Hacker News Reader

Comment by r24y | Hacker News Reader

Flight costs are a pain, and the flight durations are nothing to sneeze at either. I live out in Guam (my wife is stationed here with the Navy) and the two most common ways to get back to the mainland are via Tokyo (Narita) and Honolulu.

I would definitely encourage visiting if you have the means! I find there are two types of people here: those who feel limited by the island and its infrastructure (no Target, no Starbucks, etc.) and those who enjoy its incredible outdoor environment. Some of the best snorkeling and scuba diving in the world is right here, and as for hiking: we've been hiking very frequently for the two years since we arrived and haven't gotten bored yet. Depending on where you go on the island, the terrain and plant life looks very different.

View on HN

No Target, but there's a very good Kmart! Plus, anyone with a military connection has access to the exchanges, which are effectively tax-free Targets.

Most of the domestic tourists I saw around Guam (I was stationed there for a stretch) were divers. I don't know that I'd recommend it for the average non-diving traveler over cheaper-to-get-to alternatives unless it's someone who's specifically looking for the remote character of Guam (and in that case, there are less developed islands that can be gotten to more cheaply).

I thought about retiring in Guam someday since Medicare would actually work there. But I can’t imagine it is much nicer than Bali or some parts of Thailand I’m also thinking about (if my health is good 20 years later), and it’s definitely more expensive than.

Bali is a victim of it's success unfortunately.

OTOH I would guesstimate Guam to be much more politically stable than Bali or Thailand.

Thailand perhaps (although I'd note that political instability in Thailand is carefully done to avoid disturbing the tourism industry in anyway).

But it's been many years (25? If you count Timor crisis?) since any significant political disturbance in Bali/Indonesia and only 3 years since a coup attempt in Guam/USA.

I visited Thailand multiple times just after military coups, and the only thing I noticed was more things getting poached from my checked luggage. Oh, and sometimes the big shopping malls in Bangkok are closed.

Bali did have that bombing just after 9/11 a while back. Sort of ancient history anyways, but I've loved my trips there.

The Bali bombing was in 2002. I don't think that counts as political instability unless 9/11 counts as political instability.

Bali is incredibly hot and humid

Is it really that different from Guam? It seems to have a similar hot and humid climate, they are both islands of similar size, Bali is just closer to the equator.

It may not be that different from Guam, but I was comparing it (I guess, without making that clear, my bad) to more temperate retirement areas, than Guam.

I'm sure it's based on preference and tolerance, but very hot humid heat just saps all the enjoyment of life out of me when I'm outside, unless I'm on a sailboat or in a pool with a cold drink in my hand.

Bali has a bunch of weird microclimates, so it isn't that bad. Like, you can just go up to the volcano and the temperature is really different.

My family and I loved our time there (Navy as well).

We almost retired there, but my son's health condition(s) precludes that.

Space-A is how we flew back during our tour there, and if you know the tricks it work great. If you don't it's a nightmare.

My father was stationed in Guam for a couple of years during the Korean War but he was in the Navy. And then when I was getting mustered out of the Navy 40 years ago I landed on Guam briefly on a flight out of Kobe Japan, on my way to Hawaii

I get the feeling that Hawaii takes all the US tourism for tropical islands. In a hypothetical scenario where Hawaii didn't exist maybe Guam would be more popular?

But maybe it's better this way.

It’s so much farther than Hawaii that my guess is that overall tourism numbers would be much less.

> those who feel limited by the island and its infrastructure (no Target, no Starbucks, etc.)

I hate those people. I live in a city of 1.5 million (there's everything here), and it's a constant background radiation talking point for a significant number of my highschool friends: how unfortunate they are that they don't live in the nearby city of 15 million. IME this constant moping has everything to do with the amount of social media one consumes daily.

> it's a constant background radiation talking point for a significant number of my highschool friends: how unfortunate they are that they don't live in the nearby city of 15 million. IME this constant moping has everything to do with the amount of social media one consumes daily.

Well, you've managed to one-up them in how tiresome and cliched your talking point is.

There is quite a bit of difference between the inconvenience of not having a Target that gets frequent shipments of a wide variety of goods which help ease daily life, and not having the amenities of a 15M person city versus a 1.5M person city.

My biggest pain point of remote island life is not having access to a variety of affordable dairy foods.

I understand. That's why I wrote "(there's everything here)". To clarify, I don't like those people because of their thankless and complaining attidude to the life.

I mean some like hyperdense megacities and everything that comes with it bleeding edge/underground scene for X, 24 hours life, close proximity to people. It's completely alien to me as well but why look down on people liking different things?

It's interesting. I live in London UK, which some might think of as a megacity - though when I look at the biggest cities in the orient (Singapore, Shenzhen etc) London feels like Hobbiton in comparison. I suppose what you're used to becomes your "zero line", and one inevitably assesses other places relative to that.

Nobody wants to be the only gay in the village.

Guam’s population is 169 thousand, about 10% of the city where you live. It is an island 3,800 miles from Hawaii. I doubt that this situation is comparable to yours.

169.000 ? Funny, I live in a city of 15.000, not even in the city, and think its way too crowded. So much that i'm actually thinking of moving to a 100 ppl village, closest "city" 3000 ppl. Never even been in a starbucks, nor wanting to, I guess preferences differ. Remote work is a blessing.

>>guess preferences differ.

That is a very important realization and self awareness, alaways :)

Fwiw I lived in 600k-2m cities most of my life. I now moved to a 50k city (for love :) ,but problem is it's a satellite city - a 50k city in rural Minnesota or Manitoba will be a local centre with many amenities and a certain vibe. A 50k city on the greater Toronto area is just a commute residential park.

Anyhoo, I always enjoy people complaining about city becoming bigger because... They themselves moved here! If you moved to that 100ppl place you would be the problem, the 101st person- while likely complaining about other people moving in and ruining it for everyone :). It's like when I'm stuck in traffic and people in the car with me get annoyed "where do all these people think they have to be on a Sunday morning???" - erm, just like us you mean? :)

I've visited Charleston and Huntington, WV. I went to all the 'hippy' spots (the only festival in the area, the farmer's market, bar with gigs, a museum on the outskirts). US 50k cities have less infrastructures and cultural events than 10k cities in my country to be honest, i can quite understand your peers (you also have really good small towns like Fayetteville, WV, if you like outdoorsy stuff and physical activities, but I guess when I was 15, kayaking and rock climbing would have gotten old quite fast).

Picking metro areas in a state that has suffered prolonged economic malaise is a bizarre way to make conclusions about the amenities of a typical U.S. midsized city.

Funny thing, I'm originally from Huntington, WV. My fiance has never been to WV, and we're thinking of skipping the trip to Huntington and just meeting my family in Fayetteville for a weekend trip.

It is an interesting idea to explore: Why do humans predominantly want to live in bigger and bigger groups. Sure, there are a few people that want to live out in the country, but cities are big because people want to be there. Humans like groups.

For the vast majority of city dwellers, they are there either because 1) they grew up there and that's where most of their social connections are, or 2) that's where the jobs are. The reason why cities even grew to the size in the first place is because of the economics of the Industrial Revolution - and, in some places like the USSR, deliberate policies to force the rural population into the cities to man all those factories. We don't actually know the real preferences until those factors are out of the equation.

Bigger groups of people allow for better economies of scale and allow for a wider variety of businesses and interests to be catered to.

And more bars, restaurants, theaters. It isn't just economics that drive people to be together. People also like to be together, and bigger groups allow more group activities. Kind of both, in a feedback loop. Economics, jobs, and fun.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com