Folks without a home who cruise/travel year round!

[Hlitner]

I do think the comparison to full time RVers is close.  Keep in mind that with the exception of the woman we met who is an owner on The World, none of these folks were even close to full time cruisers.  They were simply folks we met on a cruise who do not have a permanent home.  For some weird reason, a whole group would gather at the Ocean Bar (Westerdam) every evening around 6.  It was fun to just listen (and learn) about this interesting lifestyle.  I could live that life, but DW would not want to give up having a "home" and regularly seeing our grandsons.  

 

Over our many years (about 50) of cruising we have only met 2 couples and 1 lady that spends most of their time living on cruise ships.   But the group we met on the Westy all had the similar lifetyle of combining lots of land time with a fair number of cruise days.  DW and I have done or share of renting places on land (primarily Mexico and France) and have found a few places, around the world, where we would be happy to spend a few months.  What they all had in common is that they were very independent travelers (as am I) and comfortable doing their own thing just about anywhere in the world.  To them, dealing with issues like finding physicians, hot to get mail, etc. were just challenges and not impediments.  

 

Consider some of the downsides such as not being able to own a pet.  This did come up at the Ocean Bar, and a few folks said things like "I would never give up my dogs."  

 

Hank
 

[ldubs]

8 hours ago, Kristelle said:

 

 

"Vagabond" to me implies homeless, poverty, living rough, that kind of thing.

 

Not travelling by choice in comfort.

 

I guess I made a poor choice of words.  Hopefully the meaning was understood.   This is probably why I won't be writing the next great American novel. 😀

[cruisemom42]

I don't think I could cruise full time, but I could certainly spend most of my time traveling if circumstances allowed. Travel has always been an important part of my life and hopefully will be an even bigger part of my post-retirement life. I've long planned to spend several months each year in Italy (one of the reasons I've taken 6 years of Italian in the last decade).

 

Space has never been a big thing for me. I prefer small houses and after living in one for 20 years, recently downsized to an even smaller condo to facilitate future travels. (Even it has one more room than I really need now that I'm not working....)

 

I can do without pets and plants. With a very small set of things to make me feel "at home", I think I could thrive most anywhere, and I am generally happiest when I am traveling. If that means I have a "low quality of life", then so be it. 😒

[clo]

On 12/20/2023 at 9:53 AM, sanger727 said:

I enjoy traveling but nothing is good as coming home at the end. 

We also.

[Kristelle]

4 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

I guess I made a poor choice of words.  Hopefully the meaning was understood.   This is probably why I won't be writing the next great American novel. 😀

 

 

No - sounds like your word was the right one - at least to US ears.

 

as somebody said, it may be a regional or country thing - we all know words have different meanings or nuances of meaning i n different countries.

[Haqdeluxe]

Yes, like the first time I heard someone say "going home and throwing a few shrimps on (the) Barbie". I just had to wonder if Ken was OK with that as I didn't think he or Barbie rolled that way. 😂

[navybankerteacher]

9 hours ago, Mum2Mercury said:

…

We have different opinions about what "low quality of life" is.  I think you're saying being away from your family and friends would be a low quality ... and I agree.  The most important thing to me is that I have a two-year old grandson, and it means everything that I keep him overnight every other week or so.  I'd hate to go months without seeing him /without being part of his life.  

In my view:  family, friends, community involvement, activities like gardening, occasional theatre, doing some cooking - all contribute to quality of life.  Living on a cruise ship would pretty broadly eliminate these things.  Of course, if someone has none of these to lose, then he could easily transition to a cruise ship —- but I think that having none of these to lose would pretty well meet the definition of having a low quality of life.

 

p.s. The term vagabond, in current usage, carries no implication of poverty - just being footloose and fancy free.

[Nebr.cruiser]

7 hours ago, Kristelle said:

 

 

No - sounds like your word was the right one - at least to US ears.

 

as somebody said, it may be a regional or country thing - we all know words have different meanings or nuances of meaning i n different countries.

I'm from the US and to me Vagabond is more like someone who is carefree and lives an uncluttered, free lifestyle, mostly traveling from place to place, perhaps in an unplanned spontaneous way.  So not everyone here sees being a vagabond as a negative.  

[Kristelle]

^ yes, so it seems the word has a different connotation in different places.

 

I think we've all got that now. 

[Kristelle]

3 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

In my view:  family, friends, community involvement, activities like gardening, occasional theatre, doing some cooking - all contribute to quality of life.  Living on a cruise ship would pretty broadly eliminate these things.  Of course, if someone has none of these to lose, then he could easily transition to a cruise ship —- but I think that having none of these to lose would pretty well meet the definition of having a low quality of life.

 

Those are things you value, not things everyone values. Lots of people dislike cooking or gardening, hardly means they have low quality of life

 

Nor would you neccesarily lose them all anyway - people could disembark where their family live on a regular basis and see their family as often as many other people do. As well as electronic contact whilst travelling, of course.

All of the real people who posters encountered doing this did spend intermittent time on land too. 

Edited December 22, 2023 by Kristelle

[ldubs]

8 hours ago, Kristelle said:

 

 

No - sounds like your word was the right one - at least to US ears.

 

as somebody said, it may be a regional or country thing - we all know words have different meanings or nuances of meaning i n different countries.

 

No worries.  It is all good.  Another one of those words where context is probably more important than Webster.  🙂

[ontheweb]

8 hours ago, Kristelle said:

 

Those are things you value, not things everyone values. Lots of people dislike cooking or gardening, hardly means they have low quality of life

 

Nor would you neccesarily lose them all anyway - people could disembark where their family live on a regular basis and see their family as often as many other people do. As well as electronic contact whilst travelling, of course.

All of the real people who posters encountered doing this did spend intermittent time on land too. 

I think cooking and gardening were meant as examples. We all have something we enjoy. For me as an example, I volunteer at a food pantry and enjoy that.

[navybankerteacher]

12 hours ago, Kristelle said:

 

Those are things you value, not things everyone values. Lots of people dislike cooking or gardening, hardly means they have low quality of life

 

Nor would you neccesarily lose them all anyway - people could disembark where their family live on a regular basis and see their family as often as many other people do. As well as electronic contact whilst travelling, of course.

All of the real people who posters encountered doing this did spend intermittent time on land too. 

I just cited a few “for instances” which some might value as part of their connection to their  home.  I repeat: I believe that if a person has NOTHING which attaches him/her to home , I would opine that that person has a low quality of life.

 

Then, disembarking on a regular basis where one’s family lives to see them “… as often as many other people do…” would kind of being something of a parasite.

 

Regardless, if you would be happy living adrift - go do it.  I happen to be happy  that I have connections and activities based around my home.  Spending enough time on shore to maintain them does not really jibe with the notion of giving up your home and living on a cruise ship.

[ldubs]

3 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

I just cited a few “for instances” which some might value as part of their connection to their  home.  I repeat: I believe that if a person has NOTHING which attaches him/her to home , I would opine that that person has a low quality of life.

 

Then, disembarking on a regular basis where one’s family lives to see them “… as often as many other people do…” would kind of being something of a parasite.

 

Regardless, if you would be happy living adrift - go do it.  I happen to be happy  that I have connections and activities based around my home.  Spending enough time on shore to maintain them does not really jibe with the notion of giving up your home and living on a cruise ship.

 

It is certainly a unique lifestyle and relatively uncommon. I suspect these folks have friends all over the world.   I'm not sure I would equate them to cousin Eddy.  😀

[Mary229]

We did a full analysis of this lifestyle a few years ago. The model we looked at was cruising for 3 months or so then staying in a location for a month or so before embarking once again,allowing us time to explore a single area.   We watched every YouTube, read the books and articles and even communicated with a few full timers by email.  Financially it was a wash so that was not a consideration.  The cultural enrichment was not an issue either as one could schedule visits to theater and museums easily.
 

 The largest hurdle for us was the limited social life.  It seemed to us that it could become very cliquish and could be a bit of a soap opera.  
 

[Kristelle]

3 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

I just cited a few “for instances” which some might value as part of their connection to their  home.  I repeat: I believe that if a person has NOTHING which attaches him/her to home , I would opine that that person has a low quality of life.

 

Then, disembarking on a regular basis where one’s family lives to see them “… as often as many other people do…” would kind of being something of a parasite.

 

Regardless, if you would be happy living adrift - go do it.  I happen to be happy  that I have connections and activities based around my home.  Spending enough time on shore to maintain them does not really jibe with the notion of giving up your home and living on a cruise ship.

 

 

I didn't say I would be happy doing it - in fact  I clearly said it is not for me

 

But  I dont presume that other people whose lifestyle, including a travelling lifestyle, is different to mine, somehow have a lower quality of life because they value different things or have different perceptions on life.

 

I repeat - I think that is very condescending.

 

Then, disembarking on a regular basis where one’s family lives to see them “… as often as many other people do…” would kind of being something of a parasite.

 

^^ I dont get what you are saying with that sentence - how is staying near your family in  short term rental or staying with them short term  - being a parasite???? How is that any different to people who do similar when living in their own home in a different location to the family members??

[Kristelle]

7 hours ago, ontheweb said:

I think cooking and gardening were meant as examples. We all have something we enjoy. For me as an example, I volunteer at a food pantry and enjoy that.

 

 

Yes I understand that.

 

My point was that just because we might have whatever things that anchor us at home doesnt mean people who do not, somehow have a lower quality of life.

[donaldsc]

On 12/20/2023 at 12:25 PM, lenquixote66 said:

My best friend died in 2020 from Covid.His wife who was native to Trinidad left their Manhattan high rise building and moved back to Trinidad where her son and family lived.However,the crime was really bad there and they all moved to Quito,Equador.They love it there.

 

I do not quite see what this has to do w the topic of the post.

 

DON

[lenquixote66]

43 minutes ago, donaldsc said:

 

I do not quite see what this has to do w the topic of the post.

 

DON

I was responding to “Too far from the sea” who referenced a relocation to Quito,Equador”.

[ldubs]

8 hours ago, Kristelle said:

 

 

I didn't say I would be happy doing it - in fact  I clearly said it is not for me

 

But  I dont presume that other people whose lifestyle, including a travelling lifestyle, is different to mine, somehow have a lower quality of life because they value different things or have different perceptions on life.

 

I repeat - I think that is very condescending.

 

Then, disembarking on a regular basis where one’s family lives to see them “… as often as many other people do…” would kind of being something of a parasite.

 

^^ I dont get what you are saying with that sentence - how is staying near your family in  short term rental or staying with them short term  - being a parasite???? How is that any different to people who do similar when living in their own home in a different location to the family members??

 

Dropping in on relatives for a place to stay.  I can see it both ways -- maybe welcome and maybe the dreaded uninvited houseguest. 

 

 

[Kristelle]

3 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

Dropping in on relatives for a place to stay.  I can see it both ways -- maybe welcome and maybe the dreaded uninvited houseguest. 

 

 

 

 

well, sure - but no more than people living on land who might do that.

[ldubs]

7 hours ago, Kristelle said:

 

 

well, sure - but no more than people living on land who might do that.

 

The difference I would see is these folks don't have a place to live on land.  I really don't have a stake in this one way or the other.  I'm just responding to your comment about not getting it.  

[Hlitner]

4 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

The difference I would see is these folks don't have a place to live on land.  I really don't have a stake in this one way or the other.  I'm just responding to your comment about not getting it.  

The one couple who we got to know the best, told us they did plan on buying another home in the future.  They were simply a young at heart couple having a lot of fun moving around the world...often on a whim.  They were the same couple who was going to house sit for a few months, and that did spark some discussion about this form of living...often rent free.  We did have several discussions about the RV "full timers" and we all agreed that the RV lifestyle was not for any of us.  RVs limit folks to where they can go (i.e. you cannot drive an RV across an ocean).  

 

I actually thought that DW and I could have done that kind of life, when we first retired and were still in our 50s.  The idea appeals to me, but I see it as something one could do for a few years, but not permanently.  Plenty of retirees have 2 or 3 homes and move around on a seasonal basis (i.e. snowbirds).  These folks simply did the same thing, but were not tied down with a specific address/location.  As to family, folks can visit family members from time to time and invite family to visit them (wherever they happen to be).  When DW and I first started spending our winters in Puerto Vallarta, our DD and SIL were annual visitors.  And the Guest Room was always ready for friends/family who wanted to visit for a few days or even weeks.  I did not post previously, but we once met a couple (in their 50s) in Puerto Vallarta that lived on a boat and sailed to different places around the world where they would spend weeks/months.  They were actually getting prepared to sail from Puerto Vallarta to Hawaii as part of a larger flotilla.   You could say they were like RVers on water :). 

 

Hank

 

[Kristelle]

4 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

The difference I would see is these folks don't have a place to live on land.  I really don't have a stake in this one way or the other.  I'm just responding to your comment about not getting it.  

 

 

But its not really different to  living on land in a separate location to the people you short term visit - while you are visiting, you either stay with them or rent a hotel etc

 

I dont have a stake in it either - since it is neither for me nor I have the funds to do it anyway.

[clo]

3 hours ago, Hlitner said:

i.e. you cannot drive an RV across an ocean).  

Right. And you can't 'drive' a ship to the Grand Canyon 🙂