An “economy” climb is $60k. That is 10 years of saving $6k per year for a once in a lifetime vacation. That is totally achievable for someone making $100k a year that doesn’t let income creep put them in a stupid financial situation.
You have more of a point if that same person making $100k a year spends $120k on a “premium” climb, but that same person would let income creep make that trip less reasonably affordable.
How poor are the people here that you’re getting downvoted and even got a “shut up” for this comment? It’s really not a stretch to call a $60k expense a “once in a lifetime” expense.
How many people drive around in 80k vehicles that they “upgrade” every few years? How many people spend absolutely ridiculous amounts of money on designer brands, perfumes, watches, and shit? Sure, 60k is a lot of money for most people, but there’s a large number of people (at least in the western countries, in absolute numbers, not %) that could easily afford to spend 60k on something every 5-10 years if it fancies them, and an even larger number of people who could afford to spend 60k on something once in a lifetime.
Those people with $80k cars tend to lease, which can have tax advantages, but you are still paying $1k a month to rent a car that you put 20-30% down on.
That touches on that income creep issue as people increase their lifestyle expenses along with income and don’t understand how they are living paycheck to paycheck with no savings, retirement, investments, and can’t afford to have your midlife crisis on the world’s tallest peak.
Only the rich climb it now.
An upper middle class person can afford an Everest climb as a once in a lifetime trip. It isn’t an exclusive millionaire class trip.
“Once in a lifetime” isn’t affordable, that’s someone sacrificing a lot to vacation outside of their socioeconomic class.
An “economy” climb is $60k. That is 10 years of saving $6k per year for a once in a lifetime vacation. That is totally achievable for someone making $100k a year that doesn’t let income creep put them in a stupid financial situation.
You have more of a point if that same person making $100k a year spends $120k on a “premium” climb, but that same person would let income creep make that trip less reasonably affordable.
Shut up 🙄
How poor are the people here that you’re getting downvoted and even got a “shut up” for this comment? It’s really not a stretch to call a $60k expense a “once in a lifetime” expense.
How many people drive around in 80k vehicles that they “upgrade” every few years? How many people spend absolutely ridiculous amounts of money on designer brands, perfumes, watches, and shit? Sure, 60k is a lot of money for most people, but there’s a large number of people (at least in the western countries, in absolute numbers, not %) that could easily afford to spend 60k on something every 5-10 years if it fancies them, and an even larger number of people who could afford to spend 60k on something once in a lifetime.
Those people with $80k cars tend to lease, which can have tax advantages, but you are still paying $1k a month to rent a car that you put 20-30% down on.
That touches on that income creep issue as people increase their lifestyle expenses along with income and don’t understand how they are living paycheck to paycheck with no savings, retirement, investments, and can’t afford to have your midlife crisis on the world’s tallest peak.
Buy a Honda, climb the mountain.
But what about the poors?
They belong down here.