. We managed to go to India for $4,600, but I was already living in Asia so that was only airfare for one person. Italy, $7,600. Turkey $5,100. Egypt $4,900. Even South America is about the same, just under $5,000.

Compare that to Mexico, where you can get an all-inclusive for $400 and a $300 flight... how many Americans do you think choose intercontinental travel? That money adds up! And it's mostly airfare for me because I stay in budget hotels/hostels and eat street food wherever possible, even as a 30-something professional. I have to choose between quantity of travel versus quality (comfort), and I choose quantity. And I'm not exactly poor.

Compare again to the classic American road trip. We managed to go to the Pacific Northwest - from San Francisco to Vancouver - a neat trip by any standards, for $1,800. We managed to combine a non-personal trip to the East Coast with a trip to Florida and New Orleans (quite different from where I live, again, by any standards) for under $2,000, mostly because it was driving.

Even Hawaii is half the cost of going to Europe, and having lived in Hawaii, I can tell you that you could make 4 completely different vacations just by visiting different islands, they are all so different from one another. Yet, on the tally, those are all "domestic" trips that Europeans attribute to Americans just not having an interest in the world.

I think people GREATLY oversimplify when they assume Americans don't travel abroad because they are somehow not interested in the rest of the world. When you consider that most normal families actually have a budget they have to keep, a very rational, would-be-worldly person conducting a completely objective cost-benefit analysis of their vacation options can very easily conclude that traveling intercontinentally is NOT the best decision for them more often the not.

I love traveling abroad, obviously. But in terms of "bang for my buck"... if I had a tighter budget, or a larger family, I confess, Spain would not be worth it when I can go to Mexico for a third of the price. There are so many international destinations that are great, but not 4-times-the-cost great compared to Florida or California or New Orleans or Cozumel, which are all awesome in their own ways. And if I had kids to drag along, there is absolutely NO WAY I would fly them to Europe - it just wouldn't be worth it, not when I have the entire Rocky Mountains and dozens of world-class national parks within a 10-hour drive. However, when I was a kid living in Germany, four of us got on a plane to Turkey, no problem, because it was only ~1,000 DM per person for the whole trip. Just different cost-benefit numbers, that's all.

[R@ptor]

Originally Posted by JManc

I don't see how Europeans can afford to travel as much if those rates are that high. i would imagine many there have cut back on their travel plans and stay closer by; Spain rather than Florida or Thailand.

BTW, that HOU-MDW went down $100 since yesterday.

Well, I can't speak for all Europeans of course and I would imagine that many in the PIGS countries have cut down on their travelling, but I don't really know anybody in the Netherlands or Germany who has.

Flights are only one part of the holiday expenses. A 4-week trip around Southeast Asia is still cheaper for most Europeans than a 2-week trip around Scandinavia even if you include the flights. In places like Thailand or Vietnam you can get a pretty good hotel for $10 a night and enjoy a nice meal in a restaurant for less than $1. In places like Sweden or Switzerland you have to pay at least 20 times of that.

Originally Posted by LtBk

Do you see HSR fares going down in the near as more HSR lines are build in next 10-20 years?

I don't think so. And in any case there isn't all that much new HSR construction going on in Europe.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by R@ptor

Flights are only one part of the holiday expenses. A 4-week trip around Southeast Asia is still cheaper for most Europeans than a 2-week trip around Scandinavia even if you include the flights. In places like Thailand or Vietnam you can get a pretty good hotel for $10 a night and enjoy a nice meal in a restaurant for less than $1. In places like Sweden or Switzerland you have to pay at least 20 times of that.

But flights are a fixed cost. And for Americans, a higher percentage of our overall travel costs because we don't get to take 4-week vacations. The typical American vacation is a 9-day trip - Saturday through Sunday, one week off of work. Only a lucky few can take a full two weeks (and still have any time left for the rest of the year).

But you're right about per-day costs. Yet another reason we travel less, probably. I've been trying to talk my youngest brother into a trip to Thailand this summer (half-price flight opportunity). But he's a county worker, so he's pretty poor. And he really wants to go to Europe. So he'd rather wait (3 years) and only take one expensive trip to Europe rather than three cheaper trips.

He's a quality over quantity guy. I'm the opposite.

[dave8721]

I doubt there's many Americans who have ever taken a 4-week vacation. I've never even taken a 2-week vacation since i started working. I think my longest was 1-day shy of 2 weeks in London/Paris.

[Nantais]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

But flights are a fixed cost. And for Americans, a higher percentage of our overall travel costs because we don't get to take 4-week vacations. The typical American vacation is a 9-day trip - Saturday through Sunday, one week off of work. Only a lucky few can take a full two weeks (and still have any time left for the rest of the year).

This is rather sad. What kind of life is a life where you can't even take at least a month off during summer ?

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by Nantais

This is rather sad. What kind of life is a life where you can't even take at least a month off during summer ?

It's probably a reflection of our different cultural backgrounds, but to me a month off work (physics research) sounds like it would get boring after about ten days unless you're on a trip for the whole four weeks, which is far too expensive an option for most people.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

For two people, in the last 4 years or so... Belize/Guatemala cost us $2,700, whereas Spain/Portugal/Morocco cost $5,300, almost double. We managed to go to India for $4,600, but I was already living in Asia so that was only airfare for one person. Italy, $7,600. Turkey $5,100. Egypt $4,900. Even South America is about the same, just under $5,000.

No way you're American dude. Americans don't travel.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by Nantais

This is rather sad. What kind of life is a life where you can't even take at least a month off during summer ?

Unless you are a teacher, that is a foreign concept to most American workers.

Business doesn't take a month off, no matter what season it is -- sad as that may be.

[Jelly Roll]

Originally Posted by Dralcoffin

It's probably a reflection of our different cultural backgrounds, but to me a month off work (physics research) sounds like it would get boring after about ten days unless you're on a trip for the whole four weeks, which is far too expensive an option for most people.

I normally want to get back home after spending more then a week on vacation. Spending a month on a vacation would be exhausting in my opinion.

[R@ptor]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

Business doesn't take a month off, no matter what season it is -- sad as that may be.

It's not like everyone is taking off a month at the same time.

Employees with families usually have priority during the summer, because that's where their kids have time off from school. Which suits me perfectly, because I usually go on my big annual 5-week intercontinental trip between February and April and like to take off another 2 weeks in October.

Originally Posted by Jelly Roll

I normally want to get back home after spending more then a week on vacation. Spending a month on a vacation would be exhausting in my opinion.

Seriously?

I realize I'm an extreme case seeing as I would be happy doing nothing else than travelling year-round. But I guess the vast majority of people also regard an average working month as much more exhausting and boring than a month on vacation where they can do what they want and when they want it.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

Unless you are a teacher, that is a foreign concept to most American workers.

Business doesn't take a month off, no matter what season it is -- sad as that may be.

That said, Americans should take more time off. There's no reason not to other than culture, given modern productivity. Ultimately it's time not money that is more important to happiness, and happiness is the only point of life.

Originally Posted by Jelly Roll

I normally want to get back home after spending more then a week on vacation. Spending a month on a vacation would be exhausting in my opinion.

No offense, but this statement strikes me the same way as people who complain about being "bored" when they aren't busy enough at work (or bored at all, ever, really). It's a sign of a dull mind. I have tens of thousands of pages worth of books at home that I haven't read, museums I haven't been to, restaurants I haven't eaten at, languages I could learn, etc. I don't understand the concept of boredom.

Maybe you need to take more interesting vacations? The one circumstance where I could see myself getting bored to death would be on a cruise ship, but that's why I don't do cruises. Otherwise the only problem with month-long vacations is the amount of money I'd probably spend.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by R@ptor

It's not like everyone is taking off a month at the same time.

Oh, I know. I was just mentioning it since being able to take a whole month off at a time during any time of the year is just a foreign concept to most Americans, regardless of whether your colleagues were working or not. Our employment and workplace culture just doesn't allow it -- yet.

Originally Posted by 10023

That said, Americans should take more time off. There's no reason not to other than culture, given modern productivity. Ultimately it's time not money that is more important to happiness, and happiness is the only point of life.

Absolutely. Believe me, I'm all for the "in by 10, out by 2" workday. I envy my sister and brother in law (teacher and principal) during the summer when they have 2 months off straight and are heading to the beach on a hot day, staying up late drinking on a Tuesday night, taking a long trip somewhere, and basically not having a care in the world. Though, working in a school can be a physically and mentally grueling day. There's always trade-offs.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by R@ptor

It's not like everyone is taking off a month at the same time.

Employees with families usually have priority during the summer, because that's where their kids have time off from school. Which suits me perfectly, because I usually go on my big annual 5-week intercontinental trip between February and April and like to take off another 2 weeks in October.

Actually, in certain industries, they do. For example, the construction industry in Europe generally shuts down for all of August. Meanwhile August is one of the busiest months for construction in the USA to take advantage of the summer weather. (Heat is better than cold for construction).

That drives me nuts as it constantly derails our projects.

Seriously?

I realize I'm an extreme case seeing as I would be happy doing nothing else than travelling year-round. But I guess the vast majority of people also regard an average working month as much more exhausting and boring than a month on vacation where they can do what they want and when they want it.

I don't think I'd ever want to take a full month off. I've taken a couple two week vacations, but am itching to get back to work by the time I'm done with them. And it's not as if I take boring vacations, my last one was two weeks in the wilderness with no access to any civilization. I just hate feeling unproductive and inevitably start feeling unproductive after a week or two of relaxation.

That's why my vacations usually end up being things like backpacking which is a ton of work as is. I just don't find sitting on the beach or hanging out in Paris to be entertaining. I would kill myself if I ever went on a cruise.

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by R@ptor

Well, I can't speak for all Europeans of course and I would imagine that many in the PIGS countries have cut down on their travelling, but I don't really know anybody in the Netherlands or Germany who has.

Flights are only one part of the holiday expenses. A 4-week trip around Southeast Asia is still cheaper for most Europeans than a 2-week trip around Scandinavia even if you include the flights. In places like Thailand or Vietnam you can get a pretty good hotel for $10 a night and enjoy a nice meal in a restaurant for less than $1. In places like Sweden or Switzerland you have to pay at least 20 times of that.

Exactely. 10 days partying on Eivissa is more expensive than a 4 week trip to Vietnam, even with the airfare.

All this holiday talk is getting boring. Yes, flights from the US are more expensive but that can't be it. A holiday to Asia or the Americas costs the equivalent of $4000/$5000 also for Europeans and I don't think I know anybody of my age group that hasn't been on intercontinental trips multiple times. Everyone has either been to Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, China. Malaysia, Indonesia, China or the US, Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Surinam, Curaçao, Aruba, Jamaica, Dominican Republic, Brazil. I can't think of a single friend of mine that hasn't been to one, usually more of those destinations. Most of us go intercontinental every two years.
And then there are those whose heritage is from North Africa or the Middle East (Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan) and go regurlarly to those places. My friend from Iran has been to Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Mexico, Brazil, Singapore, Thailand and Japan. Also a lot of people who take a year to travel the world and for some traveling is a lifestyle.
Even lower middle class go at least to Turkey, Tunesia, Egypt or Thailand in place of Spain or Greece.
My cousin from Spain, supposedly in "deep crisis", goes to the Dominican Republic this summer with a large group of his friends. Some of them are still in school or "jobless".

I also don't think the UN or the OECD or who ever counts the dozens of times a year I'm in Belgium, Germany, France, Spain and Scandinavia as "international travel". Maybe that one flight to Prague last year but the vast majority of European "international travel" does not get counted.

[Nantais]

Still, I think that intercontinental travel remains a minority thing in Europe.
Personally, I must say that most of the people I know in my age group have never traveled outside Europe, and when they have it's often for one or two weeks of beach tourism in Tunisia or Morocco.

[R@ptor]

Originally Posted by Nantais

Still, I think that intercontinental travel remains a minority thing in Europe.
Personally, I must say that most of the people I know in my age group have never traveled outside Europe, and when they have it's often for one or two weeks of beach tourism in Tunisia or Morocco.

If that's the case then France differs vastly in that regard from Germany/Netherlands/Scandinavia.

[bricky]

I don't think it's debatable that Americans are less international than most (or perhaps all) other Westerners. But there are reasons for this other than variations of Americans = fat + stupid, (along with an increasingly popular schadenfreude-infused sense of Americans economically slipping behind countries we have traditionally looked down on).

If you live in NY, or Chicago, or San Fransisco, and fly for two hours, you are most likely still inside America. Fly two hours from any large European city, and you could be in a dozen other countries with a dozen different languages. Of course this will make Europeans more international. How could it be otherwise?

Regarding Australia/Canada, the internationalism comes from their relatively peripheral positions in the Western World. If you are a small isolated population in the literal middle of nowhere, or within two hours driving distance of one of history's great cultures and economies, you will likely be aware of that fact, and become more "internationally minded" as a result.

[Nantais]

Originally Posted by R@ptor

If that's the case then France differs vastly in that regard from Germany/Netherlands/Scandinavia.

I think intercontinental travel is indeed a lot more common in the small countries of northern Europe like the Netherlands and Scandinavia. It's cultural.
The bigger your country is the less you travel outside of it.
When a Danish wants sun and warm beaches, he goes to Spain. When he wants some exotism and tropical atmosphere, he goes to Thaïland.
When a French wants sun and warm beaches he goes to Côte d'Azur. When he wants some exotism and tropical atmosphere, he goes to Guadeloupe (or to Polynesia for the wealthier ones).
For the same reasons, the Americans are even less used to travel outside their country, while the northern Europeans are probably a lot more used to go outside their country since a young age. So they are probably less afraid to go on an intercontinental travel than a French or an American.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

Everyone has either been to Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, China. Malaysia, Indonesia, China or the US, Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Surinam, Curaçao, Aruba, Jamaica, Dominican Republic, Brazil. I can't think of a single friend of mine that hasn't been to one, usually more of those destinations. Most of us go intercontinental every two years.

I seriously doubt your friends are representative of the "average" Dutch person. It wouldn't even be financially possible for most Europeans (or most of anyone in any nation).

And even if your friends are all making well above median salaries, it isn't typical for everyone to be visiting Indonesia, Laos, Brazil, etc. year after year. Even high income folks don't usually take multiple $10,000 trips in a calendar year. They have families, jobs, lives.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

Also a lot of people who take a year to travel the world and for some traveling is a lifestyle.
Even lower middle class go at least to Turkey, Tunesia, Egypt or Thailand in place of Spain or Greece.
My cousin from Spain, supposedly in "deep crisis", goes to the Dominican Republic this summer with a large group of his friends. Some of them are still in school or "jobless".

Well if your anecdotal evidence is an accurate picture of Europe as a whole, then it is an indication that Europeans are much better off financially than Americans. And America's 3rd place per capita income is obviously drastically skewed by the mega rich who love here. Because what you describe is just not common in the US.

Only the wealthy or wayward hosteling backpackers here can afford to take a year to "travel the world" as a lifestyle.

Lower middle class here cannot afford to go to Virginia Beach anymore, much less Turkey or Thailand.

People that are in school here generally go to Mexico/Caribbean on group package deals after they've saved up their part time job earnings and tips, or have mommy and daddy pay for it. Jobless people here don't travel unless they have benefactors. Maybe there are more of these benefactors in Europe? I'd be interested in meeting one so they can finance some jet-setting trips for me.