A 36-year-old facing redundancy is torn between jumping straight back into the job market and taking a 4-6 month career break to travel. This dilemma reveals the age-old question: when is it too late to prioritize life experience over financial security?
"I'm 36 and wondering if taking 4–6 months off is viewed negatively or if this is actually one of those rare windows in life to do something different before life gets more tied down," wrote the Australian marketing analytics professional on r/travel.
The post sparked an intense debate about career breaks in your mid-30s—a time when conventional wisdom says you should be climbing the ladder, not wandering Southeast Asia.
The situation: The poster works in marketing/customer/data analytics for a large Sydney corporate/banking environment. After years of wanting to "live or work overseas (especially Europe – Netherlands/Germany/Portugal)" but letting "work/life always get in the way," redundancy has forced a decision point.
The proposed plan: some time in Sri Lanka/India/Southeast Asia, 2-3 months in Europe, apply for jobs while traveling (especially Europe-based roles), and use the time to "reset, upskill a bit, and figure out where I'd actually want to live long term."
Financially, they'd still have 3-4 months of savings when returning, so it's not reckless—but it's also not the "safe" choice.
The case for taking the break:
Multiple commenters noted that 36 is actually the perfect age for this. You're young enough to recover career-wise but old enough to have savings and professional credibility. "This is literally what redundancy is for," one person wrote.
