sam85
Junior Travel Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by sam85 on May 26, 2008 22:32:18 GMT -5
Hi everyone,
Last year I was throwing around the idea of a europe trip so i started looking on places like hostelworld for accommodations. i was seeing prices ranging from 15-30 US dollars for a dorm bed in a European hostel. i just started checking again today im seeing prices ranging from 30-50 dollars a night. what the hell is going on? am i going crazy or have hostel rates doubled in the past year? and if so, why? can somebody explain this, cause as of now with those kind of prices theres no way i can afford a backpacking trip anytime soon and its always been a dream of mine.
|
|
|
|
Post by madamtrashheap on May 27, 2008 21:43:01 GMT -5
sam85, welcome to GFE.
There could be three explanations for this apparent price increase:
1) the last time you were looking you were a long way ahead of the dates you wanted to book and thus prices were cheaper - the further in advance you can book, often the prices are significantly cheaper
2) the dates you were looking at originally are not the same dates you looked at this time, thus you might be looking in high season vs shoulder season and rates can vary between the seasons
3) prices have gone up!
|
|
|
|
Post by pointofnoreturn on May 28, 2008 8:29:11 GMT -5
I agree with everything MTH said. It could be for a number of reasons, all listed under her post.
It is also possible that the hostel's popularity might have grown and to accommodate that, they might have brought up their prices.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eagle on May 28, 2008 22:42:04 GMT -5
sam85, I also agree with MTH's explanation of the possible reasons for cost increases. However, don't give up on your idea to travel Europe yet! It might still be possible, with careful planning. You might be able to find independent Hostels that have slightly lower prices than some of the more popular locations. Don't limit your searches to Hostelworld - use a variety of sources. You could also check www.hihostels.com/ for some idea of their current prices. These are a "chain" of properties, so the pricing and facilities tends to be somewhat consistent. You should be prepared for the fact that travel in most places in Europe is going to be somewhat expensive these days. The usual "ballpark" figure that most of us quote here is to allow for a minimum of €75 per day for lodgings, food and incidentals (this doesn't include air fare or rail passes). You could also minimize expenses to some extent by visiting less travelled areas, such as locations in eastern Europe. Don't give up! Look at the situation as a long term goal. Cheers!
|
|
sam85
Junior Travel Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by sam85 on May 29, 2008 19:48:54 GMT -5
thanks everyone. the dates im looking at are the same as the ones i was looking at before. i might have been looking a couple months more in advance last time, but i tried searching for rates in November also and im seeing similar prices. it looks like prices have just gone up, likely because of a bad economy where people are traveling less and the declining value of the dollar against the europe. id like to do Europe someday, but right now its seeming like Latin America or southeast Asia is more feasible. if im gonna do a Europe trip, i wanna do it right. im not gonna go if i have to squeak by on a starving artist budget. i know one thing for sure, im gonna start putting my savings in euros.
|
|
mango
Senior Travel Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by mango on Jun 4, 2008 11:48:27 GMT -5
15 US dollars for a hostel bed? Where was this and what hostel was it? Even back in November that would've been only 10 euros per night.
|
|
|
|
Post by WillTravel on Jun 4, 2008 14:12:55 GMT -5
You can get cheap hostels in Avignon, in various parts of Portugal, in Berlin, in central and Eastern Europe (as David pointed out above), and elsewhere. If you want a western European country, look at smaller towns. I know Avignon is not the only place in France that had really cheap hostels. Even in Paris, you can stay at a place like this for as little as 14 Euros - www.aijparis.com . |
|
|
|
Post by SantaKlaus on Jun 5, 2008 4:14:54 GMT -5
I work for Wombats Hostels. Obviously, I´m not monitoring hostel prices in the entire continent, but in Vienna, Munich and Berlin they haven´t increased. Berlin even seems to be cheaper than last year. Our prices in Vienna are exactly the same as in 2007. In Munich, we charge one Euro more than last year. Prices in Dollars increased, of course - because the exchange rate has changed. In June 2007, one Euro was around $1.35 - now, it´s $1.55. i know one thing for sure, im gonna start putting my savings in euros. watch out about buying into € at the top of the market. what goes up can also go down. who knows? there could be breakthroughs in cellulosic ethanol, or in algae based oils. the world could cut it's demand for imported energy and, with so much of our import costs cut out, the US$ could rapidly climb in value. who's to say we won't see Bretton Woods values again? despite what some EU politicians say, at one-quarter of gross world product, US' economy is still the world economic engine and will be for some time to come. Despite what you say, EU politicians are somewhat worried about the devaluation of the Dollar. Still, we don´t depend on it as heavily as you think. Only 7.5% of Germany´s exports go to the USA - compared to the 85% of our exports which go to the rest of the EU. On the other hand, the cheap dollar is actually good because our oil imports are billed in Dollars. I wouldn´t predict the Euro is already "at the top of the market". The high energy costs will hit the USA much harder than Europe, because we´re much more energy-efficient than America. We have already started to push renewable energy a decade ago, while the USA only now starts to think about these options. You don´t have to wait for technology breakthroughs. A lot of good technology is already there, but you have to make major investments to apply it. Looking at America´s federal budget, major investments in eco-technology seem very unlikely in the near future. |
|
|
|
Post by Eagle on Jun 5, 2008 16:47:05 GMT -5
SantaKlaus & David, very interesting discussion!!! I have a few thoughts on the points you mentioned.
First of all regarding the exchange rates. I'm wondering whether the exchange on the U.S. dollar will strengthen after the election in November (depending on the result of course)? I'm not sure why the US$ has decreased so much, but probably a variety of factors. As a Canadian I'm not complaining, as this is the first time we've been "at par" for quite a long time! However, the current situation has hurt some of our industries such as the forest sector and especially tourism. That seems to be a problem in Europe right now also, as Hotel operators I spoke with recently in southern Germany and Austria indicated that they have had quite a few cancellations from American visitors due to the low exchange rates.
On the energy situation, I've had the opinion for a long time that North Americans (and I'm including Canada) are well behind Europeans in terms of "green initiatives". We seem to be only now starting to think about things like wind power, solar power, etc., but some of these technologies have been in use in Europe for many years.
Another example is "demand side management" with electricity. When I was in Europe in 2006, I noticed that many of the Hotels (both small and large) were equipped with "occupancy sensors" in the hallways and sometimes in the rooms as well. The lights were turned on automatically by motion sensors, and then turned off a minute or so afterwards. Hotels here only now seem to be retro-fitting to that sort of thing. We're fortunate here in B.C. to have mostly clean & renewable hydro power, but some of the other provinces are still using a lot of coal-fired generation.
I've thought for a long time that some of the larger cities should be using electrified train or rapid transit, as in Europe, where the population density would make it financially viable. Most of our commuter trains here are still using diesel, which is not the best solution IMHO. Some of the larger cities (New York, San Francisco, Vancouver, etc.) have subway systems and that's a good start, but using electrified rail between larger cities should be looked at as well. That concept sure seems to work well in Europe!
The cost of gas / petrol / benzina / diesel is only going to increase in future, and keeping in mind this is a rapidly decreasing finite resource, I'm hoping that someone is working on technology that will decrease reliance on the gas and diesel powered vehicles. Fuel cells were a good possibility, but even though they've been under development for many years and have been tested in some markets in Buses and so on, there seems to be quite a delay in getting these to the average user. I'm afraid I don't have much sympathy for those who complain about the high costs. I suppose governments could help in the short term by reducing fuel taxes, but that's not going to solve the problem. The oil companies could moderate prices (profits) to some extent, but again that's not going to happen. It's interesting in this area (and probably most other places in North America) that just prior to a holiday weekend, the price of gas always increases and only decreases very slowly after the holiday is over. It's somewhat of a joke with most of the public, as most people just accept that reality now. The oil companies always insist that no "price fixing" is taking place - they usually have an excuse such as "technical problems" at one of their refineries, but it's interesting how these "technical problems" always occur just before a holiday. Also, I'm not going to let airline fuel surcharges disrupt my trips to Europe. I want to travel while my health is still reasonably good and if the trips cost a bit more, I'll just have to save a bit more money. For those that want to travel, there are only two choices - sit home and complain about the surcharges, or just take the trip anyway.
Anyway those are a few of my thoughts on the situation.
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
Post by SantaKlaus on Jun 11, 2008 9:05:18 GMT -5
obviously, i didn't convey that very well. i'm not saying the € *is* at the top of the market - that's for the market to decide. but, betting on a continued rise in €'s value is just that, a bet. what goes up can also go down. but, what goes up could always keep going up. it's an unknown. Of course. Predicting exchange rates is probably worse than any other form of astrology. That said, I wouldn´t expect the Euro to drop any time soon. I would say at best it´ll stay around $1,50. you're right, Klaus, Europe is much greener in it's electric energy supply. France gets most power from non-polluting nuclear power & Germany gets lots of its juice from solar power. {Netherlands & Spain are big in wind power, an indirect form of solar power} There is a lot of debate about nuclear energy now. It was considered pretty dead until the non-CO2-polluting aspect became so important. Still, the disadvantages remain. There is still no way to safely dispose of nuclear waste for thousands of years. In Germany they put the waste in old salt domes deep underground - now they find out water comes pouring in and billions will have to be spent to dig the stuff up again. Not to mention the hassle in case a nuclear plant blows up (or somebody flies a plane into it!). Anyway, there is much more going on than wind generators and solar panels. We are at the moment planning a hostel with geothermic heating. If that can´t be done on that particular spot, there´ll be enough solar heaters on the roof to provide warm water for the showers (we need much more energy for warm water than for heating the rooms!). The EU Commission is is now pushing plans for a powerful continent-wide power grid to connect all the wind turbines. Until now, there still have to be fossil backup plants for windless days. With a strong grid, these won´t be necessary, because there is always enough wind somewhere in Europe. Huge offshore wind parks could be built then. Surplus power could even be used to pump water into reservoirs in Norway and the Alps. Filled up, these could supply the whole continent with enough juice for several weeks. but, the way many tropical countries are clear-cutting rain forests to make way for palm-oil crops in order to satisfy European renewable bio-diesel demand is hardly sustainable. [those rain forests are a major source of Earth's biodiversity] You are right, biodiesel is a dead end. Some of our governments already acknowledge that and stop pushing it. Kind of awkward that Obama keeps to praise it as a solution for the energy crisis in his speeches. He needs a lesson about that. He should come to Europe pretty soon anyway to get his geography with Auschwitz and Buchenwald right. There are rumors in the German media that he may show up in Berlin sometime soon to give a speech at Brandenburg Gate. He would attract a HUGE crowd. Beautiful pictures for the American TV! I would have to find an excuse to make a business trip to Berlin!  First of all regarding the exchange rates. I'm wondering whether the exchange on the U.S. dollar will strengthen after the election in November (depending on the result of course)? Let´s assume Obama wins. Well, I also assumed Kerry would win. It seemed unthinkable they would really re-elect The Dick And His Bush, but they did. If McCain wins, he will go to war with Iran, paying for it with further debts and eventually America´s economy will implode like Argentina´s a few years ago. Apparently, Americans aren´t told that, so let´s hope they won´t elect McCain without knowing the dreadful consequences of electing him. So let´s assume Obama wins. The Dollar is low because there is a huge trade deficit. He won´t be able to turn that around in a couple of years. America will have to develop new export industries to increase exports and invest in eco-technologies to decrease oil imports. That´ll take decades. The Dollar is also low because there is a huge budget deficit - result of the tax cuts for the rich (can be fixed immediately) and result of the Iraq war. Bringing the troops home will take two years and will cost money. So - at least the budget deficit can be fixed in two terms, as Clinton has alreadey demonstrated. It can only be fixed though if the economy is doing well. If it continues to take a dive, Obama will be in deep shit. Another example is "demand side management" with electricity. When I was in Europe in 2006, I noticed that many of the Hotels (both small and large) were equipped with "occupancy sensors" in the hallways and sometimes in the rooms as well. The lights were turned on automatically by motion sensors, and then turned off a minute or so afterwards. Hotels here only now seem to be retro-fitting to that sort of thing. Actually, these sensors suck. You can only use the sensors if you use normal bulbs. Low-energy bulbs don´t like it to be switched on and off all the time. They only need 10-20% of the juice a normal bulb needs, which almost makes these sensors obsolete anyway. What really consumes a lot of energy is air condition. Apart from Italy and Spain, a/c is not very common in Europe. With some clever architecture, a/c is not needed at all, not even in very hot places. I've thought for a long time that some of the larger cities should be using electrified train or rapid transit, as in Europe, where the population density would make it financially viable. Most of our commuter trains here are still using diesel, which is not the best solution IMHO. Some of the larger cities (New York, San Francisco, Vancouver, etc.) have subway systems and that's a good start, but using electrified rail between larger cities should be looked at as well. That concept sure seems to work well in Europe! It works so well because our cities are so densely populated. Examples of population density: Barcelona: 15,969 hab./km² Dallas: 1,391 hab./km² We don´t need a lot of train tracks to cover the city, which makes trains cheap. Besides that, with so many people per km², there is simply not enough space for cars. Drive into Barcelona once and you´ll take the train next time - regardless of the cost of gas or train tickets. The cost of gas / petrol / benzina / diesel is only going to increase in future, and keeping in mind this is a rapidly decreasing finite resource, I'm hoping that someone is working on technology that will decrease reliance on the gas and diesel powered vehicles. Fuel cells were a good possibility, but even though they've been under development for many years and have been tested in some markets in Buses and so on, there seems to be quite a delay in getting these to the average user. I think fuel cells are still far from being any good. Have a look at that car: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_RoadsterIt goes faster than a Ferrari and accelerates faster than a Ferrari. It uses ordinary Li-ion batteries like in Laptops, just 7,000 of them (the batteries are twice as expensive as the rest of the car). They can be charged in 3.5 hours, which costs about two dollars, and supply enough juice for travelling 220 miles. Of course, that car is a stupid toy. Who needs an electric Ferrari? Build a reasonable car with this technology and it´ll travel way more than 220 miles before you have to recharge. Build millions of these cars and the batteries will cost you much less, too. |
|
|
|
Post by SantaKlaus on Jun 11, 2008 14:32:24 GMT -5
All right, all right, easy, man. Calm down. Mind your heart condition. Obama and Osama , never mind.
I won´t defend Schröder, he is a jerk. But he is an ex-chancellor, most of his own party hates him, he has zero influence in Berlin so it basically doesn´t matter who he works for now. It just confirms what sort of jerk he is, but it´s harmless.
As opposed to:
Imagine the price of peanuts would have quintupled during Carter´s term.
Bush and Cheney came from the oil industry. How much was a barrel in 2000? $25! How much money does Halliburton make now? How much of your money have those two characters alone stuffed into their pockets?
Do you care?
Addicted to oil, right. Their oil. And their Saudi friends´
|
|
|
|
Post by SantaKlaus on Jun 12, 2008 2:59:05 GMT -5
PS, we've strayed a bit from "hostel price boom"  Indeed. ;D The mods can move the thread to the living room if they don´t like it here. There are a few things I don´t want to leave uncommented: Neither the Democratic Party nor Obama are "leftist", not even by American standards. By European standards, not even Kucinich is leftist. He would fit nicely into Germany´s centrist liberal Party [FDP]. I figure many Americans would even freak out how "leftist" Germany´s conservatives are. Hamburg´s mayor is conservative and openly gay, for example. Obama is not "anti-trade". As far as I understand him, he just wants to attach ecologigal standards and some guarantees about union rights to trade agreements. That sounds totally reasonable IMHO. We do the same in Europe. For example, we allow Portugese construction companies to bid for contracts in Germany, but only if they pay German minimum wages to their employees in order not to give them unfair competetive advantages. Biodiesel: you are right, there seem to be a few recent breakthroughs to make it much more energy-efficient. On the other side, we have to watch very closely to the rise of food prices on the world market. Demand for food is increasing, while the amount of arable land is decreasing worldwide due to overexploitation and erosion of soil. Using farmland to produce fuel won´t be sustainable. Obama nativist. Please specify what you mean. As far as I understand the term "nativism" it means anti-immigration. That seems hardly plausible in Obama´s case regarding his background as a son of an immigrant. He is certainly not ethnocentric either - he spent part of his youth in Indonesia which is a very ethno-diverse nation. That sort of experience can be a huge advantage for an American president. What is right though is that nobody quite knows what´s his relation to Europe. We really wonder how he is going to work with us - that´s why our politicians really anticipate his visit here to give a hint or two. Schröder. I repeat, he is a jerk. His relation to Putin is indeed highly dubious. He called Russia an "immaculate democracy" right before Putin held an "election" in Chechnya. He is not really "Audi man" but "Volkswagen man", which can be explained easily: he was Ministerpräsident (=governor) of Niedersachsen. VW is the state´s biggest employer and the state of Niedersachsen still owns 20% of Volkswagen (which owns 100% of Audi). Anyway, to his credit you have to concede that the Baltic gas pipeline was 100% in Germany´s interest (admittedly not it´s neigor´s interests). Gas is used as leverage in Eastern Europe, not only by Putin. Getting it directly from Russia (instead of from pipelines which run through a lot of other countries) would be good news for Germany. Nobody could shut the valves if Germany and/or Russia don´t do what they are asked for. Bush as governor: I´ll admit I don´t know much about that except his record numbers of executions. You know how we think about that in Europe. We consider it plain barbarism. Bush and Cheney not knowing how their money is invested. With all due respect, I refuse to believe that. Half of the administration consists of oil people. Hamit Karzai in Afghanistan is an oil man. When they captured Baghdad, they didn´t care about people looting the museums, but they made damn sure nobody gets near the oil ministry. Halliburton got huge contracts in Iraq. Wherever you follow their political trails, all you´ll see are oil interests. It´s really flabbergasting. Please read Naomi Klein´s "Shock Doctrine". You may not agree with her politics, but she does a good job in investigative journalism. Look, even if I loathe Ann Coulter´s political rhetoric I read her anyway once in a while. I want to get the perspectives of the whole spectrum. Do the same with some "leftists". Even if 80% of what Klein says may be impossible to prove, there remains enough to draw an appaling picture of the Bush administration. It looks like crony capitalism, Suharto-style, with a lot of people close to Bush/Cheney getting very rich in a very short time - at the taxpayer´s expense. I refuse to believe the two big guys aren´t personally involved in this at all. |
|
|
|
Post by SantaKlaus on Jun 13, 2008 5:30:25 GMT -5
perhaps what misled you is the American use of the word "Liberal." here, the left-wing party usurped the word Liberal, so it now means leftist. much of the rest of the world uses liberal to mean free or capitalist. that's not the case in USA. Yes, I know, there is a lot of confusion about the term "liberal" on both sides of the big pond. I prefer not to use the world "liberal" for any kind of economic policy. Pro-market/anti-government/anti-protectionist economics are usually called "neo-liberal" in Europe, although I prefer the term "libertarian". I would like to attach the word "liberal" only to sociopolitical matters, i.e. pro-civil-rights and anti-police-state / anti-monastery-state. FDP "centrist?" socially, yes - Westerwelle strongly favors gay rights. [ever heard of the Log Cabin Republicans?] but economically, FDP is very pro-free market, generally anti-government. the slogan: "so viel Staat wie nötig, so wenig Staat wie möglich!" based on my reading, even CDU sees a bigger role for government regulation than FDP. [FDP is analogous to the Libertarian Party in America - largely to the right of Republican Party. it's not uncommon for candidates/voters to change allegiance between Libertarian and Republican Parties, repeatedly going back & forth - even splitting the ballot. edit: well, i have no idea if voters cross between FDP & CDU. another edit: Ron Paul, who competed for this year's Republican presidential nomination, was endorsed by many Libertarians] FDP is in opposition. as i recall, Guido Westerwelle very emphatically said "Nein!" to a Jamaca coalition. Mind you, the FDP is nowhere near Ron Paul´s libertarian utopia. The concept of "Soziale Marktwirtschaft" is common sense in Germany. All they usually do is trying to get tax cuts for their bread-and-butter-clientele: small-business owners, lawyers, SUV-drivers... they have no big, long-term economical model whatsoever. Unfortunately - it would be good input for the general debate. The FDP has also a long liberal tradition ("liberal" as in civil rights), that´s way I said Kucinich would fit perfectly into their team. However, the Greens have managed to bite deep into their core voters who care most of all about civil rights. I guess that is why Westerwelle avoids the Greens like the devil avoids holy water! by American standards, the Democratic Party is the left-wing party and Obama is a leftist in the Democratic Party. they generally favor more government regulation of the economy, anti-capital - pro-labor, sometimes to the extreme. unless, of course, the Democrat in question stands to gain from the capital (Hillary, not quite (but almost) as far left as Obama, was on Wal-Mart's board of directors for 6 years. her law firm represented Wal-Mart.) Edit: BTW, how much did the market cap of Wal-Mart go up while Clinton was in Arkansas governor's mansion/the White House?I doubt that Obama is really so leftist. Take his approach to health-care reform, for example. Most European libertarians would be very happy to get here what he wants for America. He is said to be in good terms with Wall Street, too - despite his talk about Nafta. In my humble opinion, he has a decent character and is an out-of-the-box-thinker. He gets many people involved in politics who never cared about it at all. That is why I think he should win in November. oh, nativist in this context means to favor native production. protectionist would have been a better word to use. OK, understood. For the record, I am not in favor of "free trade" or "protectionism" per se. I am in favor of "fair trade". Europe and North America are very protectionist when it comes to agriculture - that´s too bad for the southern hemisphere. We should let their exports in - of course we should insist on quality standards, too. On the other hand, it´s quite unfair (for us!) to allow free trade of products made in tax havens two miles across the Mexican border. Free trade of financial services and capital should also be more regulated. We have seen that unfettered financial markets can ruin countries like Argentina or Thailand. as for Audi Man: it has nothing to do with VAG. Schröder has been married 4 times. Audi's symbol is 4 rings. Ah, OK! ;D Like I said, he is a jerk. He likes to be adored. It´s a sign of weak self-esteem. He needs groupies. That said, his four marriages were never really a topic here. Remember Mitterand who had an illegitimate daughter. Apparently every French journalist knew that but it was considered bad style to write about it, so nobody ever did. |
|
|
|
Post by herrbert on Jun 13, 2008 18:57:56 GMT -5
Me too, common sense dictates that during the primaries he needed to win the majority of your own party, but after securing his victory, he needs to move a bit further to the right, to also appeal to the people who are inbetween the two parties. I think it has been an interesting discussion so far, but the only thing I want to add is that as it comes to using new sources of energy, it will always means taking steps in technology. When the U.S. really commits to these new sources, it is likely that the technology needed to make wind and solar power an economical success will advance quicker, because the U.S. has the resources to master and advance technologies faster than other countries. Wind energy was not an economical success for many years, but newer technology makes it possible to build better windmills (2nd generation), and there are also test underway, with a 3rd generation of windmills, that don't look anything like the old ones anymore: www.lowtechmagazine.com/2007/11/floating-windmi.htmlNuclear power, despite the waste it produces, will also make a comeback during the next few years, as this is the only source of energy, of which the needed technology is already available. Also the new generation of nuclear plants don't produce the large amounts of nuclear waste, as plants do that were build 30-40 years ago. The new plants also have features, that makes it impossible for melt-downs to occur. One problem may arise, and that is that there will not be enough uranium to supply the plants. (and when there is a shortage prices will rise! - sounds familiar?) |
|
|
|
Post by SantaKlaus on Jun 14, 2008 4:44:12 GMT -5
one of the things about the English language, although you have the right to your own opinions about these topics, you don't have the right to arbitrarily reassign meanings to specific words. this isn't IngSoc's "Newspeak" from Orwell's 1984. that's harsh, i know. but i don't know how else to put it. "liberal" goes with liberalism - the promotion of a republican form of government <that's republican with a small "r," meaning representative> - and liberty, especially economic liberty (capitalism).
it's the left wing (by American standards) party which has userped the term "Liberal" to mean leftist (again, by American standards). There are people who argue that "liberty" is the opposite of capitalism. For example, in communist East Germany you had the liberty to express your opinion about your bosses. Everybody did that. Nobody got fired because he didn´t get along with his boss. You see what I mean? I do not want to "usurp" any words, I just want to avoid unnecessary confusion. There is a vast difference between sociopolitical liberalism and economical liberalism. You can be a liberal of both sorts, you can be an economic liberal but sociopolitical ant-liberal (think Pinochet) or the other way round (think Anarchism). These two forms of "liberalism" exist completely independent from one another. They don´t overlap. It is not wise to summarize them under the same term. I don´t really care *what* word to use for them, unless it´s not the same word. |
|
