Travelling abroad vs within own country

[Lionne]

My boyfriend and I are planning a summer vacation and we can't seem to agree on a locale. I'm shooting for an overseas country and he would like to stay within the US and it's territories. We had an interesting conversation that opened my eyes to some of the benefits of traveling local - we'd save money by not having to deal with conversion of foreign currency and there's a lot to choose from in America...everything from mountains to beaches to forests. And the big one - we'd be supporting the economy by giving our money to other Americans, which, in this current recession, is something to seriously consider.
I'm being a bit stubborn and thinking that international travel is the way to go - it doesn't really feel like a vacation unless I leave the US. But I don't know why I feel that way, so I though I'd open a debate thread in hopes to understand.

I know this board has lots of non-US members, so I'm curious if this is a view held by those in other countries - prefer to travel within their own borders or spend their vacation elsewhere.

[suranyi]

I'm really of two minds about this -- I always said, "If I don't need to take my passport, it's not really a trip." But I spent marverlous times in New Orleans and Washington, D.C., and I always enjoy visiting New York City when I get the chance.

Ed

[Ravenman]

Well, the "saving money by not converting currency" is, IHMO, bogus. A low single digit commission charge really doesn't add up to significant costs. If you're going to London or Manhattan, you're going to pay more for food and lodging because those places are expensive. International tickets are of course a hefty bill. But if you decide to go to Cambodia or something, the cost of eating and sleeping is almost certainly going to be a heck of a lot less than what you'd pay anywhere in the US.

And in terms of supporting the American economy, I suppose that's true. But so what? You only have so many shots to travel in your lifetime (and I'm saying this as someone who travels a lot), and setting aside your dreams to emphasize a rather minor political point is an indication of mixed-up priorities. Figure out what you want to see and go, whether it is in the US or abroad.

But it sounds like the bf is inventing reasons not to travel abroad. Is he someone who simply isn't comfortable being somewhere where he may not speak the language?

[ticker]

If you don't feel you are on vacation unless you leave the US, then at a guess, I would say you are probably missing a great deal in your own wonderful country which deserves to be explored. If your BF sees no need to travel abroad then, at a guess, I would say he would benefit from having his horizons broadened. Perhaps you need to vacation separately .

[Ruminator]

Originally Posted by Lionne

I'm being a bit stubborn and thinking that international travel is the way to go - it doesn't really feel like a vacation unless I leave the US. But I don't know why I feel that way, so I though I'd open a debate thread in hopes to understand.

One possibility... instead of framing it as USA vs Europe. Maybe the real disagreement is "cities, museums, shopping, culture" vs "nature, mountains, scenery".

For example, I'm more of a nature person. Yes, London and Paris are ok but Yosemite and the Redwood forests are nicer. The Louvre Museum is ok but it's not as much fun as Alaska or the beaches. (The Mona Lisa was very anti-climactic -- a huge letdown.)

If nature is his thing, I have to agree that the USA has more to offer for the money than Europe.

In Europe, a nice intersection of cosmopolitan + nature is Switzerland.

[Fake Tales of San Francisco]

It depends what you want out of the holiday (Erm, read: vacation) . From the UK here and generally we like to get the hell away from the country for a while. There's also a certain something about being in a country with a completely different culture, language etc. I've been all over the UK, so it's not like I'm missing out on my own country.

Currently living in Australia and there's a heck of a lot to see here. It's about as big as North America so similarly does have quite a varied landscape. There's even places to go skiing at the right time of the year.

I wouldn't discount Europe on the grounds that it's mostly museums and cities. Europe has a lot to offer for the naturephile (is that a word? :P ). Not quite as varied as North America perhaps, but you've got the Swiss Alps (and various other mountain ranges), great beaches in Spain and the Mediterranean and Europe is big enough to have a quite complex and varied landscape.

If you don't feel like it's a holiday (read: vacation) without going overseas, then get yourself abroad! There's so much to see and do all around the world. So little time.

[TheMightyAtlas]

Originally Posted by Fake Tales of San Francisco

Currently living in Australia and there's a heck of a lot to see here. It's about as big as North America so similarly does have quite a varied landscape. There's even places to go skiing at the right time of the year.

That should be about the size of the Continental United States, not North America.

[Fake Tales of San Francisco]

Yes that's right, apologies. It's what's been drummed into heads over here. It took great lengths to explain that this map was utter BS to my girlfriend. Europes area is shown in sq km. That figure should be in sq miles.

[Baracus]

Has your boyfriend done much travel abroad? As someone whose international travel experience is limited to Toronto and Cozumel, I don't feel much of a drive to leave the country. Not to say that I don't want to, but I see it more as a special once in a while extravagence, rather than a normal vacation.

Growing up my parents could scarcely afford a trip overseas. Down to the coast was more like it. Consequently, I view any trip away from home as a vacation. Just being able to relax is enough. Sightseeing, etc, is nice but not strictly necessary. My wife and I are finally at a point where we could reasonably afford a trip to Europe but with a two year old that is probably still a ways off.

[Jophiel]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Well, the "saving money by not converting currency" is, IHMO, bogus. A low single digit commission charge really doesn't add up to significant costs.

I think it's a question of exchange rates. Once upon a time, you could travel to France or Italy and they would be thrilled to have you pay in American dollars. These days, the Euro is so strong against the dollar that you wind up paying a small fortune no matter where you go. Last time I was in Europe (Italy) everything was numerically priced about what you'd see it in US dollars (i.e. a bottle of soda was 1.25) but it was in Euros. So using today's rates you were effectively paying an extra 33% on everything compared to US pricing. It wasn't even worth it to shop for the fancy stuff (leather goods in Florence, etc) because you actually wound up paying at least as much for it as you would back in the States.

Mind you, when I last went it was when the US was at its weakest points ever against the Euro (something like $1.50 to the Euro) but the point still remains.

Now, if they're traveling to Mexico or Columbia or Ukraine or something then you have a whole other story.

[Deeg]

I think you both need to expand your horizons. There are many beautiful places in the US to see; there is also something great about visiting a country that speaks another language.

Perhaps you should agree to take a national vacation now (to save money) but promise to take an international vacation next summer.

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by Lionne

I know this board has lots of non-US members, so I'm curious if this is a view held by those in other countries - prefer to travel within their own borders or spend their vacation elsewhere.

I prefer to travel abroad if I can afford to, 'cause there's a lot of world to see, but if I travel to a nice part of my country, it's still a vacation - my regular annual holiday spot is within my country, for instance.

[Lionne]

Boyfriend and I have both traveled out of the country, so he's not averse to it. I suppose I could learn more about the wonders of the US, but I think the idea of traveling overseas has always appealed to me more. I have friends that travel extensively, spending weeks at a time in foreign places. Hearing their stories, seeing the photos all make me think what a huge world it is out there and how much there is to see.

[glee]

I live in England, so (for example) there are some historical sights to see.

I've visited Vegas, which lived up to its reputation (magnificently shallow ). The costs were roughly the same as most of England (as you'd expect, cities like London would be slightly more expensive)

I'm currently in Sun City, South Africa. There is a little gambling (but one Vegas Casino floor would be bigger than all the machines/tables here put together). However you come here for Safari!
I'm going to do an Elephant ride safari (howdahs may be involved) and a Sundown safari (watching near a watering hole). I could also do a Hot Air Balloon safari.
The cost is much lower than the other two (probably because the Euro is strong and the Rand is weak).

[Gaudere]

[Moderator Hat ON]

This is more of an IMHO topic, so I will move it there.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[Kyla]

I'm not seeing a lot of mention of vacations outside of the US or Europe. There are plenty of inexpensive places to visit that are international and not even difficult to get to. I went to Colombia for a week in February and had a great time - and it was cheap. Airfare was comparable to visiting my parents in California and food and lodging was inexpensive.

[flonks]

Originally Posted by Fake Tales of San Francisco

I wouldn't discount Europe on the grounds that it's mostly museums and cities. Europe has a lot to offer for the naturephile (is that a word? :P ). Not quite as varied as North America perhaps, but you've got the Swiss Alps (and various other mountain ranges), great beaches in Spain and the Mediterranean and Europe is big enough to have a quite complex and varied landscape.

For Europe, I would add
- the Italian tuscany landscape
- The French Provence
- Norvegian fjords
- The greek islands
- The scottish highlands
- The canals of Amsterdam and Venice (I prefer Amsterdam)


and much more. It's not all churches here, although the Lonely planet guide on Italy seems to imply that (the worst of the series).

Btw, I am writing this from Marrakech, Morrocco. No way that you can ever experience something like the emna El Fna square in any other country, let alone a western one as the US.

[contradancer]

I think you have to consider what your goals are: to have fun and just plain enjoy your vacation away from work; or do you want to have an experience e.g. learning about other people and their culture, in the U.S. or out. For example, I lived in Tennessee for a while and it's like a different world. Right now, I'm in Krakow, Poland for some dental work (my son works in Germany and I live with him part of the year) and now I've found that I want to know what happened to the people of Poland throughout their history and esp when they were invaded by Hitler and the horrible experience of the extermination camps on their soil and the killing of so many Jews who had lived in peace for many years alongside their fellow countrymen. It's all very fascinating when you are actually here. And it opens your eyes to the real world; that these places aren't just backwaters with no technology and no sophistication. And, the most important part, you find that indeed you are a citizen of the world, not just one small country called the United States. And you feel it; you feel connected with the peoples of the world and the idea of a global economy, one in which all peoples can share, doesn't seem so scary anymore. I see here Mercedes, huge new three-story houses, and enthusiastic young people who speak English; but I also saw an old woman eating out of the garbage at MacDonald's the other day. I have trouble going up stairs (hip replacements) and there are no rails on most of the buildings and no way for disabled people in general to tour the historic sites here. Just one example of how they have a long way to go with things we take for granted. It just depends on what you are looking for.

[Ximenean]

Originally Posted by Fake Tales of San Francisco

Yes that's right, apologies. It's what's been drummed into heads over here. It took great lengths to explain that this map was utter BS to my girlfriend. Europes area is shown in sq km. That figure should be in sq miles.

The figures may be wrong, but that map looks about right. You are right that Europe is somewhere in the 3,000,000 square mile range, not square kilometres (actually nearly 4,000,000 square miles), but that includes Scandinavia and Russia up to the Urals, neither of which are shown on the comparison map.