A vague statement. For the expense of staying in a private room and eating out for 2 days in Amsterdam, you can spend a week in Croatia.
This, and the popular news heading you see about Americans not having enough savings are all meaningless. I find the Big Mac index to quite useful. I'm working on a new web site that we try to list a similar a metric (affordability of traveling to each country, factored by the traveler return rate, etc). Comparing EU with countries like Sweden, the Netherlands, France, etc vs Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria, is orange vs apples.
Spending a week in a hotel in Croatia doesn't seem quite so cheap if your salary is paid in Croatia, which is why although the press release doesn't qualify "holiday" it does provide a country by country breakdown indicating that most Romanians and Croatians and very few Swedes feel priced out of an annual holiday. Agreed that your own index sounds like it would be useful data for other reasons.
So is it fair to say "the percentage of Europeans who can't afford a 1 week annual holiday is steadily dropping and most recently sits at a low of 28%?"
This news heading is bad because they include 16 years old teenagers in the statistics. A majority of them are living with their parents, attending high school, and obviously having no income. I'd be more likely to agree with the report if it only includes people who are working, or 24 years old and up.
> In 2013 the corresponding proportion was 39.5%.
It's actually a great improvement. Going from 39.5% down to 28% in a mere 6 years (despite the bad statistics counting 16+ years old).
It's worth noting that in many cultures, 16 year olds have modest incomes and 24 year olds are expected to have at least a nominal employment history.
Not that folks under 24 can necessarily afford to finance week-long holidays. But it's not entirely out of the question for young adults going in together on a beach house or something.
> and the popular news heading you see about Americans not having enough savings are all meaningless
What? How is it meaningless at all? Because other countries are cheaper?
Edit: To elaborate (since OP hasn't responded yet)... Implying that it means nothing to have no savings because other countries is IMO just wrong. Moving to another country (especially from the states) is difficult and incredibly expensive. It's the same argument for within the states. "Well why don't you just move to somewhere cheaper?"
Because moving is super expensive and if you have no money, and no savings, how are you going to move?
Just pack up all your shit and move to Mexico, right?
> if you have no money, and no savings, how are you going to move?
If you have no money, and no savings, you probably have nearly no stuff too. That means, if you can get a days work at minimum wage, you can afford the cheapest bus trip to almost anywhere on the same continent.
If you want less risk, and can get 3 days work at minimum wage, you can afford a return bus trip incase you can't find work at the destination.
People don't move because they don't want to lose friends and family, not because they can't afford to.
Because Americans don't "save" their money in traditional savings accounts anymore. They shove it in investment accounts of varying types (less common) or retirement accounts (more common). When there's an emergency we tend to put it on credit and then use the time that buys to get money out of one of those other accounts and pay down the balance. Even many people who are living paycheck to paycheck are making some sort of 401k contribution which, while not a proper "savings" slush fund, can serve the same purpose of being able to cover an emergency expense if needed.
I too like the Big Mac index as a relative measure of cost of living the way that most people actually live their lives. I'd be very interested to see your new website once it is ready! Happy to provide some thoughts too if you're still hashing stuff out for it.
The other index should be called a Bankrupcy Index. Which would be a measure of a likelihood you'd go bankrupt or indebted forever, per country. Potentially extended with Credit Index - how likely is an average person to get a loan the size of local house, car or medical bill.
Because it's entirely fraudulent. The headlines keep claiming that around 40% of Americans can't afford a surprise $400-$500 bill. The actual number is around 12% according to the Fed survey that the headlines are intentionally misleading about. It keeps getting pointed out that the claim is false, however the propaganda value is too sweet so it keeps getting abused.
The Big Mac index is completely unrelated to savings in a country. You may not understand what these are telling people but that only makes them meaningless to you.
Oh but it is. BigMacParity index can tell you if you can afford the holiday in your country but not in another. I bet most people in EU can actually afford a semi decent holidays in the country they earn in. Obviously not all.
This is essentially a decent measure of "can you take x time of a break, spend a bit and not go bankrupt".
Except if you're Danish, students are always excluded when counting who's poor or not. Technically students are poor (mostly), but it's viewed a temporary, and therefore they're not included.
In America, only college students that live off campus and do not live with relatives are counted in the official poverty rate. I can't really see why they should be excluded, since they are living in poverty that is just often propped up by debt.
But, the census bureau also calculates an additional poverty rate that excludes college students.
It should probably only include people mid-twenties to mid-fifties or so, which should hopefully avoid most intentionally underemployed people. I care about breadwinners, not dependents.
I can see that going either way, depending on how the question is posed. Fewer 16-year olds may be able to afford a vacation paid from their own income, compared to the population mean.
But sponsored through parents/relatives, more 16-year olds than the population mean may be able to take a vacation, given your vacation at 16 years old is likely to be cheap, relative to an older person's vacation.
1. When I was 16 I couldn't afford a slurpee at 7-11
2. I had to stay in the UK (London) for weeks a few times (looking for work) and you can stay in a hostel for around 20 pounds a night, get a boris bike/bus or walk for like 5 a day and shitty food for less than 10 a day. Not exactly a 'fun vacation' but it's also one of the most expensive cities in the world.
3. What an arbitrary unit to measure wealth in. That's like asking how many pairs of jeans can you afford - well, are they from the thrift store or are they from the Armani Exchange?
Well, I'd say anybody that can't find a fun vacation staying at a hostel in Europe and walking around the middle of pretty much any city must surely have no imagination and/or also hate life in general.
I don't take 'vacations' per se. When I travel I like to go with a goal, let it be snowboard for a week or surf for the weekend in a nice spot, or just stay at a 5 star hotel drinking gin and tonic by the pool.
Any kind of city 'vacation' for me is hell. Hate it. Did many before, still hate them. Go see the Mona Lisa or some natural lake? bleh. Boring. Rather be at home drinking gin and tonic in my sofa doing nothing all day.
(to be fair, I lived in many countries, moved house and cities (and countries) pretty much every year. I've seen most of Europe has to offer (and didn't like it) and now nothing is better than just living near the sea. Spending some quality time with local friends and go surf or to the gym.
Seriously, hostels are the most fun way to visit any first-world country (if you're young, at least). Meet new people every day, with an obvious instant common topic to talk about. Super easy to schedule ad hoc adventures with your fellow hostellers.
As compared to a hotel, which will generally be just like every other hotel in the entire world, and you might as well have just gone to a hotel in your home city. Or the usual tourist traps, where you'll compete with a giant mob of people too busy checking off items on their checklists to chat or adventure.
The only way a non-hostel vacation makes any sense is if your #1 goal is to post selfies to make yourself look rich and successful.
Or conversely, "Nearly 72% of Europeans can afford a week long away vacation, up from only 60% six years ago."
In the US I suspect it's more like "[some percentage] of Americans can't afford to miss a week of work."
I intentionally avoided the 40% stat tempting because of the assorted '$400 unexpected expense' stories because as Bloomberg and others note it's partially due to sloppy reading of statistics. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-04/the-40...
> could not afford a one-week annual holiday away from home
You get in Europe around one month of paid vacation time. What people can't afford is to travel. The title of the article misses that point, but, it's clear in the article itself.
I'm surprised that Italy, 44%, is in such a bad position. Worse than Poland (35%).
I can't express how much the association between "not travelling" and poverty angers me. (Greta, help me here.)
Some people choose to live in a stressless small town, work less, commute by bike, pick up their kids from daycare earlier and have a great time gardening at home. If your surrounding already feels like holidays, why the heck would you get your ass stuck in traffic or a narrow cylinder?
Oh right, talking about the horror of being stuck in an airplane for 15 minutes makes a better story when returning to work.
But the study did not ask how many traveled for holiday. It studied how many could afford to do so, regardless if they actually traveled or wanted to travel.
Since it's "people", not "employees", it may well be about travel and time off for some. For self-employeed sub-contractors (i.e. the "gig economy"), time off means time not paid.
While studies like this are valuable, it's important to always consider context around data; highly recommend this article that explains why we should be skeptical [1].
In this case, the data is given to Eurostat by EU member states, who presumably collect income data for the purpose of taxation. This can create an inherent issue, as nobody would overstate their income, but many people would understate their income.
As a result, the percentage of Europeans who can't afford a 1 week annual holiday is likely lower. "By how much" is hard to tell, but it would be interesting to see if there's any anonymous income data collected for non-taxation purposes, from which we may get more accurate answers.
The data is collected with questionnaires; I checked one of them and it had literally the question "Could you afford a week’s annual holiday away from home? Yes/No"
I'm not sure not being able to afford a holiday away from home is such a bad thing- a staycation is much easier on the environment, not to mention the wallet. One does not need to travel away from one's home to relax and recharge, and requires no burning of fuel on trains or airplanes.
What does afford mean in this context? Does it mean people self-report that they can't afford to go on holiday or does it mean they did not go last time or is it a function of disposable income?
Without knowing the methodology this statistic isn't really that useful at all.
Readit News
This, and the popular news heading you see about Americans not having enough savings are all meaningless. I find the Big Mac index to quite useful. I'm working on a new web site that we try to list a similar a metric (affordability of traveling to each country, factored by the traveler return rate, etc). Comparing EU with countries like Sweden, the Netherlands, France, etc vs Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria, is orange vs apples.
The more notable thing is just how sharp the downward trend in the number of people saying they were unable to afford a holiday has been. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?query=BOOKMA...
> In 2013 the corresponding proportion was 39.5%.
It's actually a great improvement. Going from 39.5% down to 28% in a mere 6 years (despite the bad statistics counting 16+ years old).
Not that folks under 24 can necessarily afford to finance week-long holidays. But it's not entirely out of the question for young adults going in together on a beach house or something.
What? How is it meaningless at all? Because other countries are cheaper?
Edit: To elaborate (since OP hasn't responded yet)... Implying that it means nothing to have no savings because other countries is IMO just wrong. Moving to another country (especially from the states) is difficult and incredibly expensive. It's the same argument for within the states. "Well why don't you just move to somewhere cheaper?"
Because moving is super expensive and if you have no money, and no savings, how are you going to move?
Just pack up all your shit and move to Mexico, right?
If you have no money, and no savings, you probably have nearly no stuff too. That means, if you can get a days work at minimum wage, you can afford the cheapest bus trip to almost anywhere on the same continent.
If you want less risk, and can get 3 days work at minimum wage, you can afford a return bus trip incase you can't find work at the destination.
People don't move because they don't want to lose friends and family, not because they can't afford to.
Deleted Comment
How do you figure?
https://outline.com/rqAedK
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-04/the-40...
https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/report-economic-...
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/04/middle-class-doing-ok...
https://www.cato.org/blog/it-true-40-americans-cant-handle-4...
I would absolutely follow that when its available.
This is essentially a decent measure of "can you take x time of a break, spend a bit and not go bankrupt".
Surely including 16 year olds is skewing these numbers.
For example looking at incomes. If you're a college kid making $5K over the summer, you're counted as being below the poverty level.
But, the census bureau also calculates an additional poverty rate that excludes college students.
But sponsored through parents/relatives, more 16-year olds than the population mean may be able to take a vacation, given your vacation at 16 years old is likely to be cheap, relative to an older person's vacation.
Either themselves or with a student organisation.
Sort of a vacation. It used to be very popular to "tågluffa" here when I grew up, which means getting a train pass and just seeing Europe by rail.
2. I had to stay in the UK (London) for weeks a few times (looking for work) and you can stay in a hostel for around 20 pounds a night, get a boris bike/bus or walk for like 5 a day and shitty food for less than 10 a day. Not exactly a 'fun vacation' but it's also one of the most expensive cities in the world.
3. What an arbitrary unit to measure wealth in. That's like asking how many pairs of jeans can you afford - well, are they from the thrift store or are they from the Armani Exchange?
I don't take 'vacations' per se. When I travel I like to go with a goal, let it be snowboard for a week or surf for the weekend in a nice spot, or just stay at a 5 star hotel drinking gin and tonic by the pool.
Any kind of city 'vacation' for me is hell. Hate it. Did many before, still hate them. Go see the Mona Lisa or some natural lake? bleh. Boring. Rather be at home drinking gin and tonic in my sofa doing nothing all day.
(to be fair, I lived in many countries, moved house and cities (and countries) pretty much every year. I've seen most of Europe has to offer (and didn't like it) and now nothing is better than just living near the sea. Spending some quality time with local friends and go surf or to the gym.
As compared to a hotel, which will generally be just like every other hotel in the entire world, and you might as well have just gone to a hotel in your home city. Or the usual tourist traps, where you'll compete with a giant mob of people too busy checking off items on their checklists to chat or adventure.
The only way a non-hostel vacation makes any sense is if your #1 goal is to post selfies to make yourself look rich and successful.
In the US I suspect it's more like "[some percentage] of Americans can't afford to miss a week of work."
I intentionally avoided the 40% stat tempting because of the assorted '$400 unexpected expense' stories because as Bloomberg and others note it's partially due to sloppy reading of statistics. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-04/the-40...
You get in Europe around one month of paid vacation time. What people can't afford is to travel. The title of the article misses that point, but, it's clear in the article itself.
I'm surprised that Italy, 44%, is in such a bad position. Worse than Poland (35%).
Some people choose to live in a stressless small town, work less, commute by bike, pick up their kids from daycare earlier and have a great time gardening at home. If your surrounding already feels like holidays, why the heck would you get your ass stuck in traffic or a narrow cylinder?
Oh right, talking about the horror of being stuck in an airplane for 15 minutes makes a better story when returning to work.
That being said quality of life overall is steadily improving. But it comes at a cost - we're some of the most overworked countries in the EU.
Oh wait. We have that in the US.
In this case, the data is given to Eurostat by EU member states, who presumably collect income data for the purpose of taxation. This can create an inherent issue, as nobody would overstate their income, but many people would understate their income.
As a result, the percentage of Europeans who can't afford a 1 week annual holiday is likely lower. "By how much" is hard to tell, but it would be interesting to see if there's any anonymous income data collected for non-taxation purposes, from which we may get more accurate answers.
[1] https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/why-data-is-neve...
If you limit yourself to 3+ star hotels it will be interesting, but not enlightening.
Without knowing the methodology this statistic isn't really that useful at all.
Yes. See page 4 on this pdf
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/1012329/8658951/Hous...
(linked in https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/income-and-living-conditio...)