American passport rate over time if anyone's curious:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/01/11/the-sh...

Wow, as someone who loves to travel and has the good fortune to do it often, the idea of not being able to or not wanting to leave one's home country is unfathomable.

This is the main reason I keep a passport.

I have used each passport exactly 1 time in the last 20 years, once to the British Virgin Islands and once, recently to Vietnam.

But I keep one handy because the process to get one is months and frankly, there may be scenarios where you may want to leave the country without months of beurocratic delays first.

>No wonder only around a 3rd of Americans own passports.

The US also has a ton of attractions within its borders. And other than going to Canada or Mexico, you're talking about relatively expensive flights to travel internationally.

I'm in the UK and a lot of my travel over the years has been to places relatively far away (Asia, Americas).

Travel in Europe is expensive when you're there so a lot of people from Europe travel to SE Asia and similar destinations (althought the cost differential is reducing)

I'm very confused by this comment. Travel within Europe is insanely cheap compared with North America because low cost carriers exist and the distances are way smaller, not to mention you can take buses if you're really on a budget.

You're not finding flights in the US between major cities for less than 3 digits, and buses take several hours. In Europe you take a 2 hour bus ride and end up in a completely different country whichever way you go.

There's a reason your stereotypical university student backpacker goes to Europe.

Sorry. Typed in a rush and wasn't clear

I meant the total cost in Europe. Food, accommodation etc.

Huh, in my experience food costs around the same. Maybe fast food is cheaper in NA?

Looking at my bookings in northern Europe and US major cities, they're also roughly the same price, but there's a lot more cheap hostels in Europe if you're willing to go that route.

Southern Europe is cheaper by over 50% though.

Interesting how we could come to basically opposite conclusions given the same data.

I'm comparing Europe with Asia. (Typing on my phone which is never a good idea)

Oh gotcha, my bad, I totally misinterpreted your comment

> Travel within Europe is insanely cheap compared with North America because low cost carriers exist [...] You're not finding flights in the US between major cities for less than 3 digits

That's 'nuts', why's that? If £12 short haul flights between cities works in Europe why not in the US? Obviously the US is a lot bigger than the UK, but so's Europe, I could book a flight right now for today to (checks) Ibiza for £9.99, Milan or Barcelona for £12.99, and so on. Why's it 10x that (actually 29x for today, but ae little as 5x (mid two digits) if we push the date out and go mid week, call it 10x, whatever) for NY to Chicago? Naively I would think within one country it should be possible to run it if anything even cheaper.

I don't know either. Probably some combination of subsidies/taxes/income/wages

Lack of strong competition?

There's plenty of competition for domestic flights in NA imo, there has to be a reason they all charge as much as they do

There is a lot more budget carrier competition, often flying in and out of secondary airports, in Europe. The US does have a few like Spirit but nothing like Europe. In Europe, there are probably more subsidies, generally it's denser, probably a higher percentage of leisure travelers, more competition from trains, fewer people likely drive, etc.

It just adds up to a lot of competition among no-frills airlines because there's a sizable group of price-sensitive travelers who are fine with talking a budget flight for an hour or two.

Subsidies on fuel among other things. For some of us, for a trip of any length, it’s also hundreds of dollars to park or have airport transportation though that applies to domestic flights as well.

In any case I’m hundreds of dollars to fly in the US.

Flights are cheap. Hotels in Europe in tourist areas are insanely priced because they’re reliably booked.

They're not any more expensive than hotels in major US cities. But the original post was about Asia and South America, I just misunderstood.

> The US also has a ton of attractions within its borders.

As does everywhere, which is why people travel.

> And other than going to Canada or Mexico, you're talking about relatively expensive flights to travel internationally

You should checkout flights to Cancun or the Caribbean. Even South America is cheap, and flights from the East Coast (of North America) to Europe are a few hundred bucks.

If what you were saying had any merit, surely Australians and New Zealanders wouldn't explore outside their country much.... but they do in droves.

Cancun and the Caribbean are very specific types of vacations I mostly don't have much interest in. There are other South American trips though those can get more involved; looking at one at the moment.

To be clear I've traveled internationally a lot. But I also understand why fewer Americans are inclined to do so than someone who lives in a small European country who might drive across a border.

Those Europeans don't even need a passport to do that.. so your example doesn't really make any sense.

That was my point. Europeans can travel between countries without a passport at little cost. For probably most Americans an international vacation is an expensive trip.

> For probably most Americans an international vacation is an expensive trip.

No, we established that flights to Cancun and the Caribbean are extremely cheap, and flights to Europe can be had for the same price as flights to the far coast of North America.

That survey makes a lot of sense to me, as a Brit. If I don't take my PTO my boss's boss gets nagged by HR, so they nag my boss, who nags me.

Our PTO year runs from 1 April, so the only (unwritten) rule about vacation is that we should try to spread it over the year. This is because we're only allowed to carry over 5 days to the next year, not taking PTO is frowned upon, and HR don't want everybody to be using up their PTO at the same time at the end of the year.

A few days ago we had a Zoom town-hall meeting where our CEO thanked everybody for taking time off.

I moved from the UK to Finland, and while the overall process is similar there are some niggles.

Generally you'd have a similar amount of time off here, 4-5 weeks, and it would run April-April as you said for your own.

The biggest difference is that you must take two consecutive weeks at least once a year.

That said there are pluses I think I'm allowed to stay home to care for a sick child 11 days a year, paid. That's a nice bonus, and it has been useful as a parent. When our child was a baby, or toddler, sickness mostly meant that he stayed asleep all day and was lethargic and quiet. Now he's older there's no chance that I'd be able to work from home and take care of him, so those days come in useful. (Helps that I get my 11 days, and my wife gets a similar amount too.)

Otherwise it feels like most Finnish people take a month off in the summer, to the extent that a lot of shops/places in the city close down due to no staff, so there's often a bit of negotiation within teams about who can be away, to make sure there is cover. But it feels pretty relaxed and friendly.

> The biggest difference is that you must take two consecutive weeks at least once a year.

I had this in the UK when I worked in finance. As I recall the two-week rule was commonly written into employment contracts in banking. There was some FCA guidance around this, possibly in the wake of the Jérôme Kerviel scandal (I am not sure, it's been a while).

The idea was to make it a harder for a single rogue trader to perpetrate fraud as they would have to collude with someone to look after their books while they were out for two weeks.