Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway0a5e | Hacker News Reader

>I kept hearing its not unusual for people in the west to take gap years, so thats what Im doing.

You hear a heck of a lot more about it on HN than happens in reality.

Maybe I don't hang out with the trust fund crowd enough but I don't know ANYONE who's taken a "gap year" where they weren't doing something for ~40hr/wk in order to make a buck. I know a few people who didn't jump right into career stuff after college but even they did low pay large applicant pool type jobs at least tangentially related to their careers (e.g. working as basically unskilled labor on tourist fishing charters in Miami before getting a real entry level job on a container ship). Heck, even the people who took a year off before college were doing stuff tangentially related to their career/skillset in that time (e.g. working for geek squad prior to going to school for CE). I know a couple people who went from full time to part time or to less demanding jobs in their field prior to retirement. I know a couple people who did jobs not related to their vocational training for less than a year after they got out of the military but that was more of a stopgap to keep a roof over their head. I don't know anyone who's gone from full time to part time or less unless it's part of a career transition or approach to retirement. I'm sure there's someone somewhere who's managed to pay their rent by waiting tables and stripping for a grand total of 15hr/wk and spent the rest of the time doing art or writing a book or something. I'm sure there's someone who's banked a ton of money and taken a year off in the middle of their career. I don't know anyone who's pulled something like that off.

View on HN

I guess we have different social circles, but I know many people who have done this and none of them are "trust fund crowd". Have done it myself for multiple half-year-or-so periods as well. Maybe it's more of a European thing to do.

I spent 3 months as a research assistant in Australia and used savings from that period to travel in South-East Asia and South America for 6 months or so. Shortly after graduating, having saved a bit as a student (again - Europe, I managed without student debt, having done web development next to my studies), I went to a conference in Taiwan with my MSc thesis and traveled back home over land. Then after working a little bit on my first job again I traveled, hitchhiking to/through the Middle East and Russia.

It's all very doable if you don't spend a lot - during many of these trips I spent $400-$1000/month.

Highly recommend it, traveling in Turkey/Iran/Oman/Georgia/Russia/Ukraine definitely shaped my perspective on the world.

> Maybe it's more of a European thing to do.

Yeah, for Americans it means buying health insurance which is quite a lot more expensive than what you get from your employer.

You can get travel insurance for extended trips. I'm American and I've taken multiple 6-month trips abroad (usually after quitting a job). Backpacking just isn't part of the American culture.

Regular travel insurance != health insurance. It will basically cover you getting stabilized and shipped back home but then you're on your own. (And lost travel deposits.)

Don't even bother with the travel insurance, pay for health care out of pocket in another country. Travel insurance is only needed for traveling in America for the reason you stated.

IMO travel insurance sometimes makes sense. Circumstances like high altitude trekking that may require expensive evacuation. Expensive non-refundable trips, especially those that a broken ankle before or during the trip could put a rapid stop to.

That said, I've only purchased travel insurance maybe a half-dozen times out of probably hundreds of trips.

You need to make sure it covers that altitude. They top out around a certain altitude in the fine print you usually need to pay a little extra for altitudes like Kilimanjaro. Make sure it has helo evacuation covered for all altitudes.

Good point. The few times I was up at that sort of elevation or higher, the insurance was always through someone the guide company specifically recommended. Fortunately, I've never had any significant altitude issues.

No. A two week stay at a private hospital in SE Asia could set you back more than the deductible and co-insurance in the US.

And trust me, you want a private hospital in some of those countries. Even the locals wouldn’t go to a public hospital if they had a choice.

You are not getting health insurance in most European countries unless you are working or registered as unemployed and remain at disposal of the local job centre.

And the whole meme that a 65% tax rate +25% vat on most products on top of it (I am in Sweden) is somehow worth it financially because "fReE HeAlThCaRe" is laughable.

To be clear, I'm merely saying "the complexities of the American healthcare system might be why Europeans are more inclined to take gap years". That said, I didn't know that European public health insurance was commonly contingent on employment. I would be curious to know more about this.

I am honestly very bitter about Americans glorifying the European system while happily taking home 2/3rds of their 100k+ developer salaries and enjoying much lower prices of everything.

With regards to insurance:

- in some countries (UK, Sweden) - the insurance is contingent on having a social security number, so the coverage is pretty much universal for residents, but people coming from other EU countries will still need to work or register as unemployed to get it.

- in other countries, you generally need to be working or looking for work (i.e. answer phones / invitations from job centre and attend any interviews/courses they send you to) to be covered.

Some countries (Poland for example, I'm Polish) allow you to buy insurance if you are neither working nor looking for work. But as of December 2020, about 1.5 mln Poles are not insured at all. [1]

[1] https://tvn24.pl/polska/szczepionka-na-koronawirusa-czy-osob...

> I am honestly very bitter about Americans glorifying the European system while happily taking home 2/3rds of their 100k+ developer salaries and enjoying much lower prices of everything.

I agree, although I think the ignorance extends to Europeans as well. Europeans are often surprised to hear that American software professional salaries are ~60% higher than European salaries even after adjusting for taxes, healthcare, vacation, etc. Some will argue that the US cost of living is more expensive, but they're almost always comparing some major US metropolis with some European village or perhaps an Eastern European city. I've seen other arguments that the cost of housing in the US is comparable or more expensive, but they're typically comparing some relatively tiny European apartment with a much larger American home. Europeans seem to fixate on medical bankruptcies, as though these are commonplace for upper-middleclass Americans.

This was all a surprise to me, an American, who has tried earnestly to live in Western Europe for a few years, but found that I can either live in Europe or I can travel in Europe but trying to do both would likely be economically infeasible (even if I can find gainful work as a software professional, it would specifically be difficult for my wife who isn't in a hot field). Fortunately, now that remote work is catching on, it seems likely that my wife and I will be able to do more frequent 1-3 month stints in Europe while remaining employed by our American companies.

To be clear, I think the United States healthcare system should be reformed, because it doesn't serve the poorest Americans very well. However, the US healthcare system works pretty well for the upper middle class (if not the whole of the middle class) and above, contrary to perceptions I frequently hear from some Americans and Europeans.

> To be clear, I think the United States healthcare system should be reformed, because it doesn't serve the poorest Americans very well.

This depends on the state; Medicaid expansion is doing good things for the poorest people in states where it exists.

The US benefit system is tilted towards the poor, old, and people with children (distant 3rd.) It has some bad welfare cliffs for disabled people, and is the worst for middle class self-employed who aren't on their parents' insurance.

Unfortunately this last group includes all online writers and popular social media users, which is why they pretend it doesn't exist for anyone.

How difficult is it to work remotely in a different country? I’ve thought about doing this but it seems like it’s be a lot of hassle with my employer and navigating local laws in Europe.

My wife and I work for smaller firms. Both of our managers seem okay with it provided we keep American-ish hours. I get the vibe that they're just not worried about it, perhaps out of ignorance or perhaps because it just seems unlikely that a single employee working remotely for a short amount of time is likely to provoke the ire of any tax authorities.

> I am honestly very bitter about Americans glorifying the European system while happily taking home 2/3rds of their 100k+ developer salaries and enjoying much lower prices of everything.

Why do you believe those salaries are the result of the American healthcare system? Per-capita, Americans pay more than anyone for healthcare, just in a very unbalanced way that dramatically favors those with a job over those without.

Regarding comparing tax rates, those six figure job numbers don't include the substantial amount the employer is paying to the healthcare company.

Bitterness about the salary gap is understandable, but it's misguided to say that the fucked-up parts of the US system are what has produced the high-revenue/high-profit companies that are driving the compensation levels.

> Why do you believe those salaries are the result of the American healthcare system? Per-capita, Americans pay more than anyone for healthcare, just in a very unbalanced way that dramatically favors those with a job over those without.

It doesn't really matter whether or not the salary difference is caused by healthcare or indeed that Americans pay more for healthcare. The only thing that matters is the post-healthcare take-home pay; if that figure is larger in American than Sweden for a given individual, then that individual is economically better off in America pretty much tautologically.

But what matters from the perspective of the American complaining about their healthcare system, though, is if they would be even better off with their same salary but a less fucked up healthcare system.

As long as that seems to be true, you'll see people complaining about it, and they'll have a valid reason for their complaints.

Your point is valid, but I don't think that's what we're talking about in this thread. Rather, we're talking about Europeans and Americans who have the perception that the overall economic situation of professional employees is dramatically rosier in Europe.

Personally, I think we should have a single payer system if only for the fact that it likely better serves poorer Americans.

The other advantage of a universal system is, it still works when you're so sick you lose your job. COBRA is not good enough.

Yeah, I was talking specifically about the "it would be nice to easily take a gap year"-sourced comparison of healthcare alone - though even that apparently is not so pro-Europe after all, with the folks discussing how you'd have to be actively seeking work to be covered.

Notably, Americans pay more per capita for Medicare and Medicaid alone than many European countries pay per capita for universal coverage.

> Regarding comparing tax rates, those six figure job numbers don't include the substantial amount the employer is paying to the healthcare company.

To be fair, in many European countries - and certainly for Sweden - there's substantial payroll taxes paid by employers as well. Though to end up at 65% in Sweden even with employers payroll taxes tacked on, you're already earning a multiple of an average salary.

Most (all?) European health care is not contingent on employment. With a few exceptions (notably the UK) it is contingent on being able to afford it, and one way to do that is following the rules to have the gov't pay for it. It's guaranteed, and highly regulated in price; it's not free.

The easiest way to afford it is to have a job. However, if you are willing to pay more (still much less than equivalent US health insurance, e.g. in Germany around 180€/mo) you can buy it directly. Or, you can participate in that country's social safety net which, yes, usually requires you to actively seek a job (often for some loose definition of "actively.")

This is just semantics. If you have to pay more because of your employment status, then the system in question is contingent on employment for all useful purposes.

The claim is that "European public health insurance is commonly contingent on employment", not "European public health insurance monthly payments vary based on employment status."

The only way you could end up paying more is if you previously made an average amount of money, have a lot of savings, but now make nothing. Normally this is called "retirement" and if you didn't save enough for it, you don't do it.

In Switzerland at least, health insurance is definitely _not_ contingent on employment. It is specifically a private issue.

> I didn't know that European public health insurance was commonly contingent on employment

I'm not sure it is! It's not in the UK, certainly.

Nor is it in France.

Even worse: Unless you pay private insurance yourself, the quality of the free insurance (at your nearest vårdcentralen) is absolutely laughable.

My family of 4 pays about 1800 SEK/month for private insurance to actually have a chance to see a competent doctor.

While I agree that vårdcentralen-level health care is hit or miss, the point is that _everyone_ has a basic level of health care and getting sick won’t bankrupt you.

This has the second-order effect that _I_ won’t have to worry about _someone dear to me_ will be personally bankrupted by a medical condition. It saves me having to decide whether or not I should indebt myself to pay for their treatment.

Not having to raise fundraisers for my family members cancer treatment is worth a whole lot of disposable income for me.

In the US, we pay 5x-10x that amount for a crappy high deductible plan that has measurably worse outcomes than your free insurance.

It is hard to overstate how bad US healthcare is for the typical American. If you are wealthy, you have access to some of the best doctors in the world, but for the rest of us we are entirely dependent on our employer for access to reasonable health care.

The vast majority in Sweden pays nothing like "65% tax rate + 25% vat", though. To get to that tax rate you need to earn far above average.

Someone who is single with no child earning 167% of an average wage pays ~35% income tax and social security contributions [1].

The effective VAT also for most ends up far lower as a proportion of income, as most people don't spend anywhere near their whole income on VAT-rated products. For starters, you can't spend what you've already paid in tax. As such the VAT rate has a relatively low impact on total tax paid - the difference between the UK vat rate when I moved here (at the time 17.5%) and the Norwegian VAT rate of 25% added up to only about 1 percentage point difference in total taxation for me.

[1] Source: OECD Taxing Wages 2021

> The vast majority in Sweden pays nothing like "65% tax rate + 25% vat", though. To get to that tax rate you need to earn far above average.

First of all, the OP is including the social security tax in the 65% figure. But more importantly, arguing that "the average Swede doesn't pay that much in tax" isn't very consoling for the American who would have to (1) take a salary hit to live in Sweden and (2) have to pay that higher tax rate. Universal healthcare doesn't remotely make up the difference in take-home pay.

As a reference point, taxes, retirement/pension/social-security, and healthcare account for ~30% of my gross salary in the U.S. If I moved to just about any Western European country (not sure about Sweden in particular), my take-home pay would likely fall by 40% (conservatively) while taxes and cost of living would likely rise.

Of course, the tradeoff for the Swedish system is that you have a stronger social safety net, which is certainly worth something. But the issue at hand is the notion that the European systems are better than the American system for professional employees.

The numbers I quoted also include the social security taxes (I edited to make that clear, so apologies if you replied before I made that edit). Swedish marginal rates certainly are among the highest in Europe, but the proportion who pay that much is tiny.

And yes, there are people who will end up paying more, and it sucks for them.

The point is there's always this scaremongering about tax rates when it comes to Europe, and most of the time the tax rates that comes up are marginal rates that are not at all representative.

> The point is there's always this scaremongering about tax rates when it comes to Europe, and most of the time the tax rates that comes up are marginal rates that are not at all representative.

As an American, I find the tax rates much less scary than the raw differences in salary. If I could keep my US salary, healthcare, tax rates, etc and move to Europe for a few years, I would do so in a heartbeat.

I don't think that's a considerations for most. Salary differences internally in both the US and Europe are large enough that there's a huge overlap. For my part in the instances where taking US jobs have come up the salary differences ended up being small enough not to be worthwhile.

Tax rates also depends greatly on which locations you're comparing. Between e.g. California and the UK the difference was small enough when I looked into it that it'd be easily eaten up by healthcare.

For my part, I spend about $5k/month total on living costs including sending a kid to private school and mortgage on a 3 bedroom house in London, and ordering food in most days, and I'm being hugely wasteful and could make do with far less of I had to.

The rest goes into investments.

> I don't think that's a considerations for most. Salary differences internally in both the US and Europe are large enough that there's a huge overlap.

How does that work? Presumably if the median salary for a given field is 40% lower, then the jobs which pay at my well-above-the-median salary are going to be much fewer and farther between with more competition. Add to that laws that (understandably) favor EU citizens and it seems like it would be quite difficult to get one's hands on those positions?

> Tax rates also depends greatly on which locations you're comparing. Between e.g. California and the UK the difference was small enough when I looked into it that it'd be easily eaten up by healthcare.

Yeah, like I said, I'm less concerned about tax rates. No surprise that California tax rates are comparable to London tax rates though; California is notoriously expensive and many Californians seem eager to move to other parts of the country.

> How does that work?

The point is that it's meaningless to make blanket statements about whole continents when the differences are so substantial within them, and mobility within them is much less than you might expect. E.g. consider the number of Eastern European developers who could significantly increase their salaries by moving to higher paid locations in Europe, but you instead stay and e.g. work for local agencies. As such, you're not competing against all of Europe if you go to the highest paid locations in Europe any more than you're competing against all of the US in Silicon Valley.

> The point is that it's meaningless to make blanket statements about whole continents when the differences are so substantial within them

Apologies if I'm dense, but I still don't understand. You can have a lot of variance in Europe and the US, but if the median is 40% lower in the Europe than in the US, doesn't it still suggest that any given American moving to Europe would have a dramatically harder time keeping his American salary?

> E.g. consider the number of Eastern European developers who could significantly increase their salaries by moving to higher paid locations in Europe, but you instead stay and e.g. work for local agencies

Fair enough--I wouldn't be competing against all of Europe, but there are far fewer jobs that pay $200K in Paris than, say, Chicago and the number of developers competing for those jobs is probably pretty comparable. I suspect it would be a lot harder for me to make $200K in Paris, but I would love to be wrong.

> Apologies if I'm dense, but I still don't understand. You can have a lot of variance in Europe and the US, but if the median is 40% lower in the Europe than in the US, doesn't it still suggest that any given American moving to Europe would have a dramatically harder time keeping his American salary?

I don't know. That would also depend on what the distribution around the median are in the respective locations. And again, a blanket comparison isn't really useful because you're unlikely to be looking to move to the lower paid places. If the distribution was the same, and you had to move, you'd have a point. But you don't have to move, and so you'll inherently discard a whole lot of places that doesn't fit what you want.

For my skillset and levels, all I know is the number of places in the US where I can earn more than I do in London is fairly small. They exist, and Silicon Valley is one of them, but it's not like there are a lot. So I'd likewise instantly disregard most of the US.

But last time I considered it (I worked for a Palo Alto based startup, and flew over every 6-8 weeks for a couple of years, and I do love the Bay Area - to visit anyway), the costs of living just didn't add up for me. If I'd wanted to, I could have made it work, certainly, but it was not like the financials looked attractive enough to sway me much (either direction).

Things like food were cheaper, but even compared to my house in London, housing in the Bay Area is insane. E.g. I just checked on Zillow again now, and to put it this way: I'd need a fairly massive raise to afford a house similar in size and standards within a similar distance to downtown SF as I am to the centre of London today just to break even on a move. It's likely doable, but it's not all that obvious I'd come out ahead.

[this is while disregarding the complicating factor that I've never had a need to take a drivers license, because I've always lived places where public transport is good enough]

But your mileage may vary - it'll depend greatly on what specifically you value, what niche skills you have, and what type of areas you'd like to live in - all of it greatly affect the financials.

As a self-employed person, my marginal rate starts at over 50% (ignoring the rather insignificant yearly allowance).

As self-employed, you'll be paying social security rates set to cover what would otherwise be paid by the employer via payroll taxes, as otherwise using self employed people would be an easy way of evading tax.

(My point was not to dismiss that you might well pay a very high tax rate, by the way, because the rate you gave is certainly possible, but to point out that paying a rate that high is highly unusually high, even in Sweden)

> You are not getting health insurance in most European countries unless you are working or registered as unemployed and remain at disposal of the local job centre.

Or your partner has health insurance. Or you are studying (even if you take gap year at university). Or you happen to have farming land. Etc, etc - lots of exceptions.

Or you pay for it yourself from your savings (under 100 USD a month last I've checked).

> You are not getting health insurance in most European countries unless you are working or registered as unemployed and remain at disposal of the local job centre.

Not the case in France (at least for the past 20 years), and I doubt it's the case in most other European countries.

>Not the case in France (at least for the past 20 years), and I doubt it's the case in most other European countries.

Nope, your parent is right, in Austria you also don't get healthcare if you don't work or are looking for work via your local job center.

Maybe France is an exception due to having stronger social system that heavily favors the workers (insert memes about strikes) while in Austria the system is very rigid, designed to favor businesses and the government rather than the workers and to discourage abuse.

I'm pretty sure that's not the case in the UK either, given how it's financed.

It is not - you get access to healthcare at all times (employed or otherwise, young or old) and simply pay a slightly higher tax rate when you are working to pay for it.

definitely the case in Germany. If you're unemployment and not looking for a job or exempt from it(sickness, poverty, ...), you're going to need to pay on your own.

So... not the case in Germany. You don't need to be employed or in social programs, you can just pay money. In Germany it's a fixed amount, less than you would pay if you had income, and they can't refuse you.

I know to a European this might sound like the only two options, but pre-Obamacare, and very possibly again if the US can't get its shit together, it was impossible to buy health insurance no matter how much money you had for a large number of unemployed or self-employed people.

> You don't need to be employed or in social programs, you can just pay money

If there are different pricing tiers based on employment status, then the healthcare system is contingent on employment by definition. It's commendable that the American and European healthcare systems aren't contingent on pre-existing conditions, but that's a distinct issue.

If you are employed the employer pays half and if you are not they don't (somewhat obviously, since if they don't exist they can't). This is only "pricing tiers" in the most vapid sense.

That description could just as easily be for the US. Maybe you disagree with the terminology, but when people talk about their health insurance being predicated on their employment, this is what they are talking about.

Obamacare, for all its controversy and limitations, removed the ability to screen for pre-existing condition which was a very important feature. Prior, some people who weren't covered by an employer's group policy simply couldn't get insurance for any amount of money.

Now, yes insurance is expensive, but anyone can get it for about 2x what most people who get healthcare as a benefit are paying into an employer's health care plan.

Right, but since that's no longer a feature of American healthcare, that's not what we're talking about when we compare the US and European systems.

Mostly this.

Maybe it's more lax in the more worker friendly socialist regions like France or Scandinavia but in Austria you only get healthcare coverage if you work or are unemployed and registered as a job seeker which means staying in the country and proving to your local job center on a regular basis that you are looking for work.

Traveling abroad for leisure while unemployed automatically disqualifies you from receiving any healthcare coverage and unemployment benefits until you return.

Doesn't mean there aren't people cheating the system and taking vacations abroad while receiving unemployment but the rules are strict and being caught cheating is really bad for you.

Also doing courses on your own dime during unemployment, that are not on the job center's curriculum, like a boot camp in data science, automatically disqualifies you from unemployment benefits during that period. I tried explaining to my case worker at the job center that a data science certification gives me the opportunity for a better paid job afterwards and I need the unemployment benefits for that period and her response was "sorry sir, that's the law".

Yeah, the system is extremely stupid and archaic in some cases here and if you're an ambitious high achiever it can screw you over sometimes more than it helps you.

In Germany, there is obligatory health insurance (when you're employed in a normal job up to certain income, or receiving welfare), and voluntary insurance (otherwise), but having health insurance is compulsory. In other words, if you're not obliged to have obligatory health insurance, you must take out voluntary insurance.

With some historical context it can be made to make some sense, but when dealing with it the first time it is prima facie absurd.

I find that strange for Austria, considering that in Romania; when unemployed, and not being registered as a job seeker, you can still have insurance.

It's automatic in those situations you've described, but you can buy into the system otherwise.

At today's exchange rate if you'd like to benefit from the healthcare system, for a year, you'd have to make a 271 EUR contribution, with no other criteria required.

The system in Austria is extremely rigid and sometimes verges on idiotic in some cases due to how archaic and pro-business it is.

As a Romanian I can say you'd be surprised how many things the Romanian system gets right in favor of the workers in comparison to some western countries. At least on paper.

How do you figure you have a 65% tax rate in Sweden? Are you including social security contributions?

I certainly am.

Indeed. In Canada if you’re out of the country longer than 6 months you’re not longer insured (in Canada). And in fact, insurance doesn’t cover you outside the country anyways.

Anything that starts "In Canada, ..." is generally suspect. Canada is a confederation. Most things are in the purview of the provinces, so there's rarely a globally applicable rule. Canada does not have a single healthcare system, but thirteen separate provincial and territorial healthcare plans.

You're not guaranteed to be covered for 6 months. If you leave permanently and settle within Canada, BC will cover you for the remainder of the month plus two months (enough time to establish residency in the destination and get coverage). If you leave the country, you are covered for the remainder of the month.

If it's a temporary leave, however, several of the provinces do cover you outside of the province, and many will extend your coverage for quite a long time depending on the circumstances. BC allows you to retain coverage for a 2 year trip during every 5 year period. They also (like many provinces) will extend your coverage as long as you're in school full time in another location.

Fair point on each province being different.

BC does not cover care outside of Canada (assuming that’s what you meant by “2 year trip”) with the exception of emergency care at a max of $75 per day.

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/health-drug-covera...

Varies by province. In Quebec, they have a similar absence rule to what you described (for being outside Quebec even if in another Canadian province), but they entirely exclude absences of under 21 days from the calculation, and they have a bunch of exceptions, including a "once every 7 years" exception for miscellaneous personal reasons including leisure vacations that just requires you to notify them in order to qualify. And in theory they will reimburse expenses outside of Quebec, even outside of Canada, but only at Quebec's very low rates.

Still, yeah, very different than how US health insurance works, agreed.

How many medical bankruptcies occur in those European countries?

That might not be an accurate way to measure it, because "bankruptcy" can mean very different things by country.

In some countries, individuals often don't qualify for bankruptcy. In others you might be able to restructure your debts, but they might not be discharged. In some, you may need to give up significant possessions to pay for your debts.

The US, for all of its healthcare issues, actually has a relatively progressive and accessible bankruptcy system. The majority of people in the US who file Chapter 7 have all of their assets exempted from liquidation by law. For these people, bankruptcy is literally as simple as a matter of trading all of their debt for 10 years of a bad mark on their credit report.

If you live in NY or CA (not sure about other states) and are under retirement age, Medicaid is a thing and works great. No asset limit, just income, so regardless of what you've saved you're likely eligible - so you can quit your job and without paying COBRA things will be ok

Most gap years happen in the early 20s where most Americans can be on their parents coverage. Even if they're not, it's pretty cheap with subsidies for a young healthy person to buy insurance on the marketplace. Possibly even free depending on income.

Though anyone that has bought global health insurance will note that if you opt out of coverage for the US, the price is usually reduced by half.

You can continue your employer insurance for 18 months. But, as you say, it's more out of your pocket because your employer is now no longer subsidizing it.

You're referring to COBRA, and when my wife and I had a month lapse because of her switching jobs, it would have cost us $1300/month to continue her insurance. Not cheap.

I just got off 2 months of it between jobs, was around $1,100 for me as well. Certainly not cheap without the subsidization but also probably not a real concern if you're looking at taking a year off work anyways.

In Germany, I can buy travel health insurance that covers an unlimited number of trips abroad of up to 8 weeks each (including basically any doctors and hospitals abroad, as well as transport back home when medically recommended) for about 15 USD a year, and similar insurance for trips up to 1 year for about 500 USD a year. (Valid worldwide, or excluding North America for a cheaper rate.)

(Recommendations (in German): https://www.finanztip.de/krankenversicherung/auslandsreisekr... )

What’s the limit on that? If it’s like 100-200k then i got bad news for you… also as other thread says they will deny everything that is even remotely chronic and likely also that wasn’t preapproved with them before the visit

Travel insurance doesn't cover chronic stuff, its goal is to make you able to travel home as soon as you able to in case you need long-term treatment.

I don’t think any country with single payer national health care covers travel insurance, so this would not put Americans in any different situation than others who are travelling for that gap year, which seems to be the topic here.

It assume it depends on the destination. I suspect most European healthcare systems cover you in most of Europe (maybe Schengen or EU?) while American systems only cover you in America. But yes, I suspect traveling to Africa or Asia puts the American and the European on equal footing.

It might get a bit more common since after the ACA you can stay on your parent's health insurance till you're 26 now if they have it.

If you aren’t earning an income you can get free healthcare

Citation?

How about the entirety of the US medicaid program? If you literally have no income you get free healthcare, even if you have limited income you may qualify for Medicaid or a heavily discounted marketplace plan.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid

Based on that article, the programs vary widely by state including eligibility standards and rates of reimbursement.

> As of 2013, Medicaid is a program intended for those with low income, but a low income is not the only requirement to enroll in the program. Eligibility is categorical—that is, to enroll one must be a member of a category defined by statute; some of these categories are: low-income children below a certain wage, pregnant women, parents of Medicaid-eligible children who meet certain income requirements, low-income disabled people who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and/or Social Security Disability (SSD), and low-income seniors 65 and older.

This makes it seem like it's not just "low income", but also membership in one of those other categories.

I also didn't see anything on the page that indicated what share of expenses were covered by medicaid, but perhaps I missed it.

Though I suspect it's a lot more complicated than calling them up, telling them you've decided to take a gap year, and asking for your insurance card. It also wouldn't surprise me, never having looked into it, if the coverage is US only.

There's an online form where you upload your info, they verify your income level (duration does not matter), and that's it (at least in NY). I don't think any government healthcare programs cover care outside that government's country, do they? I suppose the EU ones cover care in other EU countries but that's the only case I can think of.

Maybe a western/northern european thing to do.

In eastern Europe it's normal for your degree to take anywhere from 1-3 year longer than it should have for various reasons including "taking a year off to chill", but actual, planned gap years where you're not in education are basically unheard of. Let alone gap years where you travel around and spend money.

I know a few people who signed up for master degrees in say Germany and found that almost everyone in the program is a few years older then them.

> I know a few people who signed up for master degrees in say Germany and found that almost everyone in the program is a few years older then them.

Is that because of gap years, or an interest in actually getting industry experience before continuing academic education? I think I was about 6 years into my career before I thought I could really squeeze a lot of value out of a graduate program. (I didn't ever go back for one, though.)

The Bologna alignment in Germany created a lot of weird situations. The old Diplom degree varied a lot and could be counted as a bachelors or masters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplom#International_compariso...) leading to some Germans to go back to get a firm masters. Also if it was more than 10 years ago, some Germans I know did their first degree, then their conscripted service, then their second, which caused a 1-2 year gap.

It is a very popular thing to do in the UK before or after university. Around 20% of people at my university did the whole travel around Europe or Australia thing.

Edit - Sorry, see all the peer comments made the same point.

I'm studying at a UK university too, and I always scratch my head as to how on earth people get the money to travel around Europe or Australia before they go to uni. Who funds it?

> Who funds it?

Generally, I think family does. Some families have more money than others. It also depends how much the parents are willing and able to sacrifice, of course.

The same way you might scratch your head wondering how some fellow students pay for rentals you can't imagine affording, and alcohol binges you can't imagine affording. Students from poorer families rarely go on gap years. But even some poorer parents will sacrifice a lot, if they can find a way, to pay for their children to travel.

That said, the costs aren't outrageous. Travelling around Europe or Australia is fairly cheap for a young person (or at least used to be). There are schemes to allow travelling costs to be lower for young people, visas tend to be cheaper and easier to get, and people do local, temporary work e.g. in bars in kitchens to supplement the money they brought with them, to make it last longer.

I went to university in the UK a long time ago. And I struggled to understand how people afforded gap years (or rent) then, too. I never had a gap year, and it makes me a little sad. But as I couldn't even afford to eat regular meals, and certainly couldn't join people for socialising when they went out to places like Pizza Hut (too expensive), it was the right decision not to take a gap year :/

There is a wide distribution of wealth in capitalist societies, and a lot of it is hidden from sight. Financing a relatively low-budget formative and educational gap year is something thrifty and financially conservative people would do for their kids.

I had my moments, worrying about a friend's finances and professional decisions, only to learn later that, well, there was clearly nothing to worry about.

The exchange rate is what makes it possible. Any $1000USD goes a long way in many places. If you save $24.000USD you can live like an itinerant mid-to-upper-middle-class for a full year in most or all of Latin America, for example.

Yup. When I played online poker for a living for a bit after college, coming home for a few months and staying with my parents was more expensive than traveling.

Here in Brazil minimum wage is currently in USD a bit less than $200/month. In my city, which is one of the biggest, you can live confortably with $400/month in my lifestyle, which admitedly is quite frugal. $2k month is quite high-class imo.

> trust fund crowd

You're on a discussion board filled with software developers and tech employees generally. The vast majority of such workers make a lot of money. If you're working in tech and you can't bank enough to take 6m-1yr off, you're doing your finances wrong. It doesn't require a trust fund to avoid the hedonic treadmill and save up.

Heck, I’m a poor grad student who gets a stipend from my program and is lucky enough to have parents willing and able to pay my rent. My total income including that family support is probably around $40k and I saved a ton of money this past year since I couldn’t do anything. I can only imagine how much someone in my situation with a FAANG income would have saved.

Obviously if your parents are paying your largest expense, you can save a ton of money. I would assume most people aren't that fortunate.

My point is even with that money my income isn’t that high compared to software engineers.

Understood, but your expenses as a student are also unlikely to be very high, especially if your parents are covering rent/medical/etc, especially if you're comparing to SWEs in SV.

If you were suddenly responsible for your room and board how long could you coast without a job or other support?

As long as my grad school stipend keeps going. I just wouldn't be able to save anymore.

> If you're working in tech and you can't bank enough to take 6m-1yr off, you're doing your finances wrong.

Why would you assume to know what other people's financial situations are, let alone their wage scale in an industry where not everyone is a US-based SWE?

Not to mention, even if you can save this much, put it in your 401(k), not a vacation savings account. The financial impact of taking a whole year without pay in your 20s probably adds 5 years to your retirement date, due to compounding interest and investment growth. Is it really worth it, just so you can fill your Insta with pictures of you windsurfing in Ibiza?

Counter-point: Enjoy your youth while you're young.

There's a balance to find between saving for retirement and not spending your entire adulthood just working towards it.

You may not be able to windsurf anywhere in your 50s...

If you're writing so much software you hang out on HackerNews for fun, and you're not saving enough to max out your 401k AND have savings left over for 6 months off, you're doing your finances wrong (and/or you can get a 4x pay bump in a new job)

Most people here, even most software engineers, don’t make the sky high salaries that “very high-level FAANG engineers who also live in the Bay Area” make. Many have families, kids, education expenses, parents they support, expensive health issues, etc. It’s a huge assumption to think that everyone on HN can max out a 401(k) at all, let alone have any left over to save and blow on extended unpaid vacations.

EDIT: Obviously (from the voting) I hit a raw nerve with that original comment. Who knew “save for retirement” was such controversial advice. I personally plan to ensure I do not have to eat dog food when I’m 80 because I partied in my 20s but I guess to each their own. Given the average American’s retirement savings rate, my plan is clearly unpopular!

So you're saying that you're single-handedly pulling in between 2x and 5x the median household US income, yet can't set aside $20k a year for your 401k?

That means you're either not living on a budget at all, or you're doing something ridiculous like paying out of pocket for prescription medication without using the ACA.

Oh I hang out on Hacker News for fun but it comes at the expense of not "writing so much software" ;)

Why wait until one is old to have fun? Why assume one will even live to enjoy retirement? Can one even pick up windsurfing at a typical retirement age?

I took off 3 years in my 20’s. 34 now, and back on track to retire in my early 40’s. Saving for retirement and enjoying life today are not mutually exclusive.

This sums up my (admittedly naive) view towards retirement. Why would I sacrifice so much of my youth for a future so far down the road that I will 1) most definitely be in worse shape for, and 2) may not even reach? I think the wringer of grad school is enough of an investment in my future.

"Is it really worth it, just so you can fill your Insta with pictures of you windsurfing in Ibiza?"

Do you really think all these folks want to do is fill their Instagram with pictures of windsurfing in Ibiza?

That misses the entire point of travel. It isn't to show off on instagram (although that can be a fun component, it isn't the driver for 99% of people); it isn't to tell other people you did it.

It is to have this amazing experience with a foreign culture and place. And that is very hard to value.

Yes, planning for retirement is important. But you may also be dead before you get there. It takes balance.

It depends on the person. I think I'd rather go windsurfing in my 20s then try to do it in my 60s when my health is not as good. I probably won't remember posting it on Instagram, but I will remember going wind surfing.

I agree. I had two weeks off between grad school and my current job. I’ve been maxing out my 401k for 25 years and have zero debt (mortgage paid off 2 years ago). Could actually retire now at 49.

Yeah, I easily make twice as much as I spend.

So I take a year of now and then, if I feel like it.

Do you ever find this makes finding a new job on return difficult?

> Do you ever find this makes finding a new job on return difficult?

I am not the same person you asked the question to, but I guess if you work on a couple of hobby projects and actually release those in your break year, you won't have holes in your CV.

Good point. I guess it depends on what kind of break you want...

Job searching with "stranger" companies becomes harder.

But if you leave enough coworkers who want to work with you again at each job, you can always find jobs through them.

Yep, makes sense :-)

If you make twice as much as you need without being extremely frugal, you likely have the skills to compensate that.

Sure if you don't have a family to provide for. It turns out that it becomes a lot harder to take a gap year when you've still got a spouse and little people depending on you.

I don't see this as much different from "sure, if you don't have a million dollar mortgage and 2 car payments to cover!"

Having a family is partially a financial decision. People should make the decision with eyes wide open, having planned for it. Achieving a financial position above sustenance before having the expensive family is generally a good idea. Same as buying the house and cars.

You are thinking from the point of view of someone with no mortgage, no family and you can choose what to do with your spare income. Some of us have a family or a house and that means they have renounced traveling.

You can have a family, a house be sustainable but not earning enough to be able to pay for a year off of work. Which is the lot of 99.99% of people on this planet.

You can travel with your family too. You won't be able to quit your job, go backpacking, and stay in youth hostels.

But, you can go on road trips, go camping, you can take a cruise, or find an all inclusive resorts. You won't have as much time for yourself like you did in your youth, but you can still travel and you'll make memories with your family, and show them new things about the world.

> You can have a family, a house be sustainable but not earning enough to be able to pay for a year off of work.

I think we have different definitions of "sustainable", then.

What you're describing sounds one step up from living paycheck to paycheck. And the fact that "most people are in that position!" doesn't make it a good position to be in, or a necessary one.

Having a family is the bedrock of society. If only the top 10% of earners had one, we'd find ourselves in some trouble.

Yes and no. Depends on your seniority and where you live to some degree. I was pretty burnt out at 28 after a year that included things like a 110 hour work week. At the time I couldn't afford 6 months or a year off.

I did take a year off 2 years later.

That's not true everywhere.

I learnt of this sort of thing only after I moved to the UK, where it's traditional for wealthy and middle-upper-class kids to take a long break between college and university - a habit that probably comes from the times of the "grand tours" of continental Europe in XVIII and XIX century.

I've met people who do it on a 6-months basis - 6 months travelling, 6 months earning. They don't make much, their career is somewhat stalled, it would have probably ended when/if they had a kid, but they did it. They were conscious that they were sacrificing something (money, comforts) in exchange for this lifestyle.

Its pretty common for ordinary middle class kids - and remember in the UK a degree is three years not the US four years (or even longer in Europe)

Bit harder now post Brexit though

Between Brexit and COVID most of the typical destinations are out for a while, by the sound of it.

Almost all of the people I knew who did gap years before or after university went to either Australia or New Zealand (from the UK) following a three teaching-year degree with an extra industrial placement year - Australia in particular have (had?) a scheme where someone can live and work for a year with few restrictions provided they are under 30, and could extend that to two years if working in a rural area for some of that time.

It's called the working holiday visa. I went to New Zealand on that after my first job. You have to work in agriculture for 3 months to extend your one year visa.

This is my experience too. The impact on career progression is very minimal when it done intentionally. There are of course people who think it's a lark, but before 2020 there were many folks developing skills that will catapult them forward after they graduated.

I've moved to the US and can see how things are very different culturally with regard to travel. Others have mentioned that the US is not into backpacking. I think it's less about that, and more about travel being a prize for retirement.

I've seen this changing a bit in my time in the US, but it's still the norm for a lot of people who then end up being unable to travel. The US has many more people who are skilled and equipped for a backpacking lifestyle than I found in the UK.

>Others have mentioned that the US is not into backpacking.

I assume "backpacking" in this context tends to mean riding trains around Europe, staying in hostels/couchsurfing/etc.

The US has a fair bit of backpacking and camping in National Parks/Forests/long-distance trails although it's not necessarily a fully mainstream activity. But much less of the "European-style" backpacking.

I think it's partly a difference of scale and ability to get around without a car once you get out of a handful of (mostly expensive) cities.

There is no UK wide education system - first degrees in Scotland are usually 4 years.

In the US, before Jerry Garcia died, it used to be called 'touring with the Dead'

I wonder if maternity/paternity leave laws in UK have any affect on making this more feasible?

My understanding is that workers get a year of maternity leave, a few weeks of paternity leave, and there is some sort of sharing arrangement whereby maternity leave can be used to extend paternity leave.

When maternity/paternity leave ends, the worker must be given their job back.

I'd expect that at many employers they can't just have the work that someone on leave would have done go undone so they are going to have to bring on someone else to do it--someone who knows that they will only be needed until the person they are filling in for comes back from leave.

Thus, I'd expect there to be a need across nearly all industries and at nearly all skill levels for people who want to fill a 6 month to a year opening.

Compare to the US (Federal 12 weeks maternity leave if your company has 50 people, no legally required maternity leave otherwise--individual states sometimes add more), where openings for people to work a temporary job for a few months tend to either be low end jobs or very specialized consulting jobs. The former don't pay enough to afford a 6 on/6 off lifestyle, and the latter are out of reach of most people. There aren't many good middle-class jobs to support 6 on/6 off.

Maternity temping is definitely a thing. Also, hospitality - outside London, the flow of tourists is typically too low in the Winter months to sustain jobs, but picks up significantly in Summer. The Christmas Rush also starts around mid-October now, in terms of recruiting, so that will give you around 3 months of steady employment in bookshops and other retail.

I did this. I worked for the year cleaning toilets. It’s not all rich middle class folk who do it :)

It's interesting reading the comments on HN because, although everyone isn't making say $300-600k+ TC/yr here, I think it's safe to assume the TC distribution shifts the median earner here safely above the median US earner, perhaps by even a multiple of two. This, in theory means if you lived a lifestyle akin to a median labor earner, you should only need to work about half the amount--part time, every other year, FIRE / retire early strategies and so on.

Most the advice is quite the opposite (and I would agree with them). To me, this really shows just how toxic the control is across the labor force. Job mobility is about the only vote or voice you have if you're in the labor force and if empty positions can be readily filled, you have no voice. The only reason things are interesting now is because the mass layoffs and turnover haven't been well stagged due to the pandemic so labor has more leverage. When true unemployment returns to norms, positions are largely re-filled, and attrition begins to follow traditional rates, the voice of the labor market voting will their feet will again fall on deaf ears and your voice will again disappear in the noise. It would take another global catastrophe to change this balance and give labor a voice again.

I know quite a few people from various background (finance, multinational corporations, non-profits) doing things like these. Depends on employer. In hindsight always regarded as one of the best decisions of their lives (along with reducing workload to 80%, usually 4 days/week).

We all know that once old, the amount of money earned/saved will mean absolutely nothing in terms of happiness/achievement. Work achievements for office type jobs mean mean even less. The life lived well will mean everything. So some act accordingly when/if possible.

I haven't done gap year myself, but did a shorter variant - 2 times 3 months backpacking around India and Nepal. Remote Himalaya in the north, swimming in coral reefs on Amdamans, Thar desert in the west, and thousands of years of history, culture and people to meet everywhere in between. I still barely scratched the surface of what this place can offer.

Literally the best decision in my life. It changed me for the better. It motivated me to make changes in my career, go for consulting, move to Switzerland etc.

Have met tons of people from all over the world who were like this - traveling like this for 3-24 months, and then continuing work/study/beginning someplace else.

These trips I've done when having a pretty high mortgage and very little savings, and they both meant losing at least 2 salaries each time while expenses mounted. No rich family to cover for me anyhow if I would hit the financial wall. Still well worth the risk. If one doesn't have kids yet, there is practically nothing to lose with doing this, just gain.

> We all know that once old, the amount of money earned/saved will mean absolutely nothing in terms of happiness/achievement.

I dont think this is true at all. Money in retirement means the difference between mostly maintaining your standard of living after work an “choosing between medicine and food each week”. I think a lot of people saving up and then spending all their savings to party every 5 years are in for a shock when they are 60 and their joints are sore and their knees don’t work and they can no longer make a salary.

US vs Europe perspective - here you can rely on healthcare much more to actually take care of you while not ruining you. One of the benefits of not living in a society which more in the mode of 'everybody for themselves, and fuck the rest'

> Maybe I don't hang out with the trust fund crowd enough

I'm not sure that's a fair characterization of people taking a gap year, especially people in tech. The industry pays well relatively early and there is a surplus of jobs. If you keep your expenses low relative to your salary, don't let your lifestyle inflate beyond your means, and are fortunate enough not to be burdened with debt, health problems, or other large expenses, a gap year seems completely doable.

I think failure to save money is by far the most likely reason sabbaticals are uncommon, though I've been told by hiring managers they're more common in tech than you'd think. There's also probably some stigma against being unemployed, especially in professional circles, as well as fear of the dreaded "resume gap." As far as I can tell, that concern is fairly overblown for those in tech as well.

In the Europe I know, "sabbatical" means unpaid time off (commonly 6 months) while staying with the company. You don't get paid and don't accrue holidays/other benefits, but continue right where you left off when you're back.

I think option for this is required by law in some countries, though I've never taken it so I'm not exactly sure.

My former company allowed this after two years of continuous employment to let employees try their wings with building their own product. I thought this was pretty cool, and definitely a recruitment carrot. On the downside (for the company) lots of those colleagues ended up leaving after their sabbatical was up, but I figure that those people would have left soonish anyway. It's not like they would've had a problem getting a new job.

I did. I took a year and sailed. Sold my house and used some savings. I couldn't have done it if I had kept my house though. I was mid 30's at the time (40 now). I don't work in the valley though, I just do data and analytic design for corporations so finding a new job only took a week when I moved back to Columbus, OH after sailing.

While I did figure out I didn't love single handing a sailboat long term I don't regret any part of that year. I came back significantly happier than I was.

OP here, learning to sail is one of my dreams and a potential candidate for first thing Ill want to do this year after quitting. Do you have any tips? I have some very small experience in it.

In Germany, gap years after school or sometimes university are pretty common (at least for the middle class). They do often work, but rarely in a field related to what they studied or want to do. Instead, it’s travel-financing jobs.

It used to be that it was more a thing for women, but that probably changed since draft was abandoned (before that the gap year for men would usually have been military service or alternative civilian service)

Are you sure about middle class O_o

Higher-middle and upper class more likely? Kids which need to earn their money usually go straight into apprenticeship or university and earn money promptly.

Might be a difference in terminology tbh.

In the UK "upper class" is used almost exclusively for aristocrats. No matter how rich you are, unless there is a viable way for you to hold a title (e.g. Earl), you will not be considered upper class.

Middle class is basically anyone who does knowledge work and has aspirations of home ownership.

Your description of "Kids which need to earn their money usually go straight into apprenticeship or university and earn money promptly" would be very likely to be working class kids in the UK i.e. unlikely to be middle class.

And technically upper class is doesn't need to work and can live of investments / property.

Its a bit more complex in the UK ABc1 is middle but their are social distinctions dependant on job not income.

For example A Plumber Miner or train driver might make more than an engineer but would be working class.

Basically what sort of honour would you get for doing charity work is a good marker

In the UK it's very common. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... is some UK gov research that suggests it's about 20% of UK university students, which matches my experiences.

Obviously it's easier with rich parents, but it doesn't really require as much cash as you're imagining. It's pretty common to work a little first then use all the cash to travel later for example, or to work while you travel, e.g. by teaching English (TEFL - https://www.tefl.org/blog/why-tefl-on-your-gap-year/).

Doesn't university student already imply financial security? I don't know how socialist education is in the UK nowadays. I know in the Netherlands it used to be that your education is effectively paid for (either free / you get a scholarship like I did, or a very attractive loan scheme). But they changed the system so it's a loan for everyone now, which will put a damper on how many people go to college / university AND everybody that graduates will be in debt, which works against them if they're looking for a house in an already overheated market.

The loan in the UK is effectively a tax, and doesn’t really directly play into anything when getting a mortgage for example (but of course your take home is reduced)

The point is though - you don’t get anything at all until you actually attend classes. So taking a gap year means having to fund it yourself, or have generous parents but what this comments author describes is closer to ‘normal’ - a large number, not necessarily a majority, of 18year olds will plan out a gap year contingent on taking a part time job at some point and then using that to fund travel or something - before taking up a place on a course (and hence receiving the money)

If you have luck/motivation/connections/skillset - you might find a job related to your (future) degree too. I knew several people on my CS course who worked IT support at a local office for a few months whilst living with their parents - then set off on a backpacking trip somewhere exotic.

It's a bit above £9000 a year but everyone gets a student loan guaranteed, same with some level of means tested maintenance loan. This means that it's usually a "free" upfront cost to go to uni, however you eventually have to pay it off once you become financially eligible to do so

Your last point is important. If you don't earn enough, the loan is never repaid. Also, in the last 10 years or so the cost was tripled.

Not really. It's not free, but its dramatically cheaper than the US, and usually paid via government-provided loans with good terms (low interest, fixed repayment of 9% percent of your salary above a reasonable minimum, taken automatically by employers). It's closer to a graduate tax than a traditional loan.

Everybody can have a loan for the full cost if they want one, people from poorer families get outright grants instead.

Certainly not perfect, but my impression is it hasn't significantly hindered uptake from lower income students and its not a major financial burden in practice.

That's not been my experience here in the UK. Plenty of my friends spent 6 months working to pay for 6 months of low-budget travelling before heading off to university or whatever they were planning to do next (or sometimes they hadn't figured out what they were wanting to do next yet)

Yeah, I am sure (or at least for the time I left school around 15 years ago) I’d even include upper-lower class.

Do we really have a precise scale for those things?

People tend to flip flop between the classical "wealthy people but not born into centuries old familial wealth on the top end and successful doctors, lawyers and financial professionals on the bottom end" definition and the "blue collar workers plus or minus a little" definition based on whichever is more convenient for the point they are trying to make that minute.

Basically the GP is using the former definition and the person you're replying to is using the latter definition.

Crap on the Marxists all you want but they do at least have a fairly unambiguous taxonomy for these distinctions.

Most HN readers would be more than a little flummoxed at what "middle class" actually is in the US. The median household income is somewhere between $50-60k depending on where you look. The median individual income is a solid $15-20k less than that. And yet people will still nearly break their own spine trying to convolute a $200k cash comp tech worker as "middle class" because they happen to pay $4k/mo for a shared apartment in San Francisco.

Well that depends on whether you're defining middle class as an income or a lifestyle. If the latter, I would certainly not consider any shared living arrangements as "middle class" in the US. Even if your income band puts you in the top 1%. Now, it's quite possible that they're choosing a lesser lifestyle now in order to save and transition to another lifestyle elsewhere. That's what my brother did -- two years in SV saving as much as possible, then moved back to Seattle and bought a house.

This is why any of these definitions get really murky, fast.

> at what "middle class" actually is in the US.

I think it is deeper than that, the country just has a confused relationship with the entire concept of class by both rejecting and embracing it.

Its "class" we are talking about here and it does exist in the US compare Bill Gates vs Steve Jobs and Woz.

Are those three not in the same "class"?

While Gates was richer than Jobs, once you're in the $100B vs. $10B, you're mostly in the keeping score category. Woz is apparently worth about $100M which is still in the you can buy pretty much anything you want category. So I would say yes.

On the other hand, someone who is worth, say, $10M or $20M is obviously still quite wealthy. But not necessarily in the doesn't need to think twice about hopping on a private plane or owning a private island category.

Not initially anyway its not all about money

So what is it about? You're acting like we should all know what you mean. Typically when someone talks about class they referring to income, wealth, and sometimes debt.

> Basically the GP is using the former definition

I actually oriented myself more on the numbers for Germany. Which means middle class is a single household with about 2000€ net income per month. That includes a lot of trade workers. It is perfectly possible to finance a gap year without or just minor parental support.

You do not need to be a trust fund kid to travel the world cheaply. I did when I was 23 (2004-ish) and realized I didn't like working. Took out a credit card with 5k credit limit, saved money for a month or two (I was making 40k so not exactly tons). Bought a ticket to Eastern Europe, kicked around hostels for a few months, when I finally almost ran out of money, bought a ticket back. I met other people who picked up side jobs in hostels or bars to help cover their costs too.

What you can't do is continue to have an expensive quality of life if you're no longer producing income.

I did. I took almost a year off. It cost me about $35k in 2005 USD.

I was really burnt out. But I'm not sure that taking the time did anything for me. I was a little stressed about the "unknown" the whole time and I mostly wish I had left that money in my savings.

Your mileage may vary.

A good fraction of people I’ve come across in uni in the US have taken gap years (or just take forever to finish college). This is not normal for regular immigrants these days. I did not have saturdays off from when I was 15 till I turned 32. Even then I was in a tech job which had great vacation but still not months at a time. It’s literally alien for folks like us to have an entire year where we don’t need to report to anything at all. I wish the OP the best, I’m still waiting for the day I can do the same but that’s at least years away.

I have many rock climbing friends who live on less than 15k a year. They often do it for years, working seasonally 3-5 months a year. the trick is to go somewhere with a very cheap lifestyle. It can be accomplished by living in your car in the mountains, or traveling to SE Asia, etc. The climbing provides something to do and a sense of community.

There are other cultures like this. I’ve seen kids from Europe doing a gap year staying in hostels for very little (they sometimes do some light work for the hostel to get a free place to stay)

I only heard about it from friends here in UK, and they would typically do it between collage and uni. Thats when I came here and had to start working to support myself.

Pretty common for a sizeable portion of high school graduates in Australia to take a gap year either immediately after graduation or after their first year of uni

Here in the UK _most_ of the people I met at university didn't know gap years were an option. Post university it's been the same. The few who do take it absolutely love it. I personally didn't know either until I met a few people at university who got to the UK through the Erasmus programme.

It's sad really. As a young person this is the time to be able to do it. Often as you get older life gets in the way. I've been wanting to do it ever since I found out about it but every time something else has gotten in the way. If you're young and reading this, and everything has aligned for you, take a gap year or two.

You might be surprised by what is possible when you set goals and live below your means. You might also be surprised by how little money it costs to take off a year mid-career.

When I finished university, I had a few weeks between graduation and my start date at a well known Midwestern embedded electronics company. I had a $7k signing bonus and I found a $500 round trip ticket to Rome, so I went to Rome. While I was there, I learned about the world of backpacking and hostels. I ended up spending 6 weeks in Europe before returning home. During that time I decided that travel was something I wanted to pursue in my life.

The salary at my entry level SWE job was $58k, which was pretty modest. I didn’t buy a new car. I didn’t buy a new house. I cooked most meals at home and I brought lunch to work. I tracked my expenses and budget using Mint, and set a goal to save $30k so I could leave and travel in SE Asia where I calculated the daily burn rate should be around $30/day. After three years I hit my savings goal and bought a one way ticket to Hawaii, then from Hawaii to Thailand. I ended up spending over a year outside of the country and returned home with a $10k cushion to get back on my feet.

The biggest leg up I had was graduating with $2000 in student loan debt, but that was made possible mostly through merit based scholarships. No trust fund.

I inspired a friend to do the same thing, except with a destination of Australia on a working holiday visa. Also no trust fund, just living below his means and saving over time.

My advice to you is to find a way to do the things you want to do instead of limiting yourself with beliefs that only the ultra-rich can take time off from work to pursue personal passions.

This differs by gender. A married woman taking time off for domestic/child rearing/continuing education is very common. An adult male, it’s very uncommon unless you’re rich, which most posters here obviously are.

You hear a heck of a lot more about it on HN than happens in reality.

In my industry, and the one my wife works in, if you have a gap year it's a red flag that makes potential employers wonder if you got fired from your last job and just aren't listing it, or did time in prison, or are simply unreliable.

It's great that in the tech bubble people don't think much about gap years. But in the real world, they can doom your chances of getting a new job.

Especially since these days you don't get to explain the gap since your application is vetted, filtered, and ranked by a computer and not a person.

It’s not very difficult to do financially if you don’t mind moving to a lower cost of living country. You can live pretty well for 20k USD in many parts of the world.

I did a gap year at 25 and I only had 20k in savings and I traveled all over SE Asia and East Africa on that. Was a blast.

Few do that in France. Is it because we already have plenty of PTO (5 weeks, plus often 12 more days because the legal week is 35 hours but we usually do more)?

Anyway, I took a gap time at age 36 for a 3 months trip in South America. And this allowed me to take an turn in my career when I came back.

well, it's not usual for first-gen immigrants doing a gap year unless rich, so i applaud parent for living his dream. it's pretty usual in western europe for middle-class children doing this.

Is it a gap year if you do something in-between jobs? I've done that

Reply on news.ycombinator.com