In the past I've lived sort of like this and found it quite lonely and alienating. What the article doesn't mention is that nobody really wants to hang out with the weird guy with no stuff and no apartment. If you're single, only really strange and desperate people want to date you. I also found that the act of finding another place to stay quickly became tedious. In the past, nomads were out being nomadic with the rest of their huge nomadic tribe. They weren't just bouncing around settled society with a laptop by themselves.
People who travel have interesting stories from their travels. They have a broad outlook and set of morals, because they have met people from diverse groups. They are social because they have had to be outgoing to make friends. They can form long term friendships because they return to places. They are romantically successful because they are appealing and meet a lot of people.
There is nothing inherent in being a traveler that makes them "weird", though they may be unusual because of their unusual life. I can't see why either having or not having stuff is relevant.
Travelers make great friends who I miss when they are not around.
People who travel have interesting stories from their travels.
I hate to sound negative, but I find that some of the worst bores are people who can't stop talking about their last journey. Having been around the world a few times myself, I often have to bite my tongue to stop myself from telling too many "that reminds me of this one time in [random city X]" stories, as people do get bored of hearing them, and they're rarely as interesting to others as they are to the people who were there.
That's really a shame. I have a couple really good friends with whom sharing experiences is one of the most important parts of our relationship. It took some practice at first, but focusing completely on the person telling the story[1], and actually telling meaningful stories[2] turns out to not be that hard once you get the hang of it.
[1] This means not only listening and popping in with comments and questions here and there, but actually trying to imagine the feelings you would have experienced had you been there; or even more interestingly, understanding how the storyteller felt in the context of his or her own life (this requires knowing the person rather well).
[2] The intent is really the main thing here. Some people approach storytelling about their adventures as a way to brag. The "right way" to do it is to tell the story in a way that the listeners can imagine themselves there. This changes the context from "I'm cooler than you," to "I had a great experience that I'd like to share with you."
How long did you try it for. In my experience it can take a little while to adapt. Just like you got homesick that first time at sleepaway camp as a kid.
I did a decent amount of backpacking back in the day, and I remember the initial adjustment to be pretty tough and very lonely if you're not already a very outgoing type. Initially I hated it, then eventually I loved it, but some may not.
Everybody wants to hang out with a traveller. They all have questions. People who would never dream of doing what we do, are happy to tell us their dreams about doing what we do, believe it or not. Everyone seems to find the idea romantic even if they could never do it. Back when I was traveling by myself I found it easier to meet women on the road than at home. I guess maybe you would think these women were "really strange and desperate" because many of them were also solo travelers.
I do like the term "settled society", as there is a strong temptation to see people who don't do this as having settled for something adequate.
Travelling only changes your location, it doesn't change who you are. Who I am is someone who has trouble meeting people, but found that travel provided more opportunity for social interaction and people more willing to be open with me.
Specifically, it is hard to develop meaningful long term romantic/sexual relationships if you are transient. Women especially seem to value stability and investment in a community, even beyond the purely logistical issues. This isn't much of an impediment to spending a year or two in this lifestyle, but after doing this for basically my entire adult life (since 1997 and leaving MIT), there are decided sacrifices.
I think lots of my friends would be happy to have me stay with them for a week or so, and on CouchSurfing you can find lots of strangers who have that same preference.
My experience hanging out with backpackers is that they seem to get laid (by other backpackers) rather frequently. Of course, the ones who are traveling with committed partners have a lot more sex (with each other, mostly) than the ones who are just hoping to meet random promiscuous MOTAS. But there's a lot of scope for people to travel together for a few days, weeks, or months before becoming committed partners.
And sometimes travelers will stay in a city for weeks or months and meet more people.
I think it depends largely on how easily you make friends.
It could be. But what if he cooks, cleans, fixes household appliances, teaches them to juggle, removes viruses from their computers, and gives them spectacular prints of photographs he took?
The DJ has now substituted his bed for friends' couches
How does this scale when no-one has free crash space to give...?
It's like those TV shows where a family give up the corporate rat race and go and run a B&B or a vineyard in the country, who are their customers apart from corporate workers? It's not a revolution if only a small percentage of the population can ever do it.
It doesn't scale, it's not intended to scale. If millions of people were vagabonding, we could look at an array of possible options, the most obvious being an AirBnB-style approach to renting rooms for days or weeks at a time. If you're happy to share a house, it's already cheaper to spend a month each in Paris, Amsterdam, London, Berlin, Edinburgh and Barcelona than it would be to stay in Paris, including airfare.
Housing is currently relatively illiquid because the demand for liquid housing is minimal. There's a big gap between "the place you live for years at a time" and "the place you vacation for a week or two" because that's what the market demands. The backbackers hostel only came into existence when airfares became affordable and young people started travelling internationally. Same with Spanish resorts and the package holiday, same with seaside B&Bs and the railway. If technology allows it and people demand it, we'll see it appear quite quickly.
Your second point is the same faulty logic that presumes "we'll always need people to actually make things/sweep the roads/other menial labour". Mechanisation and automation supplants the need for most of those workers, freeing them up to do work better suited to humans - usually in the service industry. The majority of westerners work in the service industry already, it only stands to reason that they will become more skilled and more specialised. There is absolutely no reason why we can't have a huge number of people running small B&Bs or vineyards or boutiques or cafés. The trends behind this article make it clear that we can't expect to continue running an economy on selling 'stuff', the future economy is clearly based on cultural and social experiences.
I presumed no such thing. The people they left behind are doing service work remember: they're accountants, lawyers, bankers, and so on. But how many corporate workers drinking does it take to make a vineyard a viable business? Or vacationing, a boutique B&B?
Because if you have two B&B owners who simply swap to go on holiday, or two vineyards who simply drink each other's wine, then you've invented a perpetual motion machine.
It's called "The Economy". I have something that you want, you have something that I want. We swap, usually using a token of exchange, and we're both better off for the exchange. That basic exchange, multiplied by technology, is why nearly everyone in the world will be much richer than their parents and why their children will be richer still.
Accountants, lawyers and bankers all perform services. Not fun services, but services nonetheless. They're no different from a musician or a masseuse or a bicycle mechanic.
Corporations generate lots of wealth and engage in lots of transactions, but so do the aggregate of small businesses and sole traders. There's nothing magical about a big company versus a small one.
The big change in the economy is that a) stuff has got very cheap and b) lots of people can do useful work from anywhere with WiFi. The basic rules are exactly the same, but the economy of 2030 will be barely recognisable, just as the economy of 2010 would be barely recognisable in 1990. As we generate more and more intangible wealth, tangible wealth becomes less and less important to the economy.
If you think that a service-based economy is a "perpetual motion machine", you really need to do a bit of reading up on economics. Wealth is wealth, it doesn't matter how you generate it as long as you do.
Yeah, you are completely missing my point. The fact is, if you set up a business that sells luxury goods that people spend their discretionary income on, then there have to be those people in the system. For every bohemian running a boutique B&B in rural France, there have to be 20 (say) yuppies elsewhere doing something else to pay for it as guests. Can one lawyer stay in 20 B&Bs? Or drink the production of 20 vineyards?
So this is why I say, the dream of dropping out of the rat race and doing that necessarily must remain a dream only for the majority.
In the case of some of the lawyers I've worked with, 20 vineyards would be a conservative estimate.
I'm not sure the assumption that he's consuming less is accurate though. He's consuming differently but he's still earning, he's still eating and drinking.
He owns a keyboard, two ebook readers, a Mac and a rucksack full of designer clothes, a bike. The fact he's a DJ and the fact he has two ebook readers suggest that he still buys music and books (just digitally rather than physically). All of this ploughs revenue back into the economy.
In addition he has no kitchen so he likely eats out more, no car so potentially uses public transport more, maybe pays for a PO Box for mail, cell phone bills are higher than landline bills.
He's changed his pattern of consumption but he's not ceased it.
The only way in which it doesn't scale is that he tends to sleep on friends couches. Replace this with cheap bed and breakfast accommodation and it would seem to scale fine.
Do lodging-house owners not drink wine? Do vintners not vacation? People making luxury goods earn an income, often a very good income, and often they spend rather a lot of that income on luxury goods. It is perfectly possible to sustain an economy where the main productive output is luxury goods - it could be argued that many international cities are exactly that.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that the money a lawyer earns in exchange for his time is "real money", whereas the money earned by a fashion designer or an organic honey grower or someone who restores vingage fixed-gear bicycles is somehow not real money.
The economy only demands productivity. It cares not one jot whether that production is hamburger buns or brioche, whether it is kalashnikovs or designer garden tools. All that matters is that enough people will pay for what you do. It should be self-evident that artistry is highly marketable.
The real growth in the current economy is beauty. Apple is testament to that - their products are made by Quanta and Foxconn like everyone else's, but they are worth more by simple merit of being beautiful. Every year the metal and plastic and glass is worth less and the design and styling worth more, that's why we in the west no longer manufacture very much at all. The taste of Steve Jobs and the imagination of Jony Ive is worth more than any factory machine.
For every bohemian running a boutique B&B, we merely need 20 other people who make or do something that other people like. They don't have to wear a tie or work in a tall building, they only need to be productive.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that the money a lawyer earns in exchange for his time is "real money", whereas the money earned by a fashion designer or an organic honey grower or someone who restores vingage fixed-gear bicycles is somehow not real money.
Our friend the DJ, he has an external source of economic value - his friend's surplus (i.e. they can afford to rent more space than they need, so he can stay there). If his friends have no surplus of this kind, his model collapses. So really, his lifestyle is only possible because it is subsidized.
Our hypothetical B&B owner - there are shows about this nightly on British TV, always the same pattern - has made some money typically through selling his house in the UK at the right time, quit his job, bought a dilapidated farmhouse in rural France, done it up, and is now waiting for yuppie holidaymakers to come stay. He has no skills that are relevant in the local economy. He depends specifically and entirely on people who live the lifestyle he left behind for his business. Now I am not saying that what he does has no economic value. I am saying that to trade, you need to have a) something to trade and b) someone to trade with. The people he trades with are people with jobs in big cities who want to escape to the country. If these people have also dropped out to live an idyllic lifestyle, what demand is there from them for his service?
I dunno, think of a world where everyone's say a chicken farmer. How do they create value by trading chickens with each other?
The other thing is that this "minimalism" doesn't seem to have reduced his consumption at all. He owns less physical stuff but he still owns music and books.
Indeed given that he has no home and therefore no kitchen it's likely that he eats out more and is more dependent on other services and spends considerably more in some areas than he would otherwise.
By this logic, the entire economy is a "perpetual motion machine" - the only difference between the entire economy and your hypothetical is that the real economy has more moving parts.
Well, you can try this if you like. Find another programmer, and you write code for him, and he writes code for you, and neither of you sell any services to third parties, and see how long that remains viable. There's "value" being created, you're both learning new stuff (for example).
But without someone to sell to, there's no money in this system, and therefore no way to get goods and services you need that can't be met within your microeconomy. So, not everyone can be a programmer, just as not everyone can be a bohemian.
I'm disputing your reasoning, not your conclusion. I fully agree that your conclusion is correct.
To survive, a person needs more than just wine and a B&B. That doesn't mean that a closed economy is a perpetual motion machine (and therefore can't exist), as the world economy proves.
It's also a good example why an isolationist foreign policy is a bad idea on a macro economic scale. A single country, no matter how big, simply cannot make all the stuff we take for granted in the modern world.
Since almost 4 years now I do not have any other possession than what fits into my two suitcases. Wherever my 30 inch monitor is, I call home. I am very comfortable with the fact that I don't need to manage my possessions. And Dropbox, Google Apps and alike even made my fears of data loss a thing of the past.
I enjoy moving to a different country almost every year, thanks to being a digital vagabond.
I am taking a wild guess; The past 400.000 years of evolution in which our bodies and minds adapted to a nomadic lifestyle may still resonate in our genes. Only since a few thousand years were a majority of my ancestors bound to one place and this short period is unlikely to have had any genetic impact. A lack of constricting possessions is surprisingly rewarding (constricting in terms of hard to move). I suspect that this reward is universal to humans which would imply some kind of genetically predetermined preference. But it is just a wild guess.
Yet I feel with my son's first birthday approaching this lifestyle will be hard to maintain.
Are you self-employed or do you work freelance or who do you work for and what do you do?
I only ask because this is something I'm very much interested in doing myself, but I'm very apprehensive about making a big change like this due to job/money concerns.
Same thing for me. I just got my CS master degree and now I want to discover the world with only my bike, my laptop and my reflex camera, a few month to a couple of years at the same place...
But I'm worried by the first move. Where I live I got a lot of job opportunity but I don't know if I will be able to find a job in another country quickly enough and it doesn't work very well remotely.
Look for a job where you can work remotely. Many US-based companies are striving for an increasingly remote workforce in order to reduce their cost of doing business. At my first job out of college, at a large tech company, they actually wanted us to be remote so they wouldn't have to pay for office space.
Countries love tourists but they are often wary of anyone who wants to "steal the jobs". Best to be in a situation where you're earning income without having to "work" in the country.
If you have a popular web service or a iphone app you could do it.
Since you just got your degree, my honest advice is this:
1) Be slow to accumulate stuff.
2) Exploit the location where there are a lot of jobs, but do it in a way that doesn't tie you down for 4 years. Do consulting or contracting, or become a co-founder of a startup that is a virtual company such that the company isn't tied to this location. You need some good work experience, which you might have gotten while getting your CS degree, but if not, get it, and get some savings to boot.
3) Start practicing it. Start working away for a week at a time.
Unless you're independently wealthy you can't really spend your time without any work, so the challenge is working while you're a nomad.
There is a- for lack of a better word-- synergy that comes with this lifestyle change. It really is a different way of living. One of the things that you change is what your values are-- what you value. When we lived in a house a lot of money went into house stuff. For instance, by now we'd have bought an HDTV to update the old TV we had. Of course an HDTV wouldn't fit in a backpack so we haven't bought one, and the savings of that offsets some of the increased costs of being nomadic.
Like anything else, it is best to work into it a bit at a time. It might be worth trying a 3 month consulting gig and then, after saving that money, try 3 months on the road as a nomad and see if you can earn money consulting that way. This way the initial gig covers the expenses if the nomadic lifestyle turns into a vacation where you just spend money.
But for us, paramount to being able to do this is the ability to earn our expenses. Most startups look at burn rate, we are keeping a keen eye on revenue vs. living expenses.
A 30-inch monitor fits into a suitcase. Still, if I were rationalizing my life down to two suitcases (which, incidentally, I've done before, and I didn't much enjoy it) then I'd have more clothing and less 30-inch monitor.
I definitely agree with this and think it's fascinating. I feel the same attachment to my digital possessions as I do my few physical ones. The difference, however, is how much physical space each option consumes.
I should also point out that I needed the iPad for my job, as I develop apps from time to time.
Do you feel like you have less to worry about though? One of the advantages of this minimalism seems to be being able to walk into your room and not being overwhelmed with everything you own. So, even if you own as much music, books, etc.. out of sight, out of mind?
I originally started the project because I was away at an internship and had left all of my stuff with friends back in LA. When I returned for the fall term, I couldn't remember what was in the boxes I had left. (I had about 10 or 11 boxes of stuff in total.) If I couldn't remember what it was, I figured it wasn't worth keeping around. I got rid of a bunch of trinkets and things I wasn't really using anymore. I've been happier ever since.
It is compared to the bookshelves, CD stacks, filing cabinets, and shoeboxes full of photographs that it replaces.
And that's not to mention the number of single-purpose devices each of these replaces: the smartphone is an alarm clock, watch, point-and-shoot camera, GPS, and MP3 player. The reading devices replace a printer (if you have access to a Kinkos when you really need a hard copy). The laptop replaces a TV, DVD player, and desktop computer.
Physically yes but not in any other sense. From the sounds of things he's not reduced the number of books and albums he owns, just changed the storage medium. It also mentions that he has a backpack full of "designer clothes" which suggests that he's just as hung up on the nature of the things he does have.
What's changed here is the medium but what would really be interesting is if there were a significant cultural shift but I don't see that - he still seems to be as much a consumer as he ever was.
> he still seems to be as much a consumer as he ever was
I'm not debating that, but is it necessarily a bad thing? I don't interpreting your comment to say that it is, but it raises the question. The wonder of the internet and "consumer culture" is that we now have access to the creative output of millions of people we otherwise wouldn't. As long as I can choose my level of participation, I like having it there.
That's a big question. I have nothing against consumption per se, though I do have a suspicion that many of us spend a reasonable amount of money on things which, for one reason or another, aren't actually that important to us.
Consumption isn't necessarily bad but waste is. Maybe that's an interesting point - it may be that because so much of his life is digital he wastes less though I suspect it's not that straight forward. Perhaps there is no physical waste but we shouldn't underestimate the tiny drip drip drip power consumption (in theory for eternity) for on-line services and backups.
And minimalism in this sense may actually make things worse. Having shelf after shelf of physical books / records / CDs is a reminder for many how much stuff they've got that they never read or listen to. I certainly know people who download (illegally in the case I'm thinking of so the definition of consumer is questionable) more music and more films than they will ever listen to or watch and certainly more than they would ever have if they had to physically store them.
Rambling now but I suspect it's not as simple as it might appear at first glance.
There's a big difference between the space for you (important) and the space for 200 DVDs, or 60 changes of clothes, or a set of lawn tools, or rarely used sporting equipment, or ...
Space is expensive monetarily, but how is it expensive psychologically?
I find _not_ having enough space to be psychologically expensive. Nothing better than going for a walk through your own house, knowing it's all yours and nobody can invade it. But hey, different people have different preferences...
That's not an argument, that's a link to an essay. Besides, that essay is about "stuff", not "space". Personally I'm not a fan of having too much stuff, but I'm not sure it's so easy to have too much space. I'd have a hundred acres of forest if I could afford such a thing (anywhere convenient). But I don't want, say, a deep-fryer.
If you think space is psychologically expensive, why not phrase it in your own words?
Stuff (in this case, physical possessions as opposed to digital) takes up space. Most people buy space so they can fill it with stuff. If you're buying space because you actually want the space, that's great! But paying for a mortgage, a storage unit, a parking space, etc is space for your stuff. And, as pg explained, stuff can be a problem.
As well as being a bad-ass programmer, Steve Dekorte is also a great example of this neavu-minimalism. His blog and Io show how deeply he has taken this "philosophy" (http://dekorte.com and http://www.iolanguage.com).
Maybe I just don't get it, but the things keeping me tied to my apartment are my bed, shower and stove, not my shelves and shelves of physical media. I don't see how the digitalization of my live helps with those things.
I don't even think you can make it last beyond a single generation, try this when you're 60+, when you are in need of a stable environment due to medical issues and so on.
It's great in theory when you're healthy, in your early 20's to early 30's, when you are independent and have no dependents, when you are living in a climate that is favorable, and when you're living in a city.
If any of those circumstances are not met you'll be either in a lot of trouble or you're most likely going to change.
Those that don't have the option to change we call street people.
And living off other people's couches and/or fridges and such does not make you an independent.
I can see a good reason for doing with 'less stuff', but this extreme is simply not realistic on anything but the smallest of scales.
It'd be tough if all your friends decided to do it tomorrow and you'd all want to sleep on each others' no longer existent couches...
An RV is a mobile home, it has all the trappings of a home except for size, and for some of those RVs the size was bigger than my smallest apartment. It's just exchanging one set of stuff for a more mobile set of stuff, but not exactly minimalist.
Those couples that I've met that did the 'RV thing' after their pension typically saw it as a way to do all the traveling that they had missed out on while in their working years, a way to reward a lifetime of hard work.
I used to read Steve Roberts digital nomad site for some time and I found links to familes living on sailboats and travelling but it seems those links are gone. The above was the first one I found on google.
Not really minimalists... they depend on others for things they need. If they were truly minimalists, they would live in one of those micro-shacks, hacking basic on an Apple I replica that is powered by solar power, while watching the tomatoes ripen.
I recently started down this trail to simplify my life and draw down my personal property. I got rid of my DVDs because I simply wasn't watching them. I ripped every one of my CDs in FLAC format and then gave them away to friends. And these days, instead of a netbook and a desktop, I have only a single laptop running Arch Linux.
The one thing I cannot move on from is my book collection. I love books and I have two bookshelves with 285 graphic novels and novels (according to my LibraryThing account). And I am starting to make use of sites like Project Guttenburg to read public domains works (using FBReader).
Living a nomadic lifestyle can be fun, but I like knowing where I'm going to sleep. If I lived in the middle of a plains or was hiking down a trail, I know that I will be sleeping 'up ahead' or 'over there' or 'on the side of this trail'. However, in urban environments you actually have to find somewhere to sleep.
I'm also fond of my textbooks, which haven't yet been satisfactorily digitized, and my motorcycles and associated tools and parts, which haven't been successfully digitized either.
I like how the reasoning behind the move to MP3s instead of discs is that MP3s don't wear out. Because, you know, hard disks don't wear out either...
And with the whole move-to-digital thing, you might think you have less stuff, but what you're doing is transferring your belongings from one device to the next over time. Over the course of your life, you're gonna own dozens of laptops and the energy and the chemicals released to build those aren't free. Compare that to books and disks you bought once and for all (granted they don't wear out).
Maybe the move to all-digital is for the better, but it's just not that obvious to me.
Yes harddrives wear out, but you can easily get a new harddrive and copy the stuff across seamlessly. It's like shelves for records. If you shelves that your records are on break, just get some new shelves and copy (i.e. move) your record collection across.
Man, I hate traveling. I can understand the appeal of a spartan lifestyle, but I can't understand the appeal of not knowing where your head is going to rest tonight.
Guidebooks, smartphone map search, a prepaid cellphone & SIM and planning a day or two ahead solves all of that! Also staying more than one day. A few of these people aren't long term nomads although, they're more freeloaders or bums. The first guy has an apartment!
Not planning on going quite that far - but we are thinking of saving $200,000 by buying a one bedroom apartment with a few Kindle's instead of a 2Bed place with lots of bookshelves.
All the DVDs are already ripped to a couple of hard drives, the disks but in DJ CD files and the cases thrown away - that saved a 6' bookcase.
this might be a trend of the future. people are more mobile these days, and physical possessions can keep people tied down. i once thought about what i really need, and 80% of it is on my computer! time to start a remote backup company :)
Brain uploaders are missing that backing up your brain would create a clone of your mind - not transfer your conscious experience inside a digital world. Vacations of this nature would be your clone telling you the good time they had.
Which is why you would slowly replace brain matter with technology, cortical column by cortical column, until there was nothing left ;)
But honestly I think biotech could progress to the point to where biological aging is neutralized. Cells break down and make copying failures for only a few specific reasons. I think the biological will be preserved and merely augmented with better human-machine interfaces.
Also cloning yourself or making a digital backup from yourself isn't that much different from having kids. Both are to ensure the survival\existence of data whether its encoded genetically or not.
Man, it seems as if the only thing missing is a data bank where you can drop off your hard drive and the bank will store it for you and even lend out free space to others at an interest. Yay virtual currency.
It's not quite what you describe, but bank vaults are actually quite cheap. The computer expert firm I work for has two large vaults (something like 8 cu. ft. each) at a KeyBank where we store scores of hard drives. We make a trip every Friday to rotate our set of backup RAIDs. It's a very simple, straightforward process, and I think our cost is something like $40/month for both vaults. You could probably get a vault big enough for a 2 TB external drive for something like $5-10/month.
For me I think this works best after you've done the kids thing, if you plan on doing that. But I strongly agree with the premise here: people are naturally nomadic
My co-founder and I have been doing this for three years. We have two backpacks and we are nomadic.
Interestingly, it isn't online services that have enabled this so much as a lifestyle choice. We value travel and figured it was cheaper to run our startup in most parts of the world than it was in our origin city.
We don't use a lot of online services for our business. Biggest one is Gmail, really, and hosting. Things we couldn't take with us.
I run a virtual machine on my laptop and under it I have a server that acts as our "intranet server" and so all of the collaboration tools, etc run there. I also start servers periodically while developing something that will eventually run in the cloud to test it out before running it online.
We're geared to be able to work full time without access to the internet. We're expecting to be in places where there is no internet. However, for the past 3 years that we've been traveling we've had pretty much full time internet access so far. When we're without internet we use an ad-hoc wifi network so we always have our "local network" with us.
Other than what fits in the backpacks we just have a couple boxes in storage. The most stressful experience has been going over all of our stuff and getting rid of it until we fit in the laptop. That took several months of work and because many of the possessions had a history it was not easy.
But now, we can go anywhere anytime we want, just about. It is very liberating!
I would be interested to know, simply because I wonder about it for my own projects, how you deal with (the possibility of) server/db/other problems with your site when you are going somewhere that has no internet access.
I am trying e same thing over the next five months, but I plan to rent apartments for a month or so and travel in between. I like having the Internet, shower, and laundry problems resolved, and I'd like to get to know places beyond superficial tourist level. Plus I have friends visiting for a few weeks at a time.
Which cities have worked out well or poorly for you?
I'm probably traveling a bit heavy right now (mbp 17, 7d and lenses, kindle dx, iPad, outdoor, business, and casual clothes, global blackberry) and going for value luxury (50-100 per night for a 2br 5 star hotel suite, or a nice condo rental). I think that will increase my productivity and happiness, but I'll try the lowest cost option later this year. The people in student or backpacker places are definitely more interesting than at the oriental or peninsula. Mainly Asia and au/nz for now, and Europe probably next, and then maybe a couple months of USA.
While i was on my long term trip I found it quite unproductive trying to find that stable internet connection, and a new place to explore provided much more of a distraction than home. Do find travelling decreases your productivity?
> We value travel and figured it was cheaper to run our startup in most parts of the world than it was in our origin city.
Has this assumption proved true so far? How true? What was your origin city, and where have you been? I'm quite interested in this strategy, it would be so nice to pair low-cost living with travel.
Not intentionally. It has sorta happened to be that way so far. Apparently this internet thing has been adopted widely.
But the intention is to be able to be fully productive with only an occasional or intermittent internet connection.
Really developed countries: We have internet where we stay. This is more common than we expected.
Developed countries: We use mobile broadband for occasional net connectivity on demand, and use email and SMS to notify us about important events. So far all of our services are manage hosted so I've never gotten a "the server is down" message.
Undeveloped Countries: Plan is to check in once a week with a cybercafe or wifi hotspot.
GSM is a global standard and so, with an unlocked iPhone you can get pre-paid SIMs with dataplans.
Fortunately for everyone Apple is now selling unlocked iPhones as a matter of course in countries with multiple iPhone carriers, like Canada, France, Germany and the UK.
One of the biggest efforts in making this kind of a transition is the digitization of your life. This is a huge project, and some of the work is still ongoing.
1) Music and Movies. About the easiest as ripping CDs and DVDs is not that hard.
2) Photographs. There was a time when I shot on film, and so for all the images taken before then, they needed to be scanned. Scanning paper photos on a flatbed is not too bad, but scanning negatives is very slow and a very hands-on process. But it does produce the best results.
3) Books. This is the hardest. I stopped buying books about 5 years ago because ebooks weren't really ready to meet my needs then (I hate the kindle) and only started buying again now because the iPad does.
But all these physical books. Scanning them is really a pain. Most of them just got tossed. We had huge collections of old instruction manuals that are long out of print and obsolete as well.
Unfortunately, the books were an almost total loss. We flatbed scanned a few pages here and there and that's it.
4) Storage and backup. We've iterated several times in our strategy here. This is something to consider very carefully. The solution isn't the same between even the two of us, so you'll have to find your own.
But keep at least 2 copies of everything in such a way as you always know what the prime copy is.
Slightly off topic...anyone know what kind of keyboard that is he had? Looks super useful being so small. Is it a Korg? This on: http://www.korg.com/nanoseries ? Confirmation?
It does look like a Korg. From that picture his laptop looks like either a Dell or IBM, yet the article says he uses a MBP. Also I think it's kind of funny, the irony of this guy being a travel agent in this world where that job is becoming absolete due to the same technology that keeps from having to pay rent.
It looks like a black Macbook to me. It just seems like more effort than getting a studio apartment and living lean. Simplicity is key. I need consistency.
looks like an akai LPK25. The nanoSERIES keyboard is really hard to play - not very sensitive, keys are more like buttons. Used LPK25's are going for about $40 USD on ebay. Hoping to get one soon.
