I recall reading about people in Italy who would pretend to go on vacation - closing up their houses - because they didn't actually have the cash to do so but were too embarrassed to admit it:
Yeah, parent's argument is one of the most interesting I've seen in a while: "I don't know any poor people, and no, I don't live in a bubble, so poverty doesn't exist!"
I believe it's noticed in Asia as well or at the very least Thailand. For example there's much less European tourists travelling to places like Phuket [0] and Pattaya [1] lately. Of course the strong Thai Baht (or the weak Euro) also plays a role in this.
I’m from Europe and would similarly call bs. Literally everyone I know can afford a one week vacation. And that includes a couple on social services one friend who’s on long term sick leave and a homeless friend.... but I live in a bubble on the far right hand of the chart; Denmark, not in Romania or Greece, so my personal experience isn’t that telling. That said I do think they are artificially pushing the numbers higher by including 16 year olds. For jobless teens it’s obvious they “couldn’t afford” vacation, but again every teen I know travels with their parents paying. I think 10% being unable to travel in Denmark is extremely overshooting it. It’s more likely less than 2% in the extreme scenario. As I said I know unemployed and homeless people who still have enough to travel.
Most of Europe has seen zero net economic growth for about 12 years. Simultaneously household debt has skyrocketed across most of developed Europe over the last two decades.
Many of the major economies in Europe have net contracted over the last 12 years, even as their populations have expanded (Britain and France for example). That's a recipe for falling per capita living standards (especially while populations are aging, so you have fewer workers and higher social welfare system costs).
When you adjust for inflation, the majority of countries in Europe have seen their economies contract since 2007-2008.
Here is what it looks like per capita from 2007-2017 (and many of the large economies in Europe are again teetering on recession, including Germany):
If you look at Britain, their economy is about where it was in 2004 on GDP, while having added 10% more population
For France, they're about where they were in 2003 on GDP. They've added 6% or 7% to their population in that time.
Germany has seen zero net economic growth since 2007-2008.
Italy has seen zero net economic growth since 2004.
Spain has seen zero net economic growth since 2006.
Russia has seen zero net economic growth since 2008 roughly.
The Netherlands has seen zero net economic growth since 2007. Their economy was $913b for 2018, it was $936b in 2008 for comparison. That's prior to an inflation adjustment (a conservative inflation adjustment is that their economy is ~20% smaller versus 2008).
Belgium has seen zero net economic growth since 2007.
Denmark and Finland have seen zero net economic growth since 2007-2008. Denmark's GDP in 2007 was $319b ($353b in 2008), in 2018 it was $350b.
Finland's economy was $255b in 2007 ($283b in 2008). It was $275b in 2018. A conservative inflation adjustment over those ten years would produce a meaningful contraction. Even worse, their economy was $141b in 1990, so they've seen almost no growth for nearly three decades. $141b adjusted from Jan 1991, is ~$268b today, per the Fed.
Poland has seen zero net economic growth since 2008. Their GDP was $533b in 2008, it was $586b in 2018. Even a very small inflation adjustment across ten years means they've seen zero real growth (or worse, a real net contraction).
Portugal has seen zero net economic growth since 2007-2008.
Greece has been set back to where they were in the mid 1990s, so they've lost 25-30 years.
This list keeps going. It consists of most of the large economies in Europe, with only a few exceptions (Sweden has done OK after an inflation adjustment, somewhere close to break-even; the Baltic states have done well). Countries like Slovakia, Czech, Bulgaria, Hungary, Belarus, Slovenia, Croatia, et al. have seen zero growth since 2007-2008 roughly.
That chart mostly reflects that the dollar gained a lot of strength over that time span since it converts to dollar at every years exchange rate, if you go back to 2000 you'd see that all of them gained huge amounts since dollar weakened a lot from 2000-2007.
Let's say that you are on social benefits. Let's say that this gives you 7 euros a day of budget (for most of Europe it's 2 or 3 times that or more). What prevents you from flying/hitch hiking somewhere (you can easily find Ryanair 3 to 10 euros promotion flights), and couch-surfing there? Bonus points: pick a place where life is less expensive than where you live, for actually saving money while traveling.
I kinda agree with you for Western Europe and if you have a really good social network. But that's not the whole Europe.
Let's take the big problem-country in their chart (Romania). Unemployment/social benefits = 100€/month (and you only receive that in the first year after you got unemployed, after that is less); also, you can be required to do social work if you want to keep the benefits (so no vacation for you!)
Minimum salary = 250€/month.
Median salary = around 250€/month (46% of employees are paid at minimum salary and some take less than the minimum as they are not fully employed).
Average salary = 600€/month (because around 10% of employees are in IT)
Average pension = 230€/month
"Normal" cost of living for a person is usually more than 200€/month.
If you're on a minimum salary you probably don't have any savings and you don't know many people outside the country. And you need to know someone quite well so you can couch-surf at their house. Also, people over 50 don't usually know English and the nearby countries speak completely different languages. Usually older people visit their (Western Europe) relatives with all the expenses paid by their relatives, so you can't say it's a real vacation that you can afford.
You cannot just sleep outside in general by law in most of the EU. Loitering is a thing. Not to mention weather is often not exactly accommodating, so you would need gear to do that, and while not especially expensive, it is not free either, nor that comfortable.
Quite a few people do take to tent hikes or biking trips which are cheap - excluding time and effort.
Unfortunately not much of a defense against bubbles. It depends more on how you are choosing the sample rather than how representative it is on 2 dimensions.
I personally know people over a wide range of wealth and income brackets across several continents, including unemployed; but I don't know anyone who is involuntarily poor, because none of my hobbies or social circles would bring me into contact with a person who was struggling to get by.
I'm too, and I've lived at my current place for 8 months and already I know somebody who cannot. At my old place in a gentrified location, I knew quite a few.
