[carve]

Originally Posted by BayMoWe335

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but whatever. The biggest problem with this is you have to live like a poor person. I read it cost him $60k over 3 years, but the cost is actually much steeper. The opportunity cost of not working, saving, etc at his youngest years. The same money saved for retirement would be worth $3,000,000 in 40 years. Yeah, yeah...live while you're young, but he's starting over when he gets back. Cool experience, but now it's over and reality is back. He has plenty of time to save and I hope he does.

Staying in a cheap guest house in SE Asia is a completely different experience than staying at a cheap motel in the US.

That opportunity cost is high. I traveled when I was 30, when I got out of the Air Force. However, I'd been a huge saver and economizer my whole life and had quite a bit of money for my age. I realized I needed a break and that would ultimately be beneficial, but then had another realization: A coworker who was in his early 40's and healthy went swimming in a lake with a small cut on his hand. 4 days later he was dead- sepsis. A friend of a friend had a back ache one day. Turned out to be very far along bone cancer. Dead a month later. People die in car wrecks all the time. It made me realize I might be delaying gratification I might never get to enjoy. Saving for that high ROI when you're old is definitely not without risk- if you die before you enjoy it, your ROI is negative as you didn't get to enjoy much of the money you made. I did the trip, and now I live a more balanced life.

As I was saying, $60k is super cheap for that many countries and 3 years. He probably had to stay with random people and eat street food. Of that $60k, over half is probably transportation including airfare. I spent over $20k visiting Tokyo and Caymans. I spent another $7k in Nepal. Obviously, his method is fine if you're the kind of person cool with that kind of bare bones and potentially dangerous travel.

My 5 continent, 20-stop ticket cost me $5,700. When you don't have to go out and back every time you want to go somewhere, you save a TON of money. You also don't stay at resorts...sometimes you stay in Bamboo huts. My cheapest lodging in Nepal was on an Anapurna trek. It was $1.60, and it was clean. Check out those crisp sheets, and the view was incredible...

I'm sure he had a wonderful time, but he really had to rough it a lot of the time. He even mentions getting robbed in the video. Some would argue you can only experience the country traveling this way...it's personal preference.

I'm not hating on this...good for him to do it, but it takes a certain kind of person to leave everything behind for 3 years to take a trip by yourself. With no one to share it with, it's a little empty. You meet your wife and you're like, "oh, I've already been there alone."

Never got robbed or in a fight. It would be difficult to do 3 years solo. I'm sure he made a TON of friends (even more than I did- I have friends all over the world now), but it'd be tough solo. I'm back and no longer with my travel partner. My girlfriend wants to go to a lot of places I've been to. Already repeated a couple destinations.

I'd be much more in favor of taking a nice trip a couple times/yr and doing it right. Then you spread it out and can really enjoy each place.

The positive is he did get to tick off all these places at a young age.

The negative is he probably had to rough it, did it alone, and is probably essentially broke now.

That's actually better, but FAR more expensive, and most people don't get enough vacation to travel as much as they'd like. You also have to rush around everywhere you go to see as much as you can in your week or two. Long term travel is more like living your life in a variety of areas than a vacation.