Vacation Rentals Chile vs USA
One of the plus sides to Chile is when it comes to finding a place to stay while on vacation it's still a lot cheaper than anything you'll find in the states, I think.
Yeah I complain a lot about it being overpriced here and I think I'm right, but it's still cheaper than the states. There are plenty of exceptions like with certain electronics, and the phone bill, and lots of other ways they can stick it to you. Expats who move to Chile often find themselves saying "Wow...oh well, at least I'm saving on rent" so many times that the "cheap rent" appeal gets worn down like a rocky coastline bludgeoned by the powerful ocean waves.
Indeed that's the paradox about a third world country is sometimes things are a lot more expensive. For example, a Swedish producer I knew was irate to find certain locations here would go for US $1,000 per day, way overpriced according to her.
All that said, if you travel to Chile, once you get here you're going to find a lot of it quite reasonable. Even vacation rentals in US are stunningly expensive compared to rentals around the third world, and what one gets used to in Chile, for example. This Goin2Travel.com site I found is pretty good for finding deals, especially if you're looking for a vacation rental by owner, making it a lot easier/cheaper than going through some booking agency. Still, though, the prices are really subject to the geographical area, and even a spiffy site can't get around that. Take the Lake Tahoe apartment rentals - $1650 for a week. I mean, that's normal. But you can get a way with paying a lot less in Chile.
Here's an okay starting point for finding vacation rentals in Chile .
Honestly I wouldn't rely too much on the Internet in Chile, I usually find it much easier to just show up to a destination and ask around for rentals by owner, etc. In Isla Negra, a Pablo Neruda home, you can find decent cabins which can fit 4+ people for...I forget it was a long time ago. But I'm sure it wasn't more than $40. Of course this is what you wake up to:
And a seaside view:
So I think in Chile some places, especially more high-end places, will try to get closer to gringo prices but it's easy to avoid that and unlike the states the Internet is much further down on the list of ways to find stuff out and book lodging. Those cabins are ugly but you know it was pretty comfy and clean and economical and you know what, that's how I roll bee-otch: comfy, clean and economical.
posted by Chileno @ 10:48 AM
Share on Facebook
Search This Blog:
16 Comments:
Or you could always rent one of these pretty cheap, with all the commodities of a house, with no restriction as to where to go. =3
great post.
Cost of living in Chile overall is pretty low compared with the US or UK although some markets are totally fucked. 2nd cars are paid for in gold bullion and if you expect anything less than about 200,000 miles you're havin' a laugh. Booze is cheap in the shops but surprisingly expensive when you're out and about, unless it's beer which is slightly more than bottled water.
First, people calling Chile "Third World" should check out North Korea or Zimbabwe. Though I guess with language inflation they're Sixth World or something.
Second, Swedes bitching about cost of living here in Chile are welcome to go back to their 50+% taxation paradise anytime. Oh, and freeze their balls or ovaries to death too for the privilege.
Third, expats that don't know how to save significantly here on healthcare insurance (way cheaper than in the US), fresh produce, or cars (way cheaper than in Europe), and all sorts of services (full time nana anyone?), should have remained in their parents' basement. Or they can go and join the queue to buy food in Venezuela for all I care. The couple rotten bananas that will be left for them after waiting for hours might be cheaper.
Olivier, you didn't do your homework. The "third world" question has been discussed in depth.
Read #2 on the list of 2007's dumbest commenters. Then follow the link to the original discussion.
Basically there are three points.
1. "Third World" is impressionistic so you can't quantify it.
2. Nevertheless, it's appropriate. Sure, Chile's HDI might be closer to European levels, but Inequality is on par with Namibia. Calling Chile anything but third world is cruel ignorance of the vast, fucked majority of Chilean society.
3. Olivier, should you decide to stay in Chile 10 more years and your teenage daughter gets knocked up at age 16 good luck finding a safe, legal abortion. By then, with conservatives in control of La Moneda again and the rightist parliament as strong as ever, Chile may even see birth control pills off the shelves. Oh yeah, you'll do fine getting an abortion because your economic status makes you elite in Chile. And you can get birth control pills mailed in from France. You should.
But you're deluded in thinking that your Chilean paradise of dirt cheap nanas and abortions for the rich is anything resembling "First World".
Gimme a break.
I call Chile Second World. Third World is people dying from malnutrition or malaria and women walking miles to get a day's worth of unclean water while hoping they won't get raped.
I think you're the pot calling the kettle black as far "cruel ignorance" is concerned. Chile is far, far from perfect, and definitely not First World as a whole, but I also think you lack perspective. Check out life expectancy in Bangladesh to get a grip.
PS: I challenge you to write a new entry about why "inequality" is so bad so I can come back and kick your ass on that topic.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dude, "cruel ignorance" is glossing over the horrible conditions of Chile and coming up with cutesy terms like "Second World".
Obviously things could be worse. Have I ever claimed otherwise? That's a fucking red herring and you know it.
I call Chile like I see. According to you it is "cruel" to damage the delicate sensibilities of those who would claim Chile is more developed than it is, for all Chileans. Those who would say that Inequality, which is at the World's worst levels in Chile "happens everywhere" is no big deal. Those who would deny the real problems that poor Chileans face.
Chileans are getting fucked over in an economy that should serve them much, much better.
Olivier you would defend a country where your dirt cheap nana has to go into debt 18 months to pay for a fucking DVD player, whose daughter would be forced into teen pregnancy while yours could get a safe abortion by flying back to France or making an arrangement with a barrio alto doctor.
So the question is who are you being cruel to? Rich, white, exploitative Chileans, or the poor? I may ruffle the feathers of the former, but you, Olivier, seem to despise the latter.
Talk about cruel.
You attribute positions to me that I've never defended, as if I was an agent of the Las Condes happy few. I'm again urging you to watch Hans Rosling's videos to put things on their proper scale. Third World implies a level of (lack of) development that simply doesn't match today's reality in Chile, its many poor people included. You see, facts show that "developing country" is no longer just a euphemism. Also, I bought my first VCR on credit, I didn't realize at the time how unfair that was.
Maybe you'll care to explain us that Ireland and Portugal are Third World countries because they forbid abortion? Interesting way to look at human development, and interesting priorities. I guess forced abortions in China must have put them at the top of your country ranking. Free and provided by the government, what's not to like?
As far as inequality is concerned, I'll be glad to have a debate about why it may or may not be a bad thing. Given that ideologies professing equality for everyone have brought humanity its worst bouts of mass murder and starvation, you're facing an uphill battle, but go ahead and entertain us. You might not make sense, but you may at least write an essay worth a B+ in your random liberal university.
>>>You attribute positions to me that I've never defended, as if I was an agent of the Las Condes happy few.
How am I misrepresenting you? It's possible, but please be specific.
More generally speaking, you're singing Chile's praises from your perspective, which is economically superior to the vast majority of Chileans. You experience, and praise, Chile's development as it affects people of your economic status. So while you may not explicitly defend the "Las Condes happy few", it's implicit.
Yes I found Hans Rosling once and liked his shit and I'll post his Chile video one of these days. But the problem here is you're totally misunderstanding my angle, which if you'd done your homework would be clear I think.
I call Chile "Third World" with full knowledge that it's impressionistic. "Third World" is not tied to HDI (which is good in Chile), nor is it tied to Inequality (which is bad in Chile). Again it is absolutely impressionistic, its utility solely to counter the tide of far more absurd phrases like "The Miracle of Chile".
"Third World" is also what many Chileans I know call their own country, fwiw.
Yes, Ireland and Portugal are Third World in my book, when it comes to a woman's right to privacy. So is China, by forcing abortion the other way. So is every clinic in the US that restricts a woman's right to privacy. Snap.
Ugh, your arguments are so puerile, Olivier. It gets worse:
As far as inequality is concerned, I'll be glad to have a debate about why it may or may not be a bad thing. Given that ideologies professing equality for everyone have brought humanity its worst bouts of mass murder and starvation, you're facing an uphill battle, but go ahead and entertain us.
Jesus H. Christ, Olivier. To think that I mistook you for someone vaguely intelligent.
First of all, you are misrepresenting my argument. Since when have I advocated perfect equality? Never. Get a grip.
Secondly, even if I were, then your logic is still abysmally flawed. Lumping my supposed economic philosophy in with some militant and dictatorial movements that have also shared that philosophy does nothing to argue against the philosophy itself. Duh. Christ you're as shallow as a Fox News pundit.
For the record, my position has been clear. I've never gone as far as to argue for perfect equality, nor have I said that Chile's economic advances are not real. But with one of the world's worst levels of inequality, that should be adjusted. Wages and benefits should be increased dramatically, the playing field should be evened out.
After all, if Chile is such an economic miracle, then why do they constantly offer you a payment plan every time you check out a bag of groceries. That's obscene. And I'll say it again: Third World.
The obvious point that you're missing is that the poor in Chile have better living standards than the poor in about every other developing country, including many with flatter income distribution. Stop waving off HDI as if it didn't matter and address that instead of lowering again your standards to ad hominems.
Brazil or Chile, with their high Gini coefficients, are better places *even for their poorest* than some countries where pretty much everyone save a few government cronies are starving.
Unequal income distribution can be a good thing if it means you have a meritocracy at work, where those who contribute more get more. On the other hand "equal" societies can be extremely unfair and provide strong disincentives against work.
The only part you get right is this: "the level playing field should be evened out." Classic "boys' club" connections and prestigious last names play too much of a role, and there's not enough room for upward mobility. This is a perfectly legitimate criticism of Chile, which however doesn't make it "impressionisticly" Third World, as it's a flaw it shares with some far richer countries, from France to Japan (but I think you acknowledged that yourself). You see, when you make sense I can actually agree with you.
Short story long, your critique would have more bite if it focused on social mobility rather than on inequality per se. If by the latter you mean the former, clarifying so would be useful.
I'm stopping short of using the "miracle of Chile" phrase however I would like you to name other developing economies sitting on piles of valuable commodities and not turning into outright disasters. Yes, if you're Norway, you manage to handle your oil properly. But ask the poor in Nigeria or Sudan how they like their oil. You might not like it but does Chile stand out not just from the "as seen from La Dehesa" perspective.
>>>The obvious point that you're missing is that the poor in Chile have better living standards than the poor in about every other developing country
I'm not missing that point. I've never, ever denied it. I'm not at all brushing off Chile's HDI in the way that Clare brushed off Inequality. I've stated that HDI is good in Chile, I've referenced Hans Rosling's videos, ETC. Yet my argument is about what Chile needs to improve.
But you go on to reference my assertion that Inequality should be reduced - you're right that's my whole point. It's a Chilean problem and there are clear Chilean solutions: why not pursue them.
In a sense, ideally, I would like to minimize comparisons to other countries, and focus more on what Chile needs to improve for itself. Sure many of Chile's poor are better off than poor in other countries, but because they it's so unequal, they should be a whole lot less poor.
I mean, we can pore over HDI figures till doomsday but try spending a week as a poor Chilean. Living in one of Santiago's worst neighborhoods. Without kevlar.
Taking a broader look at it, you go down the list of economic and social policy in Chile and just about everything is far right. Duh. Chile's working constitution was created by a ruthless military dictatorship.
Chilean policy needs to change not because it's a certain way in the US or Norway, but because a woman's right to privacy should is a basic human right. Better wealth distribution is a human right. Poor people busting their ass 60 hours a week for a dollar an hour should earn much more in your "meritocracy" they deserve better.
So you can see why I'm hesitant to sing Chile's praises. If your song goes "Better than Sudan" then belt it out but in the meantime I'd like to focus on the severe hurdles Chile has yet to overcome.
My apologies, somehow this little bitch sneaked in under the radar and I just noticed it and published it. Olivier said:
>>>PS: I challenge you to write a new entry about why "inequality" is so bad so I can come back and kick your ass on that topic.
Nice try, tough guy, but you'll have to find someone else. I've never, ever made that argument and I don't intend to now. Perhaps it's you who has the fetish for sock puppet opponents? My extremely simple point that many here can't seem to grasp no matter how many times I elaborate upon it is that for the love of God Chile is among the world's most unequal economies is it too much to ask that your head not explode when I call it "Third World" for Inequality alone not to mention plenty of other obscene economic and social policies currently in practice?
I didn't think so.
You just said in the same paragraph that you've "never, ever made [the] argument that [inequality is so bad]" then restate that you "call it "Third World" for Inequality alone."
Which one it is? Are you making the argument that high income inequality makes a country worth belonging in the Third World category, or are you not? All I've read from you shows you do, so why claim the opposite now?
You wrote "better wealth distribution is a human right." That's a weird one. Are you talking about the wealth distribution of property that already belongs to a private person or entity, or are you talking about, say, distribution of the proceeds of state-owned natural resources such as copper? Do you believe private property is a basic human right as well?
Ugh, you are really incorrigible. I am not contradicting yourself it's just wishful thinking on your part, that I be arguing for something I'm not. I will again repeat my position:
1. I have never argued for perfect equality. That's something you pinned onto me because you identified it as an argument you could win, not because it had anything to do with the reality of what I'm arguing for.
2. The level of Inequality in Chile is ridiculously high and yes, as you yourself agreed to earlier further up, should be evened out. My proposal is to dramatically increase wages and benefits. (That's also what the Chilean Government acknowledges as well, with their "Ethical Wage" debate. I've said repeatedly that it's a farce because their appeals for ethical wages are not backed up by government-imposed consequences. So they might as well save their breath). So yes better wealth distribution in the form of higher wages and benefits is, in my book, a human right, because I consider sucky working conditions that are way underpaid to be abusive and torturous. That's hardly a radical position to take.
I'm not going to answer your question about private property because it has absolutely nothing to do with what I've argued for. I've never argued for seizing property from people. So it's a red herring, Olivier. (You seem to have quite a fetish for our feathered friend).
Anyway as far as I know copper wealth is being set aside for social programs, I'm talking more about workers who get paid next to nothing. If Chile's economy is so great why aren't they making more?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home