He’s not wrong. It’ll be a really shitty journey as it’s just voluntary homelessness, but you can choose to live as a hobo if you’re brave enough. And if you’re brave enough you can cross borders without permission. Not a good idea at all, lots of walking, hunger, sleeping outside, and hiding from authorities, but hey, you can.
Hobo sort of implies a migrant worker. Tramp is someone that travels about, but isn’t interested in working. Both used to be associated with freighthopping trains. Do people stowaway on trains anymore?
“Homeless” can mean different things. It could mean “can’t afford a home, can’t keep a job” like the typical assumption, or it could mean “between homes but capable of getting another” or it could mean “has plenty of money but no home base, just sleeps in hotels or camps and can afford food and clothes when needed”.
It’s not a lifestyle I’d want right now, but it doesn’t automatically mean one can’t thrive. Humans were nomadic for millennia before agriculture gave us a reason and the ability to just stay in one spot.
It’s not a choice I’d personally make, but it’s often associated with mental illness or a deep feeling of the need to be free (especially in young people). For the former it’s associated with PTSD and feeling like if you no longer fit into normal life. For the latter it’s kinda like backpacking across Europe, but across whatever continent you’re on, often staying at punk houses and squats along the way.
They weren’t being literal with the homelessness. And anyway, that statement is still a bit close-minded, while it obviously wouldn’t be a comfortable experience, it is possible and not everything needs to be the smartest decision ever. Sometimes challenging yourself to do something extreme with lots of risk keeps you more alive than comfort could.
Depends on your definition of homelessness. Living in a shitty, broken down van probably counts. But what about living in a $200k Mercedes Sprinter van converted to a camper, with a stable job that lets you work remote? What about a retired couple living in a 40’ RV, after spending their working lives dreaming about traveling around the country?
It’s not travel in your (and to be honest, most people in the comments) preferred version. The OP never mentioned luxuries, or even comfort. The point is that if what you really want to travel, you most probably can, independent of your financial situation.
My point is: it’s not technically correct, it’s just plain correct. Plenty of people I know go for cycling tours of Europe, packing food and sleeping in tents. Some do two weeks hiking.
Travel is not only flying to the other end of the world and eating fancy food cooked for you by hired chefs… you can travel basically free if you adjust your expectations.
He’s not wrong. It’ll be a really shitty journey as it’s just voluntary homelessness, but you can choose to live as a hobo if you’re brave enough. And if you’re brave enough you can cross borders without permission. Not a good idea at all, lots of walking, hunger, sleeping outside, and hiding from authorities, but hey, you can.
Hobo sort of implies a migrant worker. Tramp is someone that travels about, but isn’t interested in working. Both used to be associated with freighthopping trains. Do people stowaway on trains anymore?
I have to assume some people still hop trains. At the very least some crust punk squatter types probably do
There’s nowhere to go on a train tho. They’re all tanks and shipping containers.
I assume train hoppers have tricks to get inside boxcars. Also there are different types of cars besides tank cars and boxcars, like coil cars:
And open-top hopper cars:
That’s my point, I never see boxcars anywhere.
When you say shipping containers, do you mean these guys?
Yes. I work next to a train yard and 90% of what I see are these guys.
Interesting. In my neck of the woods, I mostly see boxcars and tank cars. When I lived in the western US I would see those a lot though.
There are no trains anymore.
Then how did I get stuck at a railroad crossing today?
Choosing homelessness when you have any other option isn’t brave, it’s fucking stupid.
“Homeless” can mean different things. It could mean “can’t afford a home, can’t keep a job” like the typical assumption, or it could mean “between homes but capable of getting another” or it could mean “has plenty of money but no home base, just sleeps in hotels or camps and can afford food and clothes when needed”.
It’s not a lifestyle I’d want right now, but it doesn’t automatically mean one can’t thrive. Humans were nomadic for millennia before agriculture gave us a reason and the ability to just stay in one spot.
It’s not a choice I’d personally make, but it’s often associated with mental illness or a deep feeling of the need to be free (especially in young people). For the former it’s associated with PTSD and feeling like if you no longer fit into normal life. For the latter it’s kinda like backpacking across Europe, but across whatever continent you’re on, often staying at punk houses and squats along the way.
They weren’t being literal with the homelessness. And anyway, that statement is still a bit close-minded, while it obviously wouldn’t be a comfortable experience, it is possible and not everything needs to be the smartest decision ever. Sometimes challenging yourself to do something extreme with lots of risk keeps you more alive than comfort could.
The line that separates courage and stupidity is always very thin, be it warfare or… Checks notes… TRAVEL
Lots of people walk or bike around the world.
What’s more valuable to you? Having an experience that sounds outlandishly amazing? Or paying rent? We might not all agree.
Depends on your definition of homelessness. Living in a shitty, broken down van probably counts. But what about living in a $200k Mercedes Sprinter van converted to a camper, with a stable job that lets you work remote? What about a retired couple living in a 40’ RV, after spending their working lives dreaming about traveling around the country?
You’re not homeless if you have a 200k sprinter, also it’s not in the spirit of this post which claims that travel isn’t a matter of money.
That’s fair, but where do you draw the line?
deleted by creator
There are worse options.
That’s great and all but please take a few step to the left, you are blocking the sunlight
Oh, sorry Diogenes!
Hitchhiking and couch surfing is a thing.
That’s just being homeless…
Not if you’re doing it while traveling.
Nobody said it isn’t.
It is traveling and it doesn’t require lots of money.
I don’t think that is “travel” in the spirit of the discussion.
It’s not travel in your (and to be honest, most people in the comments) preferred version. The OP never mentioned luxuries, or even comfort. The point is that if what you really want to travel, you most probably can, independent of your financial situation.
Yeah, I get it that s/he is technically correct. I think that was pretty clear in my statement.
My point is: it’s not technically correct, it’s just plain correct. Plenty of people I know go for cycling tours of Europe, packing food and sleeping in tents. Some do two weeks hiking.
Travel is not only flying to the other end of the world and eating fancy food cooked for you by hired chefs… you can travel basically free if you adjust your expectations.
People do this all the time. Typically it’s people on bikes, crossing something.
$5 a day? Pure luxury!
https://adventure.com/how-to-cycle-around-the-world/