I've traveled both ways. "Budget" and "Blow the Cash". They offer very different experiences.

I don't want to load this question. For those of you who've always traveled on the cheap because it was the only way you could manage it, would you go "big" if money wasn't an issue? And for those who've done both types of travel, how do you compare and contrast the experiences?

I have traveled both ways, and think they are very different. I think independent travel is much better on a budget. "Fancy travel" is more what I do when I travel with my family. It works well when there are more people than just you, because everyone can find something they like.

I like the idea of being able to do what I want without worrying that I won't have money to get food later on. I like going middle of the road...saving money on accomodations but still having a private room, going on the excursions I want to go on, flying if I can rather than taking a bus. I wouldn't mind a fancy schmancy hotel room once in a while, but other than that, I like the way I travel now as an adult (rather than when I was younger and money, or lack thereof, dictated choice).

If I had enough money that I didn't need to worry about a budget - I would totally dig the posh life. I mean, come on - a sweet jacuzzi tub at the end of the day - or a springy hostel bed and a shared bathroom? Mad good meals every time, or Top Ramen? A chartered yacht or a crowded, non-airconditioned bus? I know we're all hard core here, but seriously.

I think I'd hire a mute sherpa to carry my shit too - I packed my bag up tonight and it's getting heavy. Mute, because I don't want to hear about how heavy my shit is. Plus that way I'd get some ethnic culture in - you know, hanging with the sherpa.

I think I would stick with budget, its much more interesting and you meet way cool people. I haven't ever stayed anywhere that I would class "blowing the budget" but it doesn't really appeal to me. As long as the beds are clean and the people friendly what more do you need.

On a side note, any place that leaves a mint on the pillow is still pretty awesome!

I'm with trekker. I'm 61 and I'm still awed by mints on the pillow. I'm still awed by a hotel room, period. Sure, the occasional splurge feels wonderful, especially if I get sick and need somewhere to recuperate. And yet one or two stars is enough for me. I don't like "luxury." First of all, it's wasteful: unnecessary consumption turns me off. If I'm going to blow a lot of money, why not donate it to a school-building project, or an AIDS education project, or something useful for somebody besides the rich entrepreneurs who own the fancy hotels and restaurants? There are so many ways to use money to help the planet and the people on it. Why pour it down the toilet (or the jacuzzi)? Second, it's lonely and boring. I travelled for six months in Europe and Mexico with someone who had pots of money, and I felt insulated and separated from the people. Never had any good conversations with local people, never tasted what the local people eat, never heard the local people's music, never understood what the real problems and politics were, never felt anything I was experiencing was real. It was all fake, set up for rich tourists. I felt like I was seeing really interesting places through a thick layer of soundproof glass. Come to think of it, I was. And who did we meet and talk to? other rich tourists, the most boring people I've ever met in my life. Always complaining about how something wasn't as good as they were used to, always being pretentious about wine choices and dining bullshit, always changing their clothes or going shopping and talking about what they paid for this or that. I found the waiters and hotel maids more interesting than the other tourists. If I could, I'd give more money to local projects and still travel the way I do--which is not rock-bottom, but definitely not luxury.

We were in the same circle we always get in at work. It's a long take on Stargate, when they shoot. SO we are talking about the big lottery number this time around. It's like 32 mil. Houses, Cars, Boats, Islands, Hookers.

But the only thing I could think of was: "That much money would mean I didn't have to own anything. Don't need a car. Don't need a home. No reason to have stuff piled somewhere. No reason for a constant address. No reason to have a phone. It's just me and "Bugs" at this point.I can dump everything.

So...NO....If I had all the money in the world. The first thing I would do...Is dump luxury. I'd live the WALDEN way. And do a jig to do it.

D

I'm pretty frugal because I have to be, and despite the financial and other implications of travelling at all on my low-ish salary, I'm glad I've done it. I agree that there are nice things about budget travel.

I like to think there is a middle ground between bottom of the barrel travel and being wasteful though. There are things I've scrimped on (activities or excursions or whatever)because I felt like I couldn't afford it, or places I'd like to see that do offer "authentic" travel experience that are just more expensive.

I think I've had to be frugal for long enough that it's not something I'll ever dispense with completely. But still, there are plenty of things I would do if I had more money...

quote:

I like to think there is a middle ground between bottom of the barrel travel and being wasteful though. There are things I've scrimped on (activities or excursions or whatever)because I felt like I couldn't afford it, or places I'd like to see that do offer "authentic" travel experience that are just more expensive.

Well-said, Kate. I completely agree. There is a middle ground between mindless wasteful consumption and self-denial or self-sacrifice. We each have a different middle, and part of the play of life is discovering where that middle is for us.

I guess that "Going Luxury" depends alot by what you mean. If that means all-inclusives, packaged tours, etc.. then no way. Not something I would like, since I've tried that once (I'll fess up ) and you get no real feeling of the culture. But if you mean being able to afford nice hotels and stuff, then i definitely don't think I would be opposed to it. Experienceing the culture is more a state of mind and what you are willing to open yourself up to then how crappy a place you can sleep in. I've met people that only did the hostels and what not and were more intrested in getting drunk then going out then seeing things and learning. Just my .02

-c_b

My feeling is that people who go de luxe are interested in meeting other people who are in the same socio-economic spectrum. Two people I know who always travel first class never tell me about the Indians they met in India, the Chinese in China, the Nepalese in Nepal -- but I hear a lot about the Wabalatnikoffs from Chicago or the Todhunters from Long Island.

Package tourists sort of fit in between luxury tourists and backpackers (and I fit somewhere in between backpackers and package tourists). In their case, it's sheer laziness or funk that prompts them to take the easy way out. BTW, for a great French novel about package tourists, read Michel Houellebecq's The Platform.

Jim Paris

Mute sherpa? Whoa.
That said,
I would do both. Because if I had the money then I could.
See here is the thing. I've met a lot of great people in hostels and on creaky buses. I dont want to give up the likelyhood of those encounters by only doin it luxury.
For instance,
I had a bit of a money windfall while I was in Florence, Italy and damn if I didnt just spend 200 euros on a hotel room that gave me internet access inroom...a HUGE tub...a Hermes robe and a minibar. Because allthough springy matresses/hostels/and unairconditioned buses have played a hand in my most cherished memories like hell if I didnt enjoy that kingsize bed that overlooked the churches of Tuscany.
So I would do both. Some cheapies/some splurges.

As the Buddhist teachings say "the middle path".I would go for basic comfort. What I sometimes would like to do is splurge on places which have a heritage value...beautiful old houses, palaces, monasteries converted into hotels...those seem to cost a bit more than the middle. Stay in smaller homely places than luxury hotels where one can get lost.When my body is weary and I don't have the luxury of time I would rather fly and not worry about the additional dollars.

Boutique hotels! B&Bs! Fancy inns!

I'm not going to lie or pretend that I like cheap hostels where I have to wear shower shoes and provide my own toilet paper. I don't like sleeping in a dorm room full of weird strangers (okay, there are usually cool travellers - but the old naked lady and the other group of crazies in Shanghai were not cool in my books). I don't like strange odors. I like hotel shampoos and comfy beds and front desks staffed by people who speak English very well.

THERE. THE TRUTH IS OUT.

That being said, I don't like big faceless hotels. I want to be able to afford to stay in boutique hotels and inns and so on that are all locally owned.

Now that I have made this confession I need to eat some breakfast.

An addition: sometimes public transit is easier than dealing with sketchy cab drivers. Although the thought of having a private car service is very tempting...

Another addition: why on earth would I want to sit in coach when I could sit in the luxury that is first class? Where the food is better, the seats are bigger and instead of sitting with the common folk in departures you can chill in the fancy first class airport lounges... that has free booze and snacks...

Damn...I have to side with Meagicano on this one thing. I would definitely fly first class to places. Just for the seat size alone. Good point Meag.