Longwood50

9 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

As far as range, the batteries will likely improve (at least somewhat) over the next ten years which should extend the range of the old vehicles as well. 

Perhaps, but that is an assumption.  I would think that future advances in EV cars are from a combination of improved batteries and improved efficiencies of other technologies incorporated into the car.  

Even assuming that the "new" batteries can be incorporated into a 10 year old car it would mean that the old car would only be receiving the benefits of the improved battery and not other advancements in the new EV. 

One thing is for sure. Here is what Kelly Blue Book says a 10 year old Chevy Volt is worth.  They originally sold with a MSRP of just over $40,000 USD.  

6 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

My calculations definitely proved to me, they'll pay for themselves way before the 8 yr warranty expires.

Perhaps but here is what Forbes said.  It also said that the cost effectiveness of an electric car depends on assumptions on fuel/electricity in the future. Whether you drive in the city, or mostly highway.  That EV efficienty goes down much more rapidly than an gas power car on hilly terrain and in cold temperatures. 

A 10 year old BMW ICE still has residual value.  I question how much residual value there will be in a 10 year old Tesla given the expense of the battery replacement and the likelihood that newer generation electric cars will likely prove so much more efficient as to render them worthless.  If that is true, the person must factor in the near total loss in value of the original purchase price of a car.  I know this for sure.  I purchased a Lexus RX 400H and paid $10,000 more for it than the identical ICE RX350 SUV.  4 years later the resale value of the hybrid was exactly the same as the gas model and I got no better mileage.  So was the investment worth it.  Absolutely not. 

On 1/10/2022 at 6:21 PM, 2009 said:

Ever heard of the sun?

Yes, and do you know The toxic chemicals in solar panels include cadmium telluride, copper indium selenide, cadmium gallium (di)selenide, copper indium gallium (di)selenide, hexafluoroethane, lead, and polyvinyl fluoride. Additionally, silicon tetrachloride, a byproduct of producing crystalline silicon, is highly toxic.

At present there is a huge bias not to recycle a solar panel.  

With the current capacity, it costs an estimated $20-30 to recycle one panel. Sending that same panel to a landfill would cost a mere $1-2. The direct cost of recycling is only part of the end-of-life burden.  In a landfill it leaves the toxic chemicals to leach into the soil.  So "clean" hardly. 

On 1/20/2022 at 3:52 PM, BritManToo said:

Tesla batteries last less than 10 years and cost $22,000 (US) to replace.

Are you sure they'll pay for themselves?

It is not just the cost of the replacement.  If a current Tesla gets lets say 400 KM to a charge and 10 years from now a new Tesla gets 1,000 who will want the ten year old Tesla at any price. 

On 1/10/2022 at 9:16 AM, KhunLA said:

Price is the sticking point for me.  Even though long run, they'll pay for themselves vs petrol & maintenance, that's a big leap for range and performance / highway speed. 

Perhaps they pay for themselves?  At this point it is a guess.  Most of the comparison's show current fuel price to electric  They fail to take a number of things into consideration.  1. The higher price of the EV to begin with so more money "invested" in car  2. The current electric rate for home use, rather than the higher rate of electric if you use a commercial charging station.  3. The cost of the home electric charging station which is expensive and will be lost if you ever sell the home.  4. The residual value of the EV when you go to sell.  As those cars reach the time of having the batteries replaced and new technology makes them far less attractive the resale value will plummet. 

I have a hybrid toyota I get approximately 18 kilometers per litre.  No charging station, and no worries about having to search out a charging station on a route. 

For now, I think the jury is still out on whether electric cars are truly more cost effective.  I even question if the conversion to electric is not just trading one form of pollution for another.  

For the foreseeable future power plant generation will be dependent on fossil fuels.  So the cars don't burn it but the power plants do.  Also the mining, manufacturing, and disposal of car batteries is one of the most polluting group of processes that mankind is involved in. 
 

17 minutes ago, Speedhump said:

I never accept the refusals of the floor staff, I very politely escalate it to whoever is the most senior person on duty (usually claims to be manager,

Yes probably could have pushed it.  If in the USA I would certainly do.  Here, I guess I don't want to foster the reputation as the obstinate farang.  

More often than not, if I am returning something it is because I purchased an adequate amount of the item such as PVC connectors so that I don't get in the middle of the job and run short.  If they were used, I could understand but brand new with a receipt and a recent purchase and yet there is a push back.  

The USA goes too far the other way.  People with small children purchase shoes use them for a few weeks then return them when the child outgrows them.  The stores are so fearful of alienating a customer that they just accept them. 

1 hour ago, Banana7 said:

Looking for genuine Brother toner TN-267BK and the colours. Shopee and Lazada have sellers with a wide variety of prices from 1,490 to 2,890 toner baht for the black toner.

I am not familiar with that particular cartridge but I have owned several Brother multi function printers over the years.  I always go for the generic replacement and have found them to work just as good as the new.  Most products are built by a few manufacturers who produce OEM products and aftermarket under generic names.  

I have adopted the thought that it is better to go with a generic at a far lower price and throw it away if it didn't perform and buy another than paying the huge money for the OEM.  

I have even reloaded cartridges buying only the toner powder and replacement chip.  The chips are easy.  The refilling of the toner is a bit messy and if not sealed properly can lead to toner powder in the printer. 

 

25 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

He has his passport.

He going to immigration to get the stamp for his one year extension of stay stamp done at immigration at the end of a 30 day under consideration period.

Perhaps I misunderstoon but this was in his post. 

Apologies, but just want to see if anyone can tell me if my Thai wife MUST go with me to immigration (Korat) when I go to pick up my passport after the 'under consideration

It sounds to me as if he was asking if his wife needed to be with him to pick up his passport. 
 

Just a guess on my part but I would think if you have the card to pick up your passport, I doubt anyone will ask you when it is presented to show your wife.  When I have picked up my passport at Chonburi immigration, I hand the small numbered tag to the person at counter 8, she retrieves the passport and hands it to me.  They don't even verify if they gave you the correct passport or look at the picture to see if it is you. 

16 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Hopefully you would be fair to the next minority applicant and not punish her based on a bad experience with one of your hires.

She was "not my hire"  She was a person who I inherited when I took over as the divison head.  She actually reported to a female department head who reported to me.  I had to address the problem when she brought it to my attention along with the documentation of poor performance "she" gave the employee for several years. 

My point is that laws that "protect" certain classes give them "rights" that are superior to those that don't.  That can give a hiring manager pause in terms of considering future candidates fearing that if they make a mistake in hiring they can do little to remedy it.  If they make a mistake in hiring a member of a non-protective class they can immediately take actions to terminate them.  That perversely works against protected class employees who are qualified, 

In my experience, these protected class laws only benefit and are used by problem employees.  They use their age, race, sexual orientation as a weapon and defense.  The truly good employee does not need such protection.  Companies are loathe to rid themselves of a good employee irrespective of race, color, creed, or sexual orientation.  They are too hard to find. 

 

13 hours ago, Speedhump said:

I've returned things to Home Pro, Lotus and Makro, never a problem.

I have just found that the stores here are particularly difficult with returns.  At Makro I had a bad case of coke, it was flat.  They would not take back because " I had opened two bottles"  Yes the first one was flat so I opened a second one.  When both were flat I attempted to return the remainder.  The two opened but flat bottles still contained almost all of the coke. 

Thaiwatsadu is the store that when I returned some extra PVC fittings that I did not use would only provide store credit and when I did not buy enough to cover the return demanded I buy more until I used up the entire credit. 

 

37 minutes ago, Nojohndoe said:

And that is how distorted it has  become

Yes, I can tell you from personal experience that I had a female minority employee that was terrible.   Despite numerous documented instances of poor behavior, attendance and job performance Human Resources would not allow us to put her on probation leading to terminating her.  They openly said, she had threated to sue for discrimination if she was released. 

I can assure you that experience imprinted on many of us the hesitation to hire additional "protected class" employees.  If we made a mistake hiring a caucasian male, they were put on probation and terminated.  A member of a protected class if we made an error in hiring there was little recourse but to live with the mistake. 

One of the tactics I saw employed was to give the worker great reviews and suggest they apply for other positions that were promotional opportunities.  Essentially passing the old maid card to another area.  

We eventually were able to get rid of the employee but it took a great deal of effort.  We had to combine certain departments and eliminate as part of it positions that were "no longer required"  Hers was one of the positions that was deemed no longer required.  That meant for some years we could not rehire into a similar position but rather her job responsibilities were split up and assigned to other workers to perform. 

12 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Why should companies not be allowed to choose who they employ?

You are absolutely correct.  I can tell you from working for several major banks in the USA that the laws that were passed to provide "equal" rights have had some perverse unintended consequences. 

Instead of being "equal" certain groups based on age, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation can "sue" for discrimination if they either don't get a position or are terminated or demoted.  That means if you are not one of the protected groups you actually are not equal, you have fewer rights. 

Second, because of the threat of lawsuits, companies are extremely reluctant to discipline or fire those that are part of the protected groups because of both the fear of losing the lawsuit and the expense of defending against the lawsuit.  They find it easier just to "cope" with the problem.  That has the perverse effect of making the organization very hesitant to hire even more employees who are part of the protected class for fear they are adding to the population of employees that potentially could sue them.  That hurts the very qualified candidate who is part of a protected class but now finds that works against them. 

Also you raise a good point about other factors.  If you work for lets say a liberal organization like the New York Times or internet based Salon.com it is not just your job qualifications but also if the candidate is a good fit in the workplace.  A staunch conservative at either of those companies will hardly be a welcome addition to  their fellow coworkers. 

 

22 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

22 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Even without solutions, there is something to be gained by considering the positions of other and sussing them out. 

A "discussion" with alternatives is worthwhile.  However just saying " the USA has failed in providing affordable housing is just carping.  If the person can articulate what they would do differently and how it could be afforded then I would agree with you but most of the time, people complain but offer no viable alternatives, if they offer any alternative at all. 

 

22 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

Life is not fair. 

But we all think it should be, and unfortunately there is a growing sector of society that thinks it they can make it be fair. 

 

But life can never be fair. 

 

Life is not fair.  I was not born to a Rockefeller, Buffet, or Kennedy family.  However I was lucky enough to not be born in Burundi either.  While some have a head start on others, there are plenty of examples of people who rose around the world and in the USA in particular and "made themselves" a success by their initiative.  The peson who drops out of school, has multiple felonies, has multiple children they can not afford, and then blames society for their injustice is just making an excuse for their lot in life rather than looking at the true cause by starring in the mirror. 

 

22 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

This notion that somehow society should provide all the basic neccessities without effort by those most impacted is just plain socialism.

But we can always find the sad story of of a few hard-working person that fell through the cracks that we can write about if we go through enough drug attics and criminals. 

Yes and there are many whose jobs were displaced through no fault of their own.  I am not saying don't help them.  I am saying don't enable them.  There is a difference.  If I assist them in jobs training to procure and equivalent or better job, I am helping.  If I am the government and paying their bills, I am enabling them to do nothing. 
 

22 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

Housing, food, cars, medical care, clothing may all be expensive.  However the market place dictates the price.

But were that only true. The market does not dictate how many apartments can be built. And the market does not promote cheap money, loan mandates and subsidies. And yes, these thing do (at least in the short-term) help the poor, they do so at the expense of the middle class, and ultimately really only benefit the rich. 

Your are categorically wrong.  If the market place demand for apartments, housing, cars, or anything else is there, capitalism will supply those.  However, no one will build an apartment complex even if the demand is there if there is insufficient people who "can afford" the apartment.  There is a difference between people wanting a BMW and being able to afford one.  

 

22 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

If the price is too high people will not buy it.  If the seller can continue to sell it at that price, it is a fair price.  

The problem is not that housing is "too expensive" it is that people don't earn enough to afford the home.  So instead of attacking the symptom attack the problem.  People don't earn enough money.  How do you rectify that situation.  Train them to fill jobs that  pay more.  Don't epect that somehow the marketplace will lower the price of homes to the point that the $15 per hour minimum wage worker at Walmart can afford the 3 bedroom home in L.A. 

Expand  

But everyone HAS to go to college, and everyone that "wants a better life" needs to be allow in. 

You are categorically wrong about that as well.  For some students, particularly those in certain tech, economics and healthcare fields, the answer is an unequivocal “yes.” Like engineering majors — 95% of which can expect to make more than $80,000 by mid-career, according to FREOPP. But 28% of college degree programs actually leave alumni “financially worse off than if they had never gone to college at all,” meaning graduates don't earn enough to recoup the money they spent earning the degree, according to the report. The worst offenders? Only 1% of psychology graduates will earn more than $80,000 a year by the time they're 35, the reports says, and the odds aren't much better for those in education and the arts.

There are numerous blue collar jobs some of them earning over $100,000 a year that have openings that go unfilled because of this myth that everyone must go to college.  Additionally, the colleges are to blame for offering degrees in programs they know either have more applicants than the field can accomodate or that pay so little that the student owes more to obtain the degree than the field provides over a non degreed job. 

 

 

22 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

Two final points.  The goverrnment has already been down the road of providing affordable government housing.  That effort failed miserbly.  The housing was anything but affordable to build but was very cheap for the residents.  They treated it comensurate with what they felt the value of it was.  Next to nothing.  A large percentage of those projects were ultimately destroyed because the residents having nothing invested in them treated them accordingly. 
Secondly, I see this continued refrain about how "society" should do something.  How about the consequences for peoples actions.  If the person drops out of school, gets involved with crime and has a prison record, has multiple children that they can't afford, and doesn't hold a job, is society really suppose to provide them with "affordable housing" and shelter them from the consequences of bad decisions. 

Expand  

To be fair, many of the people in project housing took care of the properties, but many did not, and because no one involved in the managing had any financial interest, nor stood to lose anything, the management was always a big part of the failure. 

There is an old adage that people don't take their rental cars through a car wash.  Why because it isn't theirs.  People value what they have worked hard for and purchased with their own money.  People do not show the same concern when something is "Free"  They got it for nothing and that is the value they attribute to it. One way or another the government has already tried to provide affordable housing and it was a miserable failure.  There are 4 ways to spend money. 1. you spend it on yourself. you are concerned about quality and cost 2. You can spend your money on someone else. You care about the cost but quality is not as important. 3. you can spend someone elses money like a business meal on yourself.  You don't care about the cost, but you want the best. 4. you can spend someone elses money or someone else.  You don't care about the cost and you don't care about the quality.  THAT IS A GOVERNMENT PROGRAM. 



 

But THIS time it will be different. THIS time were going spend enough to actually make it work. The only problem is that THIS time, were going to do everything exactly the same way we did it LAST time, the THIS time the results will be different, because THIS time we REALLY, REALLY care, THIS TIME FOR SURE! 

There are only two options to "affordable housing" Lower the cost by subsidizing it to brings its cost down to the level of income people can afford.  Or you can raise the income of people to meet the cost of the more expensive housing.  However you can only raise their income if their skill set is improved to the point that they can get jobs that pay more. 

Of the two, I prefer the latter.  It increases the self worth of the person, it allows them to be self sufficient, and they will take far more responsibility in maintaining something they worked and paid for. 



 

22 hours ago, sirineou said:

Then you go on and "carp" about many things, without offering any solutions

No quite the opposite.  I said from the beginning.  "help" those in need.  Not by enabling them to do nothing to resolve their situation but assisting them in acquiring skills that provide higher income.  

That is a "solution" Having the government somehow be responsible for providing subsidized housing only exacerbates the problem. 

On 2/22/2022 at 1:29 PM, Yellowtail said:

You've started a topic about rising real estate costs, yet you don't want to discuss anything a about it. 

I agree.  It is fine to carp about many things. And liberals tend to carp, not discuss, nor provide solutions. You can complain about  crime, poor education, expensive medical care, income inequality, illegal immigration, etc however unless you are willing to some up with solutions instead of complaints it does little good.  

Life is not fair.  This notion that somehow society should provide all the basic neccessities without effort by those most impacted is just plain socialism.  Housing, food, cars, medical care, clothing may all be expensive.  However the market place dictates the price.  If the price is too high people will not buy it.  If the seller can continue to sell it at that price, it is a fair price.  

The problem is not that housing is "too expensive" it is that people don't earn enough to afford the home.  So instead of attacking the symptom attack the problem.  People don't earn enough money.  How do you rectify that situation.  Train them to fill jobs that  pay more.  Don't epect that somehow the marketplace will lower the price of homes to the point that the $15 per hour minimum wage worker at Walmart can afford the 3 bedroom home in L.A. 

Two final points.  The goverrnment has already been down the road of providing affordable government housing.  That effort failed miserbly.  The housing was anything but affordable to build but was very cheap for the residents.  They treated it comensurate with what they felt the value of it was.  Next to nothing.  A large percentage of those projects were ultimately destroyed because the residents having nothing invested in them treated them accordingly. 
Secondly, I see this continued refrain about how "society" should do something.  How about the consequences for peoples actions.  If the person drops out of school, gets involved with crime and has a prison record, has multiple children that they can't afford, and doesn't hold a job, is society really suppose to provide them with "affordable housing" and shelter them from the consequences of bad decisions. 

Now back in March 15 new cases were 32 the same as the 7 day average.  Two years later on March 10, new cases were 24,792 with a 7 day average of 22,093 and that is the Thai definition of "subsiding"?

Back in 2020 the 32 cases was enough to spur the government to implement mandatory testing, mask mandates, quarantines, alcohol bans, and curfews.  

I am the first to admit that I thought the governments response worldwide not just here in Thailand was an over reaction.  However, saying the disease is subsiding is hardly an accurate assessment. 

I don't know why this should be such a mystery.  At the autopsy they take photos and typically videotape.  If the video evidence shows there was a cut on her head then a good forensic doctor should be able to give a pretty good guestimate as to what might have caused the cut. 

The whole story keeps changing which typically means that someone is attempting to change the story to fit the inconsistencies in the findings.   If she fell, or was thrown or jumped out of the boat, she would have come to the surface and screamed for help.  

That would mean those on the boat should have been able to locate her.  I don't know how far the reported fishermen were from the boat where she reportedly fell off.  However if they were close and heard nothing, it would indicate that the actress was incapacitated.  

That does not happen from a fall from a boat. This entire story by those on the boat does not pass the reasonableness test. 

There seems to be this urban legend that electric vehicles are cheaper to own.  First, energy alternatives tend to be tied together.  If oil is expensive expect natural gas and coal to follow.  When it does most of the electricity comes from coal and natural gas powered power plants.  It follows that electric rates will also rise. 

Next, an electric car is more expensive to purchase initially, so a person has to calculate the depreciation expense over the life span of the car in an electric versus a gas powered vehicle.  You then have that the depreciation of an electric vehicle will be more pronounced as that vehicle approaches the time its batteries will need to be replaced.  Depending on the type of vehicle those costs will be between $5,000 - $20,000 USD not including labor. 

Finally, you have the expense of installing a charging station in your home.  If you select to use a commercial charging station, you have the inconvenience of waiting for the charge and the commerical rates for electric are higher than the home rate since the commerical station is making a profit on providing you with a charging station. 

So while it may feel satisfying to charge your EV and avoid the petrol stations these day, I "think" the cost savings over the life of the car may prove to be illusionary. 

17 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You don't seem to know really. 

Well perhaps you can engligten me.  Your posts are all opinions and never include any hard facts. 
,
Despite your assertion that the USA does nothing, the homeless population in the USA has decreased from 2007 at  647,000 to 580,000 despite a population increase from 301.2 million in 2007 to now 330 million people 


Now here are two of the cheapest homes in California the state with the largest number of homeless people. 

Please englighten everyone on how with the 580,000 thousand homeless you provide a home costing 189,900 each.  That would amount to 110,142,000,000.  While you are at it, these home will also require property taxes, insurance, utilities, and repair.  Will that come from the same pot of money?

I would also like you to give me an answer to give to the family who both are working, scrimpting to purchase their own home of $200,000 why they should have to work to get their home when the government as you say is providing it for free. 

As the original post said, that housing prices in the USA have skyrocketed.  That is supply and demand.  Perhaps those that are homeless might "bear some responsibility" in rectifying their own situation rather than thinking The World Owes Me Living from the children's fairy tale the Ant and the Grasshopper. 








https://www.statista.com/statistics/555795/estimated-number-of-homeless-people-in-the-us/

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Anyway kindly desist painting me as your token communist whipping boy. Thst's not me. That's your fantasy villain.

I know, it is difficult to argue when someone presents you with facts instead of your inborne biases. 

On 3/7/2022 at 10:39 PM, Jingthing said:

A somewhat rich country like the US shouldn't have even one homeless person unless they're camping. 

Jinthing, 

The 20% poorest people in the USA are better off than the "average" in most European countries.  And yet like all liberals, that is "just not enough"   The USA has spent over the last 58 years 22 Trillion dollars in welfare related programs.  The entire net worth of the entire world is estimated to be $510 trillion dollars, so the USA with only 4.25% of the world population has spent 4.3% of the entire worth of the world giving it to the poorest, and that is "not enough"


https://fee.org/articles/the-poorest-20-of-americans-are-richer-than-most-nations-of-europe/


The average person in this world struggles with enough to eat, shelter over their heads, adequate medical care, sufficient clothing, yet you somehow believe that the USA should automatically provide those not in modest amounts but unlimited. 
Then why work at all?  You automatically get what most in the world struggle for minimal amounts each and every day. 

I don't know how you can miss the point that when you "subsidize" anything you don't get rid of it, you encourage more of it.  If the government was providing locations advertising unlimited amounts of "free food" even more necessary than housing for survival that they would not have massive hoards of people clammering for their free food. 

You want "free" housing for everyone and don't believe that is a magnet to attract even more indigents from third world countries seeking to suck the benefits of the USA dry. 

You seem to be totally absent of any recognition of cost.  The USA is already 

Here is the debt clock of just the USA federal government.  It does not include debt by states, or local governments.  Take note the USA is already in debt to the tune of $91,073 for each citizen and $241,611 for each taxpayer.  And yet you believe that is "rich" Oh I know, you are in the Bernie Sandes camp.  Just tax the rich more.  If you conficated the entire net worth of the Forbes 400 richest billionaires in the USA and you can only do that once, it amounts to $4.5 Trillion.  Only 15% of what the total debt currently is. 







https://usdebtclock.org/index.html?taxpayer=

This is the Bill of Rights.  Please show me where it says each person whether a citizen or not is entitled to housing.  You are entitled only to "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.

The Third Amendment prohibits the government from quartering troops in private homes, a major grievance during the American Revolution.

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. The government may not conduct any searches without a warrant, and such warrants must be issued by a judge and based on probable cause.

The Fifth Amendment provides that citizens not be subject to criminal prosecution and punishment without due process. Citizens may not be tried on the same set of facts twice and are protected from self-incrimination (the right to remain silent). The amendment also establishes the power of eminent domain, ensuring that private property is not seized for public use without just compensation.

The Sixth Amendment assures the right to a speedy trial by a jury of one’s peers, to be informed of the crimes with which one is charged, and to confront the witnesses brought forward by the government. The amendment also provides the accused the right to compel testimony from witnesses, as well as the right to legal representation.

The Seventh Amendment provides that civil cases preserve the right to trial by jury.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishments.

The Ninth Amendment states that the list of rights enumerated in the Constitution is not exhaustive, and that the people retain all rights not enumerated.

The Tenth Amendment assigns all powers not delegated to the United States, or prohibited to the States, to either the States or to the people.

22 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

That free markets are pure and perfect and result in the best of all possible worlds is kind of like a religion. More about blind faith than reality.

First off there is no such thing as a "perfect free market"  Capitalism is not perfect but given all the other alternatives are significantly worse. 

Liberals like to point out the inequities as somehow validating the evils of capitalism.  However they ignore that even greater inequities occur in those countries that practice "socialism" and that the standard of living in those countries is significantly worse. 

There is this preoccupation with "fair" that sticks with liberals.  Life is not fair, some are born in Burundi while another child is born in Luxemburg.  While capitalism does not guarantee equal outcomes, it is still the best possible way for the average person to become self sufficient and even wealthy. 

The OP was about housing prices making repatriation less possible.  A large portion of this inflation was created by exactly the government whose policies poured trillions of borrowed dollars into the economy and enacted policies that produced product shortages, contributed to oil price skyrocketing, and bottlenecked delivery of products causing shortages. 

And the liberals answer always is " more government"  The same people who created the mess.  If you want a real mess try having the government make homes "affordable"  Seems like they tried that approach and it resulted in the worst financial crisis since the great depresssion as housing prices plummeted and the financial system went into free fall 

You want to make housing more affordable.  First stop bringing in millions of illegal aliens who snap up the lowest price homes and apartments resulting in shortages which drives up the price.  The real answer is elevating the skills of the lowest income workers allowing them to earn more and pay for the more expensive housing.  This notion that the lowest rung on the economic ladder expecting the government to provide for food, clothing, medical, education, transportation, and housing only leads to more people willing to sit on the lowest rung of the ladder.