Should travel be subsidized?

The argument for sending youth around the globe.

Hey Reader,

A few weeks ago, Wired magazine co-founder Kevin Kelly appeared on my podcast, “No Blackout Dates,” to discuss his new book project, Vanishing Asia. The entire interview was fascinating, but towards the end, he brought up a concept I’d never thought about. Kevin believes that the federal government should subsidize kids in their late teens to travel internationally, in an effort to provide a broader global perspective and encourage big thinking.

His exact quote was this:

“I think travel is so important as a vehicle for learning, and for career, and for political peace, that I think that we as a country should basically subsidize travel because the benefits are so great. It’s worth subsidizing young people to leave their homes and go somewhere else.”

I’ve thought about this statement every day since the interview. Today’s essay is an outline of my thinking and research so far. In preface, this is a thought overview, in which I’m working through how I interpreted what Kevin said and the information I was able to dig up in a few hours of research. Each of these points could be drastically expanded.

See you on the other side.

---

Community Shoutouts

• Welcome to the new subscribers over the past week! I hope this newsletter inspires you to think big.

• Also in the podcast interview, Kevin notes his Nomadico newsletter, which serves as this week’s resource for Mountain Remote readers. Each week, five bullet points outline tools, tricks, and tidbits for remote workers traveling the globe.

• Thanks to those who shared their thoughts with me over the past seven days regarding their own golden rules of travel. The most popular line in last week’s newsletter was undoubtedly this one:

  • As an added bonus, you can guide your row in proper travel etiquette by remaining seated after the plane reaches the gate until the appropriate time to stand up (when the people a few rows in front of you have made their way into the aisle). This ensures that no one in your row succumbs to the gaper move of standing up immediately following the “ding” that signals the dimming of the fasten seatbelt sign, only to remain awkwardly standing, heads abutting the ceiling and necks tilted in obvious discomfort, for 10 to 15 minutes.

Now, let’s think broadly.

---

The case for subsidizing young people to travel the world

Travel’s greatest perk is that it increases self-awareness. Of one’s biases and stereotypes, of one’s ignorance, of one’s strengths. Even of one’s own identity. In this sense, I’ve come to look at the world as a shaded map. Before traveling, I knew only my hometown. The shading fades around each new place visited, never entirely, but enough that I can feel a connection to that place and see where it fits into the broader picture of humanity.

A federal travel subsidy could help millions of youth experience this feeling.

Of course, the argument could be made that the government already does subsidize travel, such as through airline subsidies, particularly to small cities and international destinations.

But that barely scratches the surface of what’s possible via an actual travel subsidy for youth.

Kevin Kelly noted that one way this could happen could be as a mandatory national service — similar to how some countries impose military service on youth. This would include options such as the US Peace Corps and other volunteer service platforms, but wouldn’t have to include service. Job training and government internships could count, among other things.

Though, nowadays an 18-year-old could simply hit the road with a MacBook, sign up for an Upwork account, and be a digital nomad for a couple of years in between high school and college, using the modest earnings from freelance projects to boost their living standards beyond what’s doable via a government subsidy.

I, for one, would have benefited from holding off on going to college until I was a bit more mature and able to prioritize things other than partying, punk shows, and snowboarding. Remote work as we know it today wasn’t a thing in 2002, but even then it was not uncommon for high school graduates to take a year off to travel.

Had there been funding and an organized system of global vagabonding for new graduates to enter into, certainly, many more would go that route.

Where would the money come from?

For the purpose of this exercise, let’s forget the mandate and look at federal travel subsidies on a volunteer basis (as in, you don’t have to travel abroad after high school, but if you want to, there are options).

The US government already funds study abroad programs through USA Study Abroad.

The mission of the program is as follows:

The U.S. Department of State is committed to expanding study abroad opportunities for American students to gain critical skills in support of our national security and economic prosperity.

Replacing three words in this mission statement tailors it to a wider audience, but for the same general purpose:

The U.S. Department of State is committed to expanding global travel opportunities for American youth to gain critical skills in support of our national security and economic prosperity.

USA Study Abroad offers scholarship opportunities for K-12 students, undergraduate and graduate students, teachers, scholars, and institutions. Ideologically, it doesn’t seem a big stretch to add a category for non-student youth.

Of course, that would require significant additional funding. This is where it gets tricky. Currently, USA Study Abroad is funded through the Higher Education Act, with funds appropriated by Congress on an annual basis.

Funding non-student-related travel through these funds would be all but impossible, and effectively illegal. But the US Peace Corps, a voluntary service program such as what Kevin mentioned, is funded through the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations bill.

One potential way forward, in my non-governmental mind, would be to take the revised USA Study Abroad mission statement and apply it to this bill.

The bill (I’m going to call it “the bill” from here on out due to its long name) funds a variety of humanitarian and development needs, according to its website, as well as the US commitment to the United Nations, government efforts to counter perceived rivals such as China, and even the Green Climate Fund.

Interestingly, funds from this bill are also intended for use to promote “democracy, human rights, and anti-corruption efforts” around the world (that’s how efforts to combat human rights abuses in China get funded).

Certainly, the mission statement could fit in there. Let’s look at the US Peace Corps and then expand outward to encompass other volunteer and productive youth travel concepts that could qualify for such a stipend as is proposed here.

The US Peace Corps receives about 1 percent of the bill’s total funding, about $508 million. Each volunteer receives a stipend of about $400 per month, plus a readjustment allowance of $375-475 per month upon completion of a 27-month service period. That totals out to just under $24,000 per volunteer, for 27 months, not including the cost of training, flights, and other expenses covered. My wife served in the Peace Corps in West Africa, and her stories have confirmed that the shoestring budget is tough at times, but doable.

About 3.2 million students graduated from high school in the US in 2019. We’d need at least five to seven times the Peace Corps’ annual budget to send even a small percentage of these students abroad for two years with a similar monthly stipend. If it were a voluntary program, income limits could be imposed to secure funding for those who otherwise would not be able to afford it.

At even just $30,000 per person all included, the undertaking would be incredibly expensive. Options such as part-time remote work or funding through grants and partnerships could help to remove or offset some of the cost and make the program available to more people. Even despite the price tag, though, the benefits could be so massive that the cost becomes trivial in the long run.

Participants would be better prepared for professional life

Studies have shown that travel makes one more creative, more assertive, and even smarter. This bodes well for the modern workplace, where careers are becoming more entrepreneurial and unpredictable. Workplace technology, including artificial intelligence, continues to evolve and will reshape seemingly all careers at an increasingly rapid pace in the coming decades (AI firmly penetrated my career just this month).

Having a young population of increasingly well-traveled and skilled workers, entrepreneurs, and thought leaders will be a necessity for any country, including the US, to enter or remain at the forefront of global power and innovation.

If you believe the argument, as I do, that it’s often hard to understand why something is worth protecting until you’ve seen the other side, it would seem that allowing a higher percentage of youth to experience how things are done around the world before they enter their prime working years is sure to boost innovation back home.

Put another way, once the mind is expanded, it cannot contract to its original state. A young person who otherwise wouldn’t have been able to afford to travel gaining the chance to experience cultures, situations, and ideas far from what they were raised around is only going to help further innovation, democracy, and efforts to preserve the planet and its cultures.

Funding youth to experience the world, then, furthers the All-American notion of working towards a more perfect union. Not only would a travel subsidy benefit the recipient and the planet, but it would also be an unabashedly patriotic undertaking.

---

Mountain Remote news and further reading

• Following today’s essay I encourage you to check out this article I co-wrote with colleague and friend Noelle Salmi about why travel can be beneficial to the planet, even despite its carbon footprint.

• Business Insider reported on downtown cores converting empty office space to adaptive-use space, including housing. The goal, according to the article, is to create "central social districts" that incorporate things like coworking, dining/nightlife, housing, and recreation. Sounds much more tenable to the future than the current setup of office towers that most people can't access.

• To hit the “Mountain” in the name, I close this week with some altitude inspiration. “The Pursuit of Soul” from Teton Gravity Research is a touching look at the importance of independent ski areas in an increasingly conglomerated industry.

That’s all for now. See you next week!