newnative

How about not just 'entertainment venues' but all buildings where large numbers of people gather?

As always, a few weak, useless words from the PM with no force behind them. In a few weeks, another useless statement that the PM is 'satisfied' with the results.

I sincerely hope this horrific tragedy receives the same lengthy, detailed, relentless scrutiny that the actress falling off the boat got. Just as an aside, there's a new, very cheap-looking building being constructed on 2nd Road near the 747. Long rectangle, few windows, looks a bit like the one that burned. Hope it gets a thorough inspection before it's allowed to open.

Yes, that's exactly what the PM should have done--immediate closure until a full inspection is done. Just ordering an investigation is far too weak and slow.

He's not the only one disappointed. Instead of starting so many projects at the same time, with not enough manpower to finish them, why not consolidate the workers at the most critical projects (hello 2nd Road!) and get them finished, then move on to the others.

Yes, that area isn't noisy. Mostly other hotels such as Mercure, Pattaya International hospital, and a few condos.

The last two flights I took before covid hit were in December 2019. I had made an unexpected trip to the US for my mother's funeral and had to make hasty travel arrangements. I left to return to Bangkok on Dec. 23rd. The first leg was Lufthansa from Dulles to Frankfort on a 747. I remember just before takeoff a big group of college students on the flight flying home for the holidays sang Christmas carols. Nice. The flight was packed. Service and food were both fine. The airport at Frankfort wasn't. I expected a lot better. Unimpressive and I had to take a shuttle bus from one terminal to another one. Freezing cold, drizzly, and we had to wait and wait until enough people had boarded that we were packed in like sardines before the shuttle would take us to the other terminal. I likely would have missed my flight had I had a tight connection. Perhaps I was spoiled by the wonderful airport at Seoul--which I had stopped at on my flight to America. Changing planes there was a breeze. The flight from Frankfort to Bangkok was on Thai, on an A380, my favorite jet. I had been assigned a window seat--which I hate because you usually have to disturb 2 other people when you need to get up. I asked the staff if they could switch me and they were able to move me from the lower level to the upper level, to an aisle seat in a row with just 2 seats. This flight was almost fully-booked and the staff was nice to make the change for me. This was my third time flying on Thai. People complain but all three flights were fine. The food and service were good. The flights left and arrived on time. No complaints. Sometime afterwards, I wondered if I had flown my last flight on a 747 and A380--hope not for the latter.

Pity the same effort was not made to capture the Red Bull killer.

Interesting. Thanks for posting.

Lots of rich people live in Pattaya. It's a big city, with a large variety of housing, some of it very nice. Perhaps you need to get out more and do some exploring.

It depends on the project. Always important to check the financials and the sinking fund, which is meant to help with big repairs. Check how the property is being maintained. The last condo I owned was in an upscale, older project with less than 200 units, mostly larger than the condos in newer projects. We had a special assessment each year because the condo fee was inadequate to maintain the project to the high standard the owners wanted. The owners, including me, we're happy to pay as it maintained our property investment. With some condo projects, the owners care more about keeping the condo fee low, even if the project is not very well-maintained. Important to investigate before buying.

If I remember correctly you said your father had to pay a large tax bill on the profit on his home when he sold so his property investment must not have lost money, even if he might have made a better return on something else--or, perhaps worse.. You never said whether he had a mortgage but if he did that would have earned him tax benefits during the mortgage years. I certainly agree that if you can choose the right investments--and have the discipline to stick with it--you have the possibility to garner a bigger return than with real estate, depending on how the investment does and where the real estate is. However, I'm not sure most people have that discipline; I know I don't. Real estate isn't the only way to invest money but it was my only avenue with my income at the time. As I have said, the monthly money set aside for housing was the only investment money I had. Buying a condo rather than continuing to rent put that money to work for me, not the landlord. Obviously, if you have more money to work with, your options also increase. For me, using that money to buy property rather than wasting it on rent paid off. All my friends did the same thing at the time--we were young with little or no savings to invest--but we all had that housing money to do something with each month while keeping that roof over our heads. We were fortunate to live in an area where real estate appreciated nicely. Most of us moved around a number of times, taking our profits and buying slightly better each time--some moved from a condo to a townhouse to a single-family home. I think this was common. I do believe had I continued to rent I would have never gotten ahead and I would probably be living on a shoestring right about now. Sorry about your bad experience with real estate in the 1980s. Timing can be important with real estate, and sometimes patience is needed. I don't know the particulars but perhaps had you held the property you might have had a better outcome in due time. Case in point: The last property I sold in the US was a Reston, VA condo. I had bought it as a foreclosure in 2009, paying $170,000. I thought I was getting a bargain because the previous owner paid $350,000. This for a 1 bedroom condo! A good example of the real estate madness of that period. Little did I know, the market was not yet at rock bottom and the condo continued to decrease in value--to $160,000. I was not going to sell at a loss, so when my partner and I decided to move to Thailand in 2010 we rented it out. And, continued to rent it out until 2014, making some money while paying down the mortgage. By that time we were tired of trying to manage the rental from Thailand. The condo had finally increased in value from $160,000 to $179,000 so we decided to sell, making a small profit as we used Craigslist to find a buyer and a relative to handle the sale and avoid realtor fees. Selling seemed like a good idea at the time. Wrong. Somehow I've gotten on Zillow's mailing list and periodically they send me updates on this condo I sold. Last update in July had the condo at $235,300. Thanks, Zillow, for periodically reminding me of my failure to be patient. In any case, it's been an interesting discussion. Except for my youngest niece who just got out of college, all my friends and my very large, extend family, both here and in the US, own property rather than renting. I've enjoyed reading your different point of view. Have a good day.

I like your posts; I just don't find your few statistics to be very relevant in the real World, where there is more than just financial gain in play in the equation of renting vs. buying. If I rent and invest the supposed savings each month, 30 years down the road I will maybe earn more than I would buying a home. Ok, all fine and good. But, there's more to it than just an investment. More to it than comparing the return on the buying of a stock vs. buying, say, gold. You don't live in either of those. We're talking about where you'll spend a good part of your life--in the home you own or someone else's you rent. That's important, at least to me. But, hard to assign a value. I would question your statement that most people don't 'do better' in real estate. As opposed to what? Religiously sending that $900 off each month to the index fund? Providing they actually do that? Yes, perhaps a bigger return there but that's disregarding all other factors. I never found owning a home to be restrictive and where is the housing market 'terrible'? This whole thread is about the housing price 'explosion'. But, even if one market is actually terrible does that mean don't buy anywhere? Despite your gloom and doom regarding a home purchase, about three-fourths of Americans are happy they purchased a home, 'anchor' or not. By the way, I also liked your father's story--you dodged all my questions about it, though. I wonder if he counted himself among the three-quarters who were happy they purchased a home. If yes, how do you figure in that happiness when you're calculating his home profit when he sold?

Women actually now earn 85 cents to every dollar a man earns in the US so the gap is finally closing. Women do spend-- going to the grocery store and buying food to feed the family, buying clothes for the kids, spending on the kids at the doctor and the dentist, buying underwear for hubby who is too lazy to shop for himself, buying the Christmas and birthday presents for the family and relatives, taking and paying for hubby's suits at the dry cleaners, buying housewares and whatnot to keep the house running . . . Yes, spend, spend, spend. Shameful.

I'm not claiming anything, just stating a fact that 50% of marriages do not end in divorce. I would dispute your claim that 'most women contribute nothing'. I don't think that's the case these days, with so many married women working. Over 72% in the US in 2019, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In any case, whether a married couple has invested in a home or an S&P index fund, if they divorce the assets will be split, by various formulas that some will view as fair or unfair.

In my case, there was not a big difference between what I was paying in rent and what my monthly condo expense was with the small condo I bought. They were about equal, even without the mortgage tax advantages figured in. That's how I knew I could afford to buy if I could just scrape up the down payment--I would be spending about the same each month. Back then, I wouldn't have had an extra $900 to invest each month. In your father's case, did he have a mortgage? If so, did you figure in his tax savings over the life of the mortgage? How about the satisfaction of home ownership that 74% of Americans strive for? What's the value of that? For me, it's high. I know it was for my parents, and is for my 5 siblings. Perhaps it was for your father, as well. In any case, he did end up with a chunk of money, even if some of it went to taxes. Could he have made more as a renter? Maybe. Would he have been happier renting all those years? It's not always just about the money. One can always make a case for doing something and getting better results. Invest that $900 each month and reap the rewards. That's assuming people have the discipline and the $900 actually gets invested each month and not spent on some bright bauble of the moment, instead. Big assumption. That's also assuming past investment returns will continue at the same pace in the future. Looks good on paper but we don't live life on paper, although some end up living in cardboard boxes--a fate I didn't want. Having to keep a roof over my head was my discipline to not fritter away my money but to keep focused on making the monthly mortgage payments, the best investment with my poor financials at the time.

Yes, and 50% of marriages don't end in divorce. And, not all divorces end with the wife getting the house. Nine states in the US split assets 50/50 with a divorce. With just a 50% chance of success, why do people invest in a marriage in the first place? My goodness, it's sooo simple. Stay single and invest in that S&P index fund the other poster mentioned. Easy peasy. Except, it's not. It's life, which is not simple or easy. Or cut and dried. In any case, it's difficult to predict the future with any investment and there are so many variables and considerations in play. Which sort of makes my point with my previous point--there's more involved than just a few statistics.

I thought your post was a bit simplistic because it only referenced a few statistics. People's financial decisions are not explained in a few statistics. Renting vs. home ownership is also a lot more than a few statistics. I could cite a statistic that home ownership is still the American Dream of 74% of Americans, despite other investments perhaps offering a better return. The personal stories I referenced were used to illustrate that more than just statistics enter into the equation. I'm sure many other home owners have their own stories. I don't think, by the way, that borrowing money from a relative automatically puts one in the 'privileged class'. The lender may or may not be in that class but if someone needs to borrow money, he probably isn't. And, lending and borrowing $10,000 is not exactly high finance either, come to think of it. What I find most curious in your first post, and this one, is you make a special point of mentioning the high interest rates of the 1980s and how this prevented some people from buying a home. But, your first post was all about how buying a home is a bad investment. So, if we follow your logic, those people shut out in the 1980's were actually done a huge favor because they were prevented from buying a property which would 'only' likely double in price in 30 years. Or, might have not even doubled. Or, might have lost money. And, those taxes. Phew! Lucky them! Dodged a bullet! I imagine they all invested in that S&P index fund you mentioned and tripled their money, instead. Happy ending. But, suppose, like me, you aren't of the privileged class. How do you invest in that S&P index fund if you don't have a big chunk of money to invest in the first place? Yes, you could send a little money each month--if you had a little money left each month after paying all the monthly expenses, including the rent, which in my case went up at least 5% every year, while my paycheck didn't. Most months I was just breaking even, with no savings. Little or nothing left to send to the index fund. So, we're back to the question of how do you create a little wealth for yourself if you're not of the privileged class, while still having the big monthly expense of keeping a roof over your head. For me, a huge part of my monthly take home pay in expensive northern Virginia was going to rent, which, as I said, increased each year. That chunk of monthly rent money was the biggest amount, and really the only amount, for me to work with in terms of any investment. But, always looming, I still had to keep a roof over my head and not be homeless. So, I chose to invest in me, rather than the landlord. Something I could invest my rent money in that might only double in 30 years was better for me than a zero investment in something that would triple in value.

It's the same thing on Pattaya Beach Road. The city foolishly decided to allow parking on the beach side. So, 3 lanes of traffic were reduced to 2 lanes. But--surprise, surprise--people's behaviors did not change. Drivers were used to stopping their vehicles in the left traffic lane and using it for parking as there were still 2 traffic lanes available. So, delivery drivers parked in the traffic lane. People running into 7-11 or other stores parked in the traffic lane. Taxis waiting for customers, tour buses . . . And, they still selfishly do--no change in behavior. They'll park in the traffic lane even when a parking space is available a short distance away. No, they must stop right in front of the store. They cannot walk any extra steps. What was 3 lanes of traffic is often now at busy times down to just 1 lane--which often itself gets bogged down with drivers trying to parallel park or waiting for a car to leave on the beach side parking.

I disagree with your assessment, which seems a bit simplistic and fails to consider any of the many factors that go into most people's investment decisions. Perhaps some houses may have 'only' doubled in value over 30 years but there's more to home ownership than just that. I doubt there are very many people who regret buying property in the West. One of my older sisters bought her house--which she still owns--in the high interest 1980's you mention. The interest rates were, indeed, sky high but she wanted to be a homeowner and wanted a particular historic house that came on the market at that time. No regrets for her. Lots of factors go into financial decisions. Here's another example. My father retired from the US Dept. of Defense at the age of 58 in 1972. Having lived all over the World with his job, the family returned to Chambersburg, PA, where he and my Mom had grown up. He and Mom bought a nice house in a nice neighborhood for $45,000, with a 20-year mortgage. In 1992, the mortgage was paid off. He and Mom continued to live in the house another 17 years, mortgage-free, with just utilities and low taxes to pay. The thing about rent is it's forever; a mortgage isn't. With the money he was saving not having a mortgage or rent to pay--and all the kids finally out of college, Dad started investing in stocks more seriously--he always had but now he had more money. He always felt guilty about moving us six kids around so much when we were growing up and he hoped to leave each of us $100,000 after he and Mom passed away. When he died in 2009 his stock portfolio actually was about $600,000. But, Mom was still alive so nothing was sold and the stock dividends helped pay for her nursing home care. (She had Alzheimer's. ) We sold their home for $150,000 and the proceeds also helped offset the nursing care expenses. Even in a fairly out-of-the-way place like Chambersburg, the house did increase in value. Had they rented those 37 retirement years it would have been a lot of money out the window and no $150,000 at the end of the road. My Mom passed away in 2019, age 101. From 2009 to 2019 we kept almost all of Dad's original stock portfolio, mostly blue chip dividend stocks Dad had bought to assist with Mom's expenses, figuring, correctly, that he would likely go first. We were fortunate to have this income, and Mom still got half of Dad's retirement. With those funds, and with the house money, we had enough to pay for Mom's care. The stock portfolio more than tripled in value, perhaps a good example of 'buy and hold'. In my case, I worked at a low-paying state job in expensive northern Virginia for 30 years. Loved my job but never made more than $35,000 a year. For 5 years I also worked a part-time job, as well, to make ends meet. Hated living pay check to pay check praying something major and/or expensive didn't break. The smartest thing I ever did was ask my Dad for a loan to help me make the down payment on a small condo to buy. With the tax benefits, buying would cost about as much each month as what I was paying in rent. I would be paying myself, not a landlord. The first condo got me in the door but it wasn't my dream place. Fixed it up and sold it at a profit, which began a semi-second career. A half-dozen condos later and I finally had some money in the bank--and the condo I wanted on a lake. One thing I always find amusing is posters often say, if you had done THIS rather than THAT, your return would have been much better. More often than not it's a comparison of buying property rather than investing the money in something else. It's almost always couched as do one or the other. In reality, one can do both. We're allowed to walk and chew gum at the same time. However, there is also the other reality of not having a big chunk of money to invest either way. 'If only you had taken that money you spent on property . . . ' Uhh, what money? In my case, I had $10,000 for a down payment on a condo. Not a lot to invest in the stock market--and I still needed to budget money to keep a roof over my head. So, not much for stocks but enough to get me a property I could fix up--while keeping that roof over my head at the same time. Live in it for awhile, then sell at a profit, while saving on rent and benefitting from tax deductions. Which eventually led to having enough money to both buy the next property and invest in some stocks.

Yes it would likely stimulate the economy if the monetary requirement was reasonable and sane--say, maybe a minimum of 5 million baht. 40 million is unreasonable and insane. Don't stand on the corner, dude, waiting to see the economy stimulate with this proposal. Not going to happen.

I don't think there is a 'one size fits all' answer. Nor, should there be. It wouldn't be good value for me because I don't need or want an Elite visa. Nor do I want to live in that particular area. Nor do I want to buy a 1 bedroom condo to live in. Nor am I looking to buy a 1 bedroom condo as an investment to rent out. For someone else with a different set of wants and needs, perhaps it might be.

Absolutely. Just because one hotel is doing badly, it doesn't mean that all are. And, it doesn't necessarily mean an area is doing badly. Some people scratched their heads when Grande Centre Point started a massive new Pattaya project--Centre Point Space--with covid raging. They already had a large hotel on top of Terminal 21. Why would they build another massive hotel right across the street? Especially with some other older hotels in the same area shuttered for lack of business? That rundown, small older hotel with little in the way of appeal or amenities might be lacking customers but Centre Point was attracting enough customers to warrant another hotel nearby. Ditto for the Amari Group building both a large, new addition and the Ozo Hotel next door.

It's always fun to look.

One of the projects in your post, recently finished, had pre-construction pricing of 180,000 baht a sqm. I remember posting at the time that I couldn't make the numbers work. Ideally, you want to buy low with pre-construction and hope the price rises after the project is finished. For example, we bought pre-construction at The Base for about 89,000 baht a sqm. We rented the condo for a year at 25,000 baht a month and then sold it, getting about 121,000 baht a sqm. Buy low, hopefully sell higher. With the project in your post, buyers were buying very high and hoping the price would go even higher. That doesn't seem to be the case, at least for now. Hipflat has the current average price dropping from 180,000 to 159,000 a sqm. I do think the pricing on some of the new projects is way too high--certainly too high to interest me. Were I looking, I'd rather buy a seaview condo in a well-managed older project, with a smaller number of larger-sized units, in a prime location. I'd likely be in a project with more resident-owners ( a good thing), more long-term rather than short-term renters (also good), and far fewer illegal daily renters (great).