"expensive" countries vs. "cheaper" countries for traveling (low cost, rent)

[Tex?Il?]

One hears and reads so often from people who travel about

this country being "too expensive" or that country being way more "affordable/bargain" when discussing travel destinations,

but do some of these people not even factor in the general correlation that "expensive" countries are expensive because standard of living, level of infrastructure, health and safety, education/literacy which translates to better linguistic communication are all at a higher level than countries that are seen as cheap and affordable.

I know, I know there are safe and cheap places, but I come across people IRL and online who for example talk about Australia/NZ, Western Europe, Asian Tigers being too expensive, why not travel to SE Asia or eastern Europe as being cheaper alternatives.


Maybe I'm just an ignorant, classist American afraid of other places, but not really . . . heres the thing, I HAVE traveled to a developing country in the past with typical developing country issues (Ecuador). I have nothing against traveling to countries that are a little lower down the health/safety/quality of life scale, but if/when I do I would do it with a professional tour company that focuses on ecotourism and indigenous tourism.

And sure if you are looking to "live it up" and have more "semi-hedonistic" experiences (I don't mean that in a self righteous way) a cheaper, less developed country will certainly be a cheaper place to experience that (Thailand, Carribbean etc.)

but in terms of backpacking/budget/solo type travel, my opinion is that "expensive countries" are better to do this in, because you are not compromising health and safety at all.

I was in Australia last month, and spent half the time in Sydney, half the time volunteering for a conservation organization in a small city two hours to the north. Some nights in Sydney I did the dorm hostel experience for $35/night, other nights my own room, still for under $100, ate at corner Asian restaurants or corner fish and chips places, etc.

But in Central America, Southeast Asia, etc. you would be more at risk being robbed, ripped off, etc. choosing the low budget accomodations, and food at markets, if you do know what you are doing, you might be consuming stuff that may make you sick.

So, bottom line, I don't see "expensive countries" and "cheap countries", I see "expensive" countries that are safe to travel cheaply, and cheap countries (tropical, developing) countries that are better left to professional tour companies which would cost more money.

Also, expensive countries are often the ones that have quality of life that is considered even superior in some ways than the US according to some people and I like traveling and getting to know those places because I want to learn about them (Western Europe, Aus/NZ, Asian tiger economies, even southern cone of South America). (The following January I'm looking to go to Chile to volunteer and travel, considered the safest but also most expensive country).

Developing countries I like traveling but for different reasons than the others.

What are you thoughts? Do people NOT factor this in? Are other people just way more worldy than I and know how to handle themselves better than I would? Am I just a classist American afraid of poor people??

[Cantabridgienne]

It sounds like you have a fear of the unknown. There's nothing wrong with that, everyone has their own preferences. It doesn't make you "right" but that's fine. I have my own limits as well that someone else might think makes me timid, but I'm okay with that.

I've traveled to Southeast Asia both alone and with my partner/with a friend and never felt particularly unsafe. I got ripped off once buying water, which meant I paid $1 for a bottle instead of maybe $.30. I am a big street food eater. I spent about $20 per night on hotels that were fine.

[Dd714]

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking - yes there are expensive countries to travel to, and inexpensive countries to travel to. The inexpensive ones are cheap due to costs of living usually, but also may be related to location (ease and availability of goods and labor), foreign exchange issues, or taxation.
I don't really factor it in too much, but I make a good living...and there are always options when traveling to an expensive locale - look just harder for that hotel bargain, eat maybe at a local self-serve deli, etc. Another point is that some of these cheap destinations with low cost of living are sometimes the most expensive to visit because the division between poor and rich is so drastic. India is an example. I can travel on my own cheap of course. But traveling for business and staying at western hotels? NOT cheap. Brazil another example - EXPENSIVE at least for business travelers.

[mikeyyc]

There's a couple of issues here. One, it seems you're a bit risk averse. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but define what risk is.

Secondly countries can be cheap or expensive depending on economic factors, not developmental ones. For example; Last year I went to Russia for work. It was very expensive. Hotels were pricey, food was pricey, everything was really expensive. This year my wife and I go for non-work fun. The flight was less (way less, but that's a different discussion) the hotels were less than half, food the same. Everything was a smoking deal. Why? The Rouble has devalued by half since Crimea. Russia is no more or less safe, the metro hasn't changed, it's just cheaper.

[John7777]

To be sure, you can pay a lot more in some places than in others. Even for the same type thing. For example, a five star room in NYC is really going to cost you, while a five star room in Bangkok might not cost all that much, in comparison. Is one place "safer"? I don't think so. Or, you could say the same thing about food, or taxis....

The bottom line: what things cost is not a good indicator of much at all, except whether or not you're in an expensive area. Personally, I don't like the feeling I get when I'm in a very expensive area. It's like there's a meter on in the background and the cost is adding up at an uncomfortable rate. When I'm on vacation I want to relax, not feel like I'm three days away from an emergency bankruptcy filing.

[Ottawa2011]

The OP makes some good points. You can travel on a shoestring through Europe, and stay at hostels, and spend very little money while visiting some of the most chi-chi cities. If you're happy travelling on next to no money, and making sandwiches for yourself during your vacation so that you're doing it as cheaply as possible--then by all means, do so.

Most people don't want to live the student backpacker lifestyle past a certain age, though. They want luxury and self-indulgence, and they'll pay through the nose for it. They want to do high-end shopping, to stay at the best hotel they can afford, to have some fun at a spa or a casino, to go to nicer restaurants, rent a car, etc..

For many tourists, the question is how to find a happy middle ground. If they can find good quality that saves them a little money, but without compromising on their self-indulgence and fun, then that's what they prefer to do. There are hotels etc. that are truly tourist traps and charge way too much, usually because they're just more well-known... and that's what people are mindful of avoiding.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

but in terms of backpacking/budget/solo type travel, my opinion is that "expensive countries" are better to do this in, because you are not compromising health and safety at all.

I never felt I compromised in health and safety traveling in cheaper countries.

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

But in Central America, Southeast Asia, etc. you would be more at risk being robbed, ripped off, etc. choosing the low budget accomodations, and food at markets, if you do know what you are doing, you might be consuming stuff that may make you sick.

Never had that happen. Never had any fear of it. I have had food poisoning in Western Europe, yet eating out of food stalls in Cambodia, Belize, Peru, etc... nothing of the sort.

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

What are you thoughts? Do people NOT factor this in? Are other people just way more worldy than I and know how to handle themselves better than I would? Am I just a classist American afraid of poor people??

Probably

[Tex?Il?]

I think one thing that I think also influences my categorizing of where I would like to travel:

I think countries known for the sex tourism, countries that attract western men specifically for the women . . . theres something that turns me off about that. I'm a normal heterosexual guy with a girlfriend, I think its partly because of the reputation . . . if I was looking and not in a relationship, I wonder if good girls I'm chatting/flirting with at home might get suspicious if my favorite countries to travel to are those known for western men looking for sex or a more subservient, "un-liberated" wife.

But I generally assume, that even places that are known for "safe prostitution" that there HAS to be some seedy underbelly some darker side to it all. So, I think thats part of it.

Also, some countries that are considered dangerous, I wonder if the dangers are overblown. For example South Africa gets a bad rap, because of its violent crime rate, but that is a country that is high on my list, and I think that is a country that simply requires common sense as to what to avoid.

[Cantabridgienne]

Do you think there isn't a seedy underbelly of prostitution in every US state?

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by Cantabridgienne

Do you think there isn't a seedy underbelly of prostitution in every US state?

I'm sure there is, but yeah, in places like Cambodia (major cities) it was in your face. I got approached often there. I certainly wasn't going to not visit Angkor Wat because of that crap though.