Longwood50

Do they have this headline on AUTO RENEW Seems to be a headline every 90 days. Thai immigration launches new online 90 day reporting system

Well perhaps but I am skeptical. Common sense tells me, I pay for more the electric car to begin with and as it ages its batteries become exhausted and my range decreases. As it approaches the age to replace the battery its resale value plummets so whatever "savings" I got from driving an electric vechicle are lost when I factor in the depreciation. Though you may be happy at this time and perhaps always will, 1 in 5 drivers in Californa said, they will not purchase an EV the second time. That is a lot https://www.businessinsider.in/1-in-5-electric-vehicle-owners-in-California-switched-back-to-gas-because-charging-their-cars-is-a-hassle-new-research-shows/articleshow/82332806.cms

I am going to conjecture that for the most part it is not a problem in the U.K. either. The point is that when demand during a peak travel period spikes, the normal which is typically not a problem, suddenly transforms into a problem. The report is that U.K. drivers waited upwards of 6 hours to get to the front of a charging line. https://www.ladbible.com/news/tesla-owners-uk-christmas-queueing-charge-hours-138192-20221228

As said, you could be correct, however, it appears as though even those in such a developed country as the U.K. must be "uninformed" since they waited in line for up to 6 hours to recharge. So their actual experience rather than "your opinion" is far more convincing to me. https://www.ladbible.com/news/tesla-owners-uk-christmas-queueing-charge-hours-138192-20221228

Ok if you say so. I have seen only a smattering of charge stations. With that said, I am sure the infrastructure in the UK is far superior to that in Thailand. However, unlike putting petrol in your car which is done in minutes, charging takes a long time. So during periods of peak travel, the charging stations just like in the UK will back up.

This is in the U.K. I can't imagine how limited the recharge network in Thailand is.

If raising minimum wage had no negative effects, why only 600 baht, why not 1,000, 5,000, 10,000 baht per day. A "job" not the person is worth only so much per day. You pay someone to cut your lawn. I don't care how good that person is, or how much they need the additional money you are only willing to pay so much to have your lawn cut. With Thai businesses, labor is a cost, not any different than rent, taxes, insurances, electric, or water. The employer has to add up what his/her costs are and then add to those costs their profit for providing their product of services. So raising the minimum wage helps those who would get a raise and hurts those who will be buying those products and services. It is a zero sum game. The other thing is that Thailand does not live in a bubble. Any product or service that is available from other countries is a competitor. So if rubber, rice, office machine parts, automobiles that Thailand is currently exporting have to go up in price, it becomes less competitive and sells less. That reduces the jobs in Thailand. You can not legislate prosperity into existence. What the necessity of raising the minimum wage really says is that Thailand has too many people with zero or minimal skills that can't command hire pay. The real answer is to provide more jobs in occupations that require hire skill levels and provide more training and education to the Thai people to allow them to take advantage of those jobs. This does not happen overnight. Look at China. They were once one of the poorest countries economically with "cheap Chinese labor" That has been changing for decades as the Chinese government targeted industries such as pharmaceuticals, automobiles, chemicals, aircraft, machine tools, and cell phones. The Chinese workers in those skilled trades are no longer low wage workers. Tim Cook of Apple is quoted as saying they are in China and the days of cheap Chinese labor for Apple are gone. They continue in China not because it is cheap but because they have the supply of workers with the higher skill set needed to make Apple products. Raising the minimum wage here in Thailand will increase the incentive for businesses to automate and reduce workers. As said, if there were no negatives to doing so make it 10,000 baht a day and let everyone live not just a subsistence life but one with some luxuries.

Well did Trump University tell any of those attending its courses that it would lead to a high paying job? There is an implied Warranty of Merchantibility meaning that goods and services are suppose to be reasanbly fit for the purpose intended. A college educations is suppose to prepare a person for a career. I worked for both Merrill Lynch and UBS Paine Webber. Even with a person investing only a few thousand dollars we were bound to work in our clients best interest, and have them invest money only in items suitable for meeting their investment goals. So the colleges knowingly and willingly are fleecing students offering them courses and degrees that they have full knowledge leads to nothing.

Ok candide. you go to college and pay over the course of 4 years $100,000 for a degree in Gender Equity Studies or Excercise Science. The accredited institution is offering them so 'THEY MUST BE WORTHWHILE" You then graduate with this degree and go into the job market and find, no they are 'WORTHLESS" Tell me you believe that WAS NOT FRAUD. They paid for something on the belief it was worth something when in fact those offering in had full knowledge it had no value in the job market. Tell me why they are not prosecuted but only Trump University.

Perhaps Trump has done some things that under the 'LETTER" of the law might be construed as not legal. However what you have is an establishment that is bent on targeting him with every possible charge knowing that even if proven false, the constant lawsuits and negative press will tarnish his image in the eyes of some. Trump University was also "investigated" in Florida and Texas and by Greg Abbot who is now Governor but at the time Attorney General. Both states did not file suit but of course Ultra Liberal New York attorney general and biased Letitia James did . Note she is a Democrat Her first 100 days in office were a war against Trump So was Trump University worthwhile. Perhaps not. But did she start suit against Cornell that offers a course in Tree Climbing. or Skidmore College in New York who offers a course in "the sociolgy of Miley Cyrus" How about Stoneybrook University, University of Albany, University at Buffalo, The New School, The city University of New York, who all offer DEGREES in Women's Gender Studies and Sexuality Studies. THESE COST TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. Now are the programs "accredited" and do they come with a degree, Yes. Does that make them any more valuable than Trump's courses in real estate, asset management, entrepreneurship, and wealth creation. The fact is that whether you are "defrauded" by an accredited instutution and you get a "degree" that is worthless is that any less of a fraud. | If the CRITERIA for suing is that an entity is offering students, worthess courses and degrees and charging them thousands of dollars THEN EVERY COLLEGE FOR THE MOST PART SHOULD BE SUED Virtually every college in the USA offers course work with no meaningful value, or even degrees in programs the colleges have full knowledge are without worth in the job market. They are offering those courses and degrees strictly to gain tuition, from vulnerable exploited groups who believe somehow since their education is coming from an accredited college it must have worth. A huge portion of our student debt problem stems from the fact that these instutions are experts at getting students federal student loans for degrees that will never provide jobs that pay enough to pay back the tens, if not hundreds of thousands in tuition dollars borrowed. In summary at least Trump attempted to offer something that "may" have value in the job market. The course at prestigious Rice that reads This course will provide students with a fundamental education of who Superman is and his relative importance in global history and culture certainly knows that employers will not be seeking out job applicants with an expertise in Superman. The fact the course earns credit towards their degree is no reason for charging money for something worthless. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/10/politics/letitia-tish-james-new-york-attorney-general-trump/index.html

Yes I ended up paying the $130 USD online. I contacted the embassy by email and Ubon Joe also said, no they accept only the bank draft in baht. So, I ended up going to SCB and getting a bank draft for 100 baht. Cost was about 35 baht. It wasn't the cost, it was the nuisance of having to go to the bank, wait in line, fill out the mindless amounts of paperwork, show my passport etc. to purchase the 100 baht draft. You would "think" it would be easier for the embassy to establish a bank account and allow you to transfer baht electronically and mail a copy of the payment to them, just like you do the copy of the $130. But then again we are talking about government. If it was a private run business, they would have a QR code for you to scan and pay.

I never said they were accredited. A huge number of educational programs were not accredited nor do they have to be. Does it make it any less fraudulent for an "accredited" university to peddle a degree in Gender Equities or Antropoligy knowing full well the degree is worthless in the job market.

It was not diversion. It was a response to a post that somehow was using the number of lawsuits against Trump as some sort of litmus test for guilt. The fact is that the USA is a very litigious society. Most companies will face hundreds to thousands of lawsuits each year. All it takes is a $125 in New York to file a lawsuit. The vast majority of lawsuits are baseless and dismissed so using a count of lawsuits as somehow indicative of guilt is false. Also settlements are extremely common and again not indicative of guilt. In a preponderous of instances companies find paying to settle is less costly than paying a settlement fee. Unfortuntely that breeds the tendency to use lawsuits in the USA as a weapon hoping to extort a settlement out of a company knowing that is their mindset.

This is my two cents. Electric cars "may" prove viable but they are not for everyone. The electric vehicle will cost more up front, more expensive to insure, and you will have fewer people skilled in doing service on it should it require it. The more a person drives, the more they save on fuel so a person who drives modestly the EV will not save them much. Many taxis in big cities are going electric because the drive lots of KM per year. You can charge your vehicle with solar which would add to your fuel savings but that is partially offset by the additional expense you will have to put solar panels and a charging station at your home. Should you move at the very least you will have the expense of moving the charging station and reinstalling. I am not familiar with how easy or difficult it is to remove solar panels but if they created damage to the home upon their removal you would have to repair them. Now should you drive long distance at any time, you will probably face having to rent a car given the scarcity of charging stations at present in Thailand. Finally, like any equipment solar panels and charging equipment are not indestructible. Just like your home air conditioner, refridgerator, or dishwasher may fail and need service you "may" face that with your charging equipment. Eventually your battery in the vehicle will require replacing. There are stories of batteries not being available or that the cost of the replacement was so high as to not be financially prudent to stick that much into an older used car. I recently purchased a Toyota Cross Hybrid. The cost for the hybrid was about the same as the conventional gasoline model and I get between 17.5 and 19 Kilometers per liter depending on my mix of city versus highway driving. Worst case if the battery ever gives out, it is still a gasoline powered car. I don't have to worry about range or charging and my cost for the gasoline since I am a modest driver is less than the additional cost I would have to pay for an EV. Now one of the biggest unknowns with EV's is resale value. Right now they are fairly high because used cars in general are scarce and fuel prices historically high. It is my "guess" that EV's will depreciate more than conventional gas vehicles. As a car approaches 150,000 KM with a used gas car there is no consideration of a big expense to replace the engine. However there is an immediate consideration on an EV of the necessity of replacing the batteries. Of course any assessment is made based on a snapshot in time. The lower the gas price the less you save on electricity. Unless you use solar the higher the electric cost the less you save with an EV. And the biggest unknown is how much depreciation you will suffer. You paid more for the car to begin with, and if you then get a lower percentage of it back when you sell, that negates any "savings".

I oder a lot on Lazada and Shopee. I find it far easier to find things online that going to the stores and trying to explain what it is I am looking for only to find out they don't carry it. The fewest problems in terms of delivery are from Kerry. The most difficulties have been with J&T. Even then the number of errors non deliveries is very minimal. Also if the item is not correct or damaged very easy to return. Go to one of the stores in person in Thailand and it is both time consuming and laborious.

Do you recognize that often times companies pay settlements rather than go through protracted litigation. Also if paying a settlement makes the person guilty is Bill Clinton then guilty of sexual assault or did his "settlement" not mean the same as Trumps Also if worthless degrees and fraudulent practices were pursued against all the nations colleges, those degrees in Gender Equity, Excercise Science, Creative Writing, Tourism, Creative Writing and Anthropology And Archeology should also pay back their students for peddling degrees that students spent millions of dollars only to find out in the job market they were worthless. Again, you have a person "targeted" for lawsuits. That is one way to punish your political opponent is to keep them constantly engaged in legal battles and of course congressional hearings.

So what you are saying is that courts have "bias" That is exactly my point. If the Trump trial had occured in Dallas Texas instead of Manhattan with the same evidence, it might have been a totally different verdict. Consider in Dallas a man walked into a Dallas County Jail crazed and asking for help. He was on drugs and subdued by deputies one who placed his knee on the neck of the man. It was capured on video. According to the medical examiner’s office, Hutcheson, 48, died from the "combined toxic effects of cocaine and meth compounded by hypertensive cardiovascular disease [high blood pressure] and physiologic stress associated with struggle and restraint. His death was ruled a homicide. Sound familiar. No charges were filed against the officers, the grand jury though the medical examiner ruled it a homicide said they could not discount his drug use. A Minneapolis jury in a case virtually identical and with a drug more powerful than cocaine found the officer guilty of murder. So saying the Trump jury's verdict is infallible is about as credible as saying the OJ Simpson verdict was infallible.

There are 500 companies in the Trump organization So 3,500 suits translates into 7 suits per company over a 30 year span. By contrast Geico a single insurance company had 7,665 suits over a two year span. Does that make them "guilty" If accusations and lawsuits were the litmus test for guilt, Hillary Clinton would be wearing an orange jump suit long ago.

You thinking that somehow the USA judicial system is not flawed, has political bias is what is hillarious. One only has to look at the 9th circuit supposedly as one of the highest US courts filled with the best and brightest. From 2010 to 2015, of the cases it accepted to review, the Supreme Court reversed around 79% of the cases from the Ninth Circuit, But somehow you believe that untrained jurors hearing the evidence presented by a very biased New York prosecuting attorney were infallable.

Does anyone know of a place to have photos printed online that is relatively inexpensive. When you go into those Kodak places you never know if you are being charged far more than what you should be.

Yep, and as said, Jurors found Casey Anthony and O.J. Simpson not guilty. You are in a liberal state, and ultra liberal district in Manhattan. You would be hard pressed to find jurors in Manhattan without a predjudice against Trump. Try the exact same case in Texas, and I would suspect you end up with a totally different verdict. One way or another, it is an example of the double standard in the USA where establishment people such as James Comey, Hillary Clinton, Hunter Biden etc are not even charged but the government as a weapon goes after people it deems enemies.

That is true, it is about courts that don't always find the person guilty they should, and at times find people guilty before the trial ever begins. Saying that courts anywheres including the USA are not biased and political are kidding themselves. The 9th circuit out of California which is notoriously biased liberal had 80% of their rulings sent to the Supreme Court reversed.

And a jury found OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony "not guilty" of murder. I guess that proves they didn't commit the crime either. If the DeSantis prosecuting attorney in Florida or the Abbot prosecuting attorney in Texas found Biden guilty would you not cry partisan politics. New York State chief judge Sol Wachtler was famously quoted by Tom Wolfe in The Bonfire of the Vanities that "a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted." You'll get a fair trial followed by a first class hanging. Judge Roy Bean That is exactly what happened in New York. Trump was found "guilty" before the trial ever began.

Yep you have a partisan state and prosecuting attorney finding Trump organization guilty, but Hillary did not commit any crime, and Joe Biden knew nothing about the documentation contained on Hunter's Laptop.

This notion that somehow you can legislate prosperity by increasing the minimum wage is nonsense. If there were no negative ramifications from raising the minimum wage to 600 baht, why stop there. Why not 1,000 baht or 5,000 baht. The reality is that a "job" not a person is worth only so much per hour. It doesn't matter how good or experienced or how much the person needs to survive, you will pay a person only so much to cut your lawn. Increasing the mimimum wage is the surest way to put people out of work. Employers can not absorb that increase in cost no more than the gasoline stations can not pass on the higher costs they now pay for gas than 3 years ago. What it will do is increase the incentive for employers to reduce the number of employees, reduce the number of hours worked, and have employers focus on automation to eliminate them entirely. We are also in a global economy. So you raise the cost of labor here, and any Thai company that competes with other companies located in Cambodia, Vietnam, the Philippines, India etc will now find the increased price they must sell their products at will put them at a competitive disadvantage. If they go out of business or sell less product those jobs will be lost You want to increase the standard of living, then increase the value of the worker. You change from being a nation who has mostly low value jobs like growing rice, cleaning hotels, being cashiers, sweeping floors, and being a waitress to higher value jobs such as automotive assembly, cell phone assembly, pharmaceutical production, tire production, etc. Now in order to get there Thailand has to have an educated group of workers. No company is going to locate in Thailand or expand in Thailand if the human resources to carry out their operations dont' exist. Apple is in China, and not because Chinese workers are cheap. but because China is the only country that has enough workers who have the training that can perform the tasks required by Apple. If you look at any of the countries with high living standards they all have one thing in common. Their economies are based on producing goods and services that require higher levels of education for workers. You will never have a wealthy population when the majority of the workers are engaged in no skill or low skilled jobs