
Vacations Are Necessities, Not Luxuries
Summer Has Become Synonymous With Vacations. Warm temperatures that bathe most of the country often encourage individuals to enjoy a change of routine that leads to relaxation. Over the last year and a half, statistics show that an average of 50% of Americans had taken a respite during the summer. Whether their tastes dictate exotic travel or trips to more domestic locations, most workers in the United States will take some type of break from their professional routines.
The ritual of summer vacations raises two seminal questions: Given the competitive job market and ever-rising cost of living, are vacations economically prudent? Fundamentally, do vacations constitute necessities or mere luxuries?
Despite the conventional wisdom of earning a living at all costs, it has become increasingly evident that vacations are more than luxuries. Studies suggest that any break in the routine of work becomes a necessity that preserves life and vitality.
Workers in the United States dedicate more hours to their jobs over sustained periods than workers in other industrialized nations. The struggle to earn a living often becomes a fixation with many working an inordinate number of hours. Some individuals work more than one job to make ends meet.
The compulsion to work longer and harder has taken a toll. Incidents of burnout occur far more frequently, with some experiencing job dissatisfaction due to overwork. Perhaps the most disturbing factor resulting from overwork has been elevated stress levels. Stress, which has increased markedly for many in the American workforce, can negatively impact health. In fact, heart disease, high blood pressure, and depression represent several health issues that plague those who work incessantly.
The legal profession exemplifies the hazards of overwork without a respite. A disturbing number of lawyers who work hours on end without sufficient breaks suffer professional burnout, substance abuse, or relational disfunctions.
The totality of studies proves that individuals who work full-time on a constant basis should periodically escape their professional routines to remain vital and healthy. The benefits of vacations can be profound, including a marked improvement in physical and mental health.
Some believe that an impactful vacation requires a significant outlay of cash to finance an opulent getaway. A respite from work, however, need not take the form of an expensive sojourn. In fact, any escape from professional responsibilities can achieve the desired results of relaxation and renewal.
If resources are scarce or inescapable professional obligations prohibit extensive travel, individuals may avail themselves of less costly alternatives for vacations that are more locally based. Activities such as camping, hiking, or visiting local parks and outdoor entertainment venues can achieve desired results without having to spend a considerable amount of money. More local, yet urban recreational activities include visiting historical sites or discovering new venues such as museums, galleries, and restaurants. Experiencing these activities with friends could heighten the level of enjoyment and maximize the diversionary aspect of these outings.
An alternative that maximizes a break from routine also includes visiting nearby cities or towns. Many seldom explore sites of interest within reasonable distances from their homesteads. Exploring historical and cultural venues in adjacent venues can provide enriching experiences that do not involve extensive or cumbersome logistics.
An effective vacation could be minimalist in nature. Effective breaks from the regimen of work could include binge watching favorite movies and television programs or pursuing avocational activities such as reading a book that is unrelated to professional obligations, learning to play a musical instrument, delving into a recreational sport, or taking a cooking class.
Planning a vacation requires prudent judgment to ensure a stress-free experience. Individuals should consider carefully such tasks as home improvement projects or volunteer activities that come with exacting expectations. These activities could be as stressful as professional obligations. Similarly, vacations with relatives should maximize relaxation rather than produce anxiety.
Many individuals take only one vacation a year. A single break from the work routine, however, may not sufficiently recharge. Depending upon the stress level of a job, breaks from work should occur periodically, thereby minimizing any reoccurrences of burnout. Brief respites taken on a regular basis can be substantially beneficial.
Despite the tendency to hold the bottom line on costs, employers should recognize the inherent value of vacations and encourage their employees to take advantage of the benefit. Companies with attractive vacation policies engender loyalty from their employees, who, in return, tend to work with greater efficiency and dedication.
The benefits of vacations become symbiotic. Workers feel valued and refreshed when they return to work. Employers reap the benefit of a loyal workforce whose expertise remains with the company.
Dr. Maya Angelou, poet, actress, author, and Reynolds Professor of American Studies at Wake Forest University, has stated: 'Each person deserves a day away in which no problems are confronted, no solutions searched for. Each of us needs to withdraw from cares which will not withdraw from us.'
Dr. Angelou's profound statement has contemporary validity. If American employers and workers recognize the benefits of vacations and pursue these respites with intelligent purpose, perhaps job satisfaction, performative efficiency, and a healthier and happier workforce would become omnipresent realities.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
No city is safe for allergy sufferers, study finds
There's no escape from it — pollen is in every U.S. state, ready to torment your nostrils. The seeds rain down from the trees in a strange yellow haze and ascends to the skies from the flowers and grasses. Even if you could easily pack up and move, nowhere is safe to avoid the dreaded, sniffling effects of seasonal allergies. 'It's a little bit like playing Russian Roulette,' Hannah Jaffee, the director of research at the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, told The Independent. 'If you already have allergies, you can be exposed to an entirely different set of allergens if you relocate.' 'Worst case scenario: you may live in a place and either not have allergy symptoms or have mild allergy symptoms. Then, you move somewhere else and start developing significant symptoms,' she added. Everyone is going to respond differently to a new location. 'If you already have allergies, you can be exposed to an entirely different set of allergens if you relocate. So, you might be trading some symptoms for others.' 'And then, in some cases, your symptoms might improve by relocating,' Jaffee said. More than 100 million Americans live with various types of allergies and over 81 million have seasonal pollen allergies. Some are genetically predisposed to develop allergies, which can factor into what they're allergic to and potentially how severe their symptoms would be. Many people develop allergies as they age and their immune system weakens. Seasonal allergies, which are also commonly known as 'allergic rhinitis' or hay fever, occur when people are exposed to pollen. The inflammatory response can cause sneezing, congestion, a runny nose, or red, watery, and itchy eyes. For people with asthma, it can lead to an asthma attack. For tens of thousands of people, it may even result in a trip to the emergency room. The severity of allergy symptoms also depends on where you live. There are three main types of pollen, including tree, grass, and weed. This year, the highest tree pollen levels were forecast across a wide swath stretching from the Pacific Northwest to the Southeast. The highest weed pollen levels were expected around the Plains states, the Carolinas, and along the Gulf Coast. The foundation also released what it named the nation's top 10 cities for seasonal allergies, with most located in the South and Southeast. Historically, the worst cities are in those regions, Jaffee noted. 'That's because these are climates that tend to be more humid and warmer, so they kind of favor that growth of pollen and mold,' she explained. Wichita, Kansas, led the rankings as the worst city for allergy sufferers. 'Since allergies are so different for everyone, you can thrive in the Southeast part of the U.S. and not have any allergies or still experience significant allergy symptoms elsewhere,' Jaffee said. 'It's kind of a mixed bag.' So, what do you do if you are moving — or want to? Generally, experts recommend that you visit the location for about two to four weeks ahead of time to get a sense of how your body responds, or to visit during different seasons. Talking to an allergist will also be useful for more personalized recommendations. Still, pollen seasons are getting longer and stronger for everyone. Human-caused climate change is resulting in earlier seasons, as well, with warmer temperature trapping heat around urban areas, increasing air pollution, and stimulating pollen production. The amount of pollen released by trees is higher and the strength of the allergic response to the tree pollen appears to be stronger. 'There's no question [that] as there's global warming, the pollen season is increasing,' Dr, Sanjiv Sur, director and professor of Allergy and Immunology at Baylor College of Medicine, said earlier this year. What may help ease the pain, if only for right now? Dr. Neelu Tummala, a clinical assistant professor of otolaryngology at NYU Langone Health, advises that people time taking medications so they are optimally effective, change clothes and take off shoes after spending time outside, and bathe pets. Jaffee recommends a pollen tracking app, in addition to personalized allergy testing. But, ultimately, there needs to be a wider response. 'Long-term, we should be looking at policy change to reduce the impact of climate change,' said the foundation's chief mission officer Melanie Carver. Solve the daily Crossword


The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Most adults do not plan on getting COVID-19 shot amid vaccine policy changes
More than half of American adults — 59 percent — say they do not expect to get the COVID-19 booster shot this autumn, according to new poll findings from healthcare policy group KFF. Poll results show that 23 percent of U.S. adults say they will 'probably not' get the vaccine, while 37 percent will 'definitely not' get the shot. Americans who said they will 'probably' or 'definitely' not get the shot were also more likely to say they think changes to U.S. vaccine policy are 'major' and will make people less safe. The data comes as the Trump administration makes drastic changes to the country's vaccine policy. Secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced earlier this year that the COVID-19 shot will no longer be recommended for healthy children and pregnant women. Kennedy also abruptly fired all 17 members of an independent vaccine advisory panel for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in June. He then replaced the panel with eight hand-picked appointees, many of whom have expressed vaccine skepticism in the past. Adults who identify as Republicans are far less likely to plan on getting the vaccine compared to those who identify as Democrats. About six out of 10 Republicans said they would 'definitely not' get the shot compared to about one out of 10 Democrats, according to the poll. White adults are the most likely to say that they are against getting the vaccine once the colder months arrive with about four out of 10 admitting they will 'definitely not' get the shot. Meanwhile, 32 percent of Black adults say they will 'definitely not' get the COVID-19 vaccine this fall, along with 30 percent of adults who identify as Hispanic. Adults between the ages of 30 and 49 are the most likely to say that they do not plan on getting the vaccine, with 42 percent of that age group saying they will 'definitely not' get the shot in the fall. The U.S. appears to be experiencing another summer wave of COVID-19 cases. As of July 29, COVID-19 infections are growing or likely growing in 40 states, including Florida, Texas, and New York, according to the CDC. The KFF poll was conducted via a national representative survey of about 1,300 people between July 8-14.


Politico
2 hours ago
- Politico
Senate appropriators defend the NIH
WASHINGTON WATCH Senate appropriators came out hard in support of the National Institutes of Health on Thursday, giving the agency a $400 million funding boost for the 2026 fiscal year. How so: The Senate Appropriations Committee upped the agency's budget to $48.7 billion in the 2026 funding bill that cleared the panel with a 26-3 vote Thursday. If the bill becomes law, it would increase cancer research by $150 million; Alzheimer's research by $100 million and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS, research by $25 million. The NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Office of Research on Women's Health would each get a $30 million boost. Research on maternal mortality, diabetes and rare diseases would also see an increase, among others. Why it matters: The funding boost is a rebuke from both Republicans and Democrats to the Trump administration's demand to decrease the NIH funding in the next fiscal year by as much as 40 percent, or $18 billion. Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) said the legislation 'prioritizes funding to help make Americans healthier and supports life-saving medical research.' Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the panel, said the budget increase was a message to 'the scientists wondering if there will even be an NIH by the end of this administration. This committee's resounding message is: 'Yes, Congress has your back.'' Murray urged scientists to continue their research in the U.S. despite the efforts of other countries to lure them away. The appropriators also adopted an amendment Thursday that would limit the Trump administration's control over NIH research funding. An amendment in the bill's manager's package limits the administration's plan to shift funding for most NIH grants from a multiyear schedule to an upfront single-year payment. The amendment states that no funds appropriated in the fiscal 2026 spending bill can be used to increase the proportion of grants fully funded in the first year of the award, compared with fiscal 2024. The NIH can only increase that proportion of forward-funded grants if the agency ensures it isn't cutting grants to do so. What's next: The bill is cleared for floor action. But congressional leaders haven't started bipartisan negotiations toward overall government funding totals, increasing the odds that lawmakers will again resort to a stopgap funding patch before the next fiscal year starts on Oct. 1. WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care. Peacock feathers have reflective structures that can amplify light into a laser beam, Science reports. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Carmen Paun at cpaun@ Ruth Reader at rreader@ or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@ Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: CarmenP.82, RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01. MORNING MONEY: CAPITAL RISK — POLITICO's flagship financial newsletter has a new Friday edition built for the economic era we're living in: one shaped by political volatility, disruption and a wave of policy decisions with sector-wide consequences. Each week, Morning Money: Capital Risk brings sharp reporting and analysis on how political risk is moving markets and how investors are adapting. Want to know how health care regulation, tariffs, or court rulings could ripple through the economy? Start here. WORLD VIEW A draft United Nations plan to make the world healthier no longer includes several targets cracking down on sugary drinks, trans fats and tobacco to prevent and control noncommunicable diseases globally. Struck down: A target of 80 percent of countries taxing sugary drinks at levels recommended by the World Health Organization by 2030, POLITICO's Rory O'Neill reports. That goal was a pillar of the initial draft, which will take the form of a nonbinding political declaration world leaders are expected to endorse at a Sept. 25 meeting in New York, on the margins of the U.N. General Assembly. The latest version has also dropped commitments to eliminate trans fats and aims instead to reduce them to the 'lowest level possible.' It also requires front-of-pack labels with nutritional information. A requirement for health warnings on tobacco packaging to be graphic and accompanied by elements that make it unattractive to consumers is also gone. The new draft has softer language on tobacco advertising, requiring countries to restrict it instead of eliminate it. 'Make no mistake, the Declaration in its current form is a backslide,' said Alison Cox, director of policy and advocacy at the NCD Alliance, in a statement. The alliance is a Switzerland-based civil society group working to promote chronic disease prevention. Why it matters: World leaders aim to reduce premature mortality from noncommunicable diseases such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes by 2030 through prevention and treatment and to improve mental health and well-being globally. Noncommunicable diseases killed 18 million people under age 70 in 2021, according to the WHO. Most deaths were in low- and middle-income countries. The aims align with the U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Make America Healthy Again agenda, but it's unclear how much the U.S. is involved in drafting the final text. HHS did not respond to a request for comment. What's next: Negotiators are meeting this week in New York to discuss the text.