Earlier quoted context omitted.
Certainly many people on this website could if it were their priority. Some money is required, but not very much. I’m sure I make less money than many here because I take jobs that prioritize remote work and flexibility. So what’s really the blocker for many is a choice of priorities. I won’t have children. I don’t have a strong need to play homemaker or gardener. My lifestyle is pretty similar to a lot of retirees w…
working and travelling on occasion -- "on an average net salary" implies not actually quitting your job -- is not what the GP described. The GP described quitting their job and going traveling for an entire decade, which is an incredible luxury over an enormous timespan that only the luckiest will ever be able to enjoy. The fact that the GP then chooses to treat this gift as though it makes him better than his collea…
You replied to the person who wrote the GP. I don't see anything in their post that confirms not working - they just work remotely, as the post you are replying to confirms.
> And I could only do that if I was tremendously selfish, like you: choosing to have no kids, choosing to allow the elders in my family to face poverty instead of proper end of life care, etc.
This is deeply unfair. Choosing not to have kids is not selfish at all. By some metrics it's even laudable, but you don't have to go that far to simply not condemn people who make that choice. And you have no idea how much they make or whether their parents are "facing poverty". Perhaps their parents died younger. Perhaps they have excellent retirement savings. Perhaps OP is one of seven children who contribute equally to their parents' care. You don't know.
I'm in full agreement with you that traveling like this is a privilege of the wealthy. But I think the way you condemn it falls pretty flat.