newnative

Maybe re-read my posts a little more carefully. I did not 'assume' that you meant 'S E Asia'. I, of course, knew you were commenting on China, with your main point being that with Chinese tourists, of the money they spend in Thailand, in your words, 'very little hits Thailand'. Your second point was western tourists, with their higher average spend, were contributing the most to Thailand tourism but that was not being recognized. Remember your comment, 'maybe soldiers can't add up'. I disagreed with both of your assumptions and decided to present the facts. In order to dispute your assumptions, it was important to get a picture of tourism spending in Thailand in 2019, to see what the three main groups were contributing, these being western tourists, around 9.2 million, Non-Chinese Asian tourists, around 14 million, and Chinese tourists at 10.9 million. In my posts I compared all three. Although your first post left the impression that western tourists were contributing the most ('maybe soldiers can't add up'), in reality, that was not the case in 2019. Asian tourists, both Chinese and non-Chinese, contributed far more. And, actually, non-Chinese Asian tourists, at 14 million, were likely the biggest contributors to tourism revenue with their higher tourist numbers. In a nutshell, we have, in 2019, 9.2 million western tourists spending your average of 76,500 baht for about 703 billion baht vs. about 25 million Asian tourists spending your average 52,500 baht for over 1.3 trillion baht. Both groups are, of course, very important but I think it's clear which was more important in 2019. And, likely going forward as tourism re-opens. I also showed with Statista data that it's not true to claim, as you do, that with 543 billion baht in Chinese spending in Thailand in 2019, 'very little hits Thailand', in your own words. That's simply not true. And, you, on the other hand, have not provided a shred of hard data in any of your posts to support your claim. Which leads me to live dangerously and assume you don't have any.

I read your post 'properly'. Yes, you focused narrowly on the Chinese; I did not. I said, wait a minute, there were 14 million other Asian visitors in 2019; let's not forget them, as posters often do. I also discussed the western tourists and compared the spending of all three, which you need to do if you're talking about tourism revenue, as the 3 groups made up the vast majority of the tourists in 2019. But, back to the Chinese. 10.9 million Chinese visitors in 2019 multiplied by the figure you gave for average Chinese spending of 52,500 baht equals about 572 billion baht. According to you, 'very little hits Thailand.' 572 billion baht isn't 'very little' in my book. Believe what you will but any statistics to back up your claim that, of that figure, 'very little hits Thailand'? Statista gives us a slightly different figure on Chinese tourist spending in Thailand in 2019: 543.71 billion Thai baht. So, whether it's 572 billion baht or 543 billion baht, neither amount is, once again, 'very little'. By the way, most posters on the Forum who buy in to the zero dollar nonsense always post that the Chinese tourists only stay in Chinese-owned hotels in Thailand. But, now you're saying the hoteliers in Thailand are getting 'screwed down' by the Chinese. So, are the Chinese hotel owners in Thailand being 'screwed down' by their fellow Chinese tour operators? Or, are the hotels actually owned by Thais, who are being 'screwed down'? One of those deep mysteries, I guess, Either way, I'm thinking all the Thai workers being employed at the hotels could care less who the owner is. Ditto for all the other Thai workers in the tourism industry. They're all happy to have a job, regardless of who owns the hotel or the tourist attraction. (And, really no different than the French tourism workers at Paris Disneyland, owned by an American company.) One final thought, can't those hotel owners, whomever they are, say no to the Chinese if they feel they are being 'screwed down'? Seems it's up to them. And, hey, with no Chinese tourists at the moment, it's an easy no.

Thailand is not included in the 'above list'. Thailand abstained, along with 30-some other countries.

I don't envy my Thai brother-in-law and sister-in-law. They both have banking jobs, at different banks, and slog in to Bangkok from their house near Impact. They leave in the morning around 5:30am and are back home around 7:30pm, sometimes later, if they stop to pick up some food. By the time they get home they are exhausted; they get some dinner, watch some tv, then the evening is about over and it's off to an early bedtime, to start the whole thing all over again the next day. Weekends, they try to catch up on laundry, cleaning, and other household chores. Maybe manage an evening out and some shopping. The one bright spot of covid for them was they could work from home but they are now mostly back working in Bangkok. I think a lot of Thais stay in their jobs because once you reach a certain age, fewer businesses will hire you. When my partner and I moved to Thailand from the US he was in his 40s and he told me he would have difficulty being hired. He showed me adverts for jobs that clearly stated applicants had to be under a certain age and, sometimes, only a certain sex. I don't think there's much in the way of age and sex discrimination job protections here, unless it's recently changed. If my banking relatives wanted to quit their jobs where would they go? Who would hire them? They are in their 50s. At this point they will grit their teeth and stick it out until mandatory retirement at 60--which seems very early to me to force retirement. At that point they will each get a lump sum retirement payment--that is likely not to last them until they die. Still, they are much better off than many other Thais who have far less.

Yes. I think it's been re-done and there are plans to expand it, as well.

I think you can find suitable women in either place. Greater Pattaya is really quite large and the bar areas are just a small part of it. There are plenty of 9-5 women workers. I would not be choosing Hua Hin or Pattaya based on your type of woman requirement. I think you should weigh your location on other things, such as the variety of housing choices available, medical services, proximity to Bangkok, shopping and entertainment choices, recreation, international airports nearby, abundant nightlife when you may want it, and the number and variety of beaches since both are beach towns. Pattaya comes out on top for me; for others, Hua Hin might.

Visitors from western countries were about 9.2 million in 2019. Visitors from East Asia countries, ASEAN countries, and South Asia countries were 29.3 million. 9,200,000 X your 76,500 baht western spending = 703,800,000,000 baht in western spending. I don't have an average Asian spend but if we're conservative and use your China figure we have: 29,300,000 x 52,500 baht = 1,538,250,000,000 baht in Asian spending. Both big numbers, but Asian spending was over twice as much. If not a single Chinese visited Thailand in 2019, we still have 18.3 million other Asian visitors that year. 18,300,000 X 52,500 baht = 960,750,000,000 in non-Chinese Asian spending. So, even without the 11 million Chinese, still more than the western spending. Seems the 'soldiers' can 'add up' ok.

Dollar to baht: 38.22 today. As an American, happy to be living here.

A major general and still cocks up a cushy spokesman job. Maybe save some money and replace him with a lieutenant. I know, where in the world to put all those way-too-many major generals on the payroll.

Hmm. I don't remember reading about any international news correspondents being booted out of Thailand for covering the Thai cave rescue without a work permit. Just googled an old story and it said there were reporters from NBC, CBS, ABC, the BBC, and, yes, CNN at the cave site reporting on the story.

I, too, would love to see fewer stray dogs and better sidewalks. The city could start with the major roads. For example, the sidewalks are mostly narrow and bad on the shop side of Beach Road. They need major improvement. Busy Second Road has a section by the police dormitory with no sidewalk at all, with other sections by some of the hotels extremely narrow, so you also end up in the street.

I applaud the city for planning special events to bring visitors to Pattaya. However, there has been little or no thought by the city regarding traffic flow to handle the large crowds, which do indeed 'make getting into town a nightmare'. Adding 200 parking spaces is a drop in the bucket and will just make Beach Road more of a traffic nightmare and much less visually-appealing. Even now, with international arrivals to Thailand at less than 8 million, vs. 40 million in 2019, roads can be traffic-clogged. What will they be like when tourism gears back up? It's so short-sighted to plan for a couple hundred people to park their car next to the beach while at the same time creating clogged, stalled traffic for many more other cars trying to get to their destinations. Same story with North Pattaya Road, one of the major roads to get to all the popular new developments in the north Pattaya Beach area. A lot of the road is already designated no parking. But, here and there, parking is allowed; so instead of 3 lanes of traffic each way there are only 2. A few parked cars are catered to, while thousands of others are stuck in the congestion. Instead of 3 lanes of traffic--and more cars--getting through signaled intersections, fewer do, creating more back-ups and the need for longer traffic signal sequences, which creates even more back-ups. Pattaya has reached a traffic density where it can no longer have parking on some of its major roads.

From his description it sounds like a very piddling review. I didn't read anything about background checks, stringent performance reviews, getting rid of bad cops, etc.

Just because one project didn't work doesn't mean you reject ever doing something similar. Hopefully, they learned from their mistakes. I suggest they bulldoze the decrepit, dysfunctional, too-small City Hall building with inadequate parking and build a large parking garage there, with a trolley terminal. Park your car and grab the trolley to the beach. Other parking garages can also be built in the south and central parts of town, also linked with public transportation. Eliminate parking on Beach Road entirely and expand the sidewalks, adding many more shade trees and other greenery on both sides of the road. City Hall does not need to be in that location. Choose a large plot and build a new City Hall that brings together other government agencies that are scattered around the city--all of them now in mostly inconvenient locations in too-small facilities with inadequate parking--PEA, PWA, DBD, Land Office, that Tax Office off of Thepprasit Road, etc. One stop shopping to do all your government business. Pattaya has grown so much it needs a major upgrade on its government buildings.

Totally agree. It was a huge mistake to eliminate a traffic lane and allow beachside parking. Looks awful and blocks the view of the beach and ocean--plus impedes traffic flow. Now they just want to compound the problem--adding more concrete and losing more of the established trees. They should be looking for ways to reduce traffic on Beach Road, instead of adding to it--such as building more parking garages and a trolley system.

'Will allow 200 more cars to park along the beach.' As if that is a good thing. Meanwhile, more trees lost, more concrete added, more nature removed, and more congestion, not less. Planning should be focused on reducing the number of vehicles on Beach Road not adding them--with more parking garages and some sort of trolley running where the current beachside parking is now.

Boo hoo.

Thanks for posting. Beautiful view.

Never thought I was crazy but when Trump won the Presidency I did catch myself wondering a few times if it was all just a horrible, bad nightmare I was in.

Of course it's 'old hat' to you. But, it's not old hat for first time visitors--everything on your list is all new to them--and lots of other attractions you didn't mention.

It's one of the premier magazine groups, publishing The New Yorker, GQ, Architectural Digest, Vanity Fair, Vogue, and Conde Nast Traveler, among others.

Yes. We were on Pratamnak Soi 6 and it was a long hike up to the baht bus route. The part of Wong Amat we were at by the beach in the north--by The Palm, Riviera Wong Amat, etc., also did not have a baht bus route nearby and it would have been a long hike to T21 from there. We always drove.

Yes, I think normally over 30 days is ok, too, with condos although some condo projects have written longer rental periods into their by-laws.

Right, I was referring to condos.

Daily rentals are illegal.