My beef with the NYT and "FRUGAL"

Frugal: entailing little expense; requiring few resources; meager; scanty


I am out of touch with the real world, I know this...I admit it. But am I that out of touch?
Looking at the New York Times it shows:
Frugal Traveler | Kyoto, Japan
"Seeking Tranquility, on Less Than $200 a Day!"

$200 a day? $200 a DAY!!!!!!

Wow. I mean, dont get me wrong, I have often been able to travel to different places around the world but calling $200 a day frugal?

I dont get it, some people in the world live on less than $2 a day. So it would be roughly 100 days (almost a third of a year) to enjoy that 'FRUGAL' New York Times kind of vacation.

Or maybe its Japans way of saying " No Poor(ish) people allowed!"

For the weekend, the article goes on to say that it will cost $500. OMG, maybe its me, and I am still living in my college budget days (because it is hard to get away from living life on the cheap), but damn $500 and no dancing ladies included? Hmm..sound investment....buy a picture book and call it a day.

And the kicker is that it is not even considering airfare, which generally runs around $500-$1000 round trip from the states.

Ok. I do know that tourism is a major source of income for lots of countries. I mean, it gives places like Jordan the gall to charge some $300 dollars a night and Egypt some $400 a night at select hotels....even when the people on the street are rioting about the price of wheat.

Inequality? Yes.
People think I am crazy when I talk about living in a country for a few months on less that $1000 US. But the way I see it, if they can do it, why the hell cant I?

That said, I think the New York Times needs a new 'frugal' traveler. The one that they currently employ is way out of touch with the idea of frugal...or is it just me, but I thought that frugal=cheap. And me, Im frugal all the way.