Between Scylla and Charybdis: question for a rainy Sunday
 

Hello, all! In trying to decide where to go late spring '04, we are yet again running into the age old problem of wanting to see too many places and not having enough time or money.

So my question for you is: Which would you prefer to have for your next trip, more time or more money? (You may choose just one).

Would you rather have three weeks and go on a shoestring, or take a week and have a really big budget?

I'd prefer about two and a half weeks, with an entire shoe, but, given your two choices, I'd take three weeks and a shoestring, since I've always been quite happy with inexpensive meals and places to stay.

We've been able to play around with this dilemna for a couple of years now that our kids are out of the house. Having worked at the same company for nearly 25 years, I also have enough annual leave to do long trips. What seems to work best for us is 10 days to 2 weeks. One week, even in a smashing spot where money is not an object just isn't long enough for my heart and mind to be involved and appreciative of both the "vacation" and my companion. Three weeks was wonderful...but I think the only reason that trip worked was because we joined up with another person for the last week. Not that you get on each other's nerves after two weeks, but especially after 30+ years together you know how your partner is going to react to things and it's fun to get someone else's perspective. Frankly, ten days with 2 locations is great, and so is 2 weeks with 3 or 4. The amount of money? Well, we prioritize, and generally end up spending about the same. Would more money be better? Maybe it would make a one week trip palatable by framing it with 1st class or business seating...but I think time is probably more important to really making a vacation a vacation and two weeks is just about perfect. For me, three weeks was ALMOST too long to be away from "reality."

I might like to improve on the firsdt reply, but I'm not sure that I can, so I will just reiterate it. 10-12 weeks, trying to maximize value for what you spend. Go twice as often, if this strategy allow you to do that.

Best wishes,

Rex

Ack. My typos are too often CORRECTLY spelled words! 10-12 days, not WEEKS, of course!

And of course, yes, I know I spelled "first" incorrectly as well.

Time - a limited budget but 3 weeks worth of time would be bliss for me. Where I stay (as long as it is clean) is not that important to me. I do not go to Europe to stay in a hotel room.

I'd rather three weeks on a shoestring, presuming that includes adequate lodging and food. Of course transport from place to place can be a major expense, so you might be able to afford to stay for 3 weeks if you choose only 2 locations, but only 2 weeks if you choose 4 locations (just an example).

I would take the 3 weeks & a shoestring! But I suppose that also depends on where you want to go and how cheaply you can manage a shoestring within a 3-week period of time.

I mean, I know I could do Paris on a shoestring in 3 weeks. The most expensive part is the airfare to get there!

And Robdaddy, are you a big Police fan? Or just a fan of mythology??? :D

Hi, Beatchick...just saw your response to this post. Yes, I am a Police fan, but also have some familiarity with mythology, which made it great fun for me when that song came out, 'cause I was able to explain the reference to my friends who were absolutely clueless.

Sometimes it's nice to know stuff that makes people think you're way smarter than you actually are.

No contest for me. I'd rather have more time. Due to a lot of hard work and quite a dash of luck, I have reached the point in my life where I don't have to choose. :-D

Me, too, Robdaddy, me, too! I think that's when I became a HUGE Police fan!!

To answer your question, I'd rather have more time - lots more time!