Longwood50

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. 

18 hours ago, Jingthing said:

As stated before I think both sides of the political spectrum have failed Americans seeking affordable housing. 

And as I have said before, the fact that those who can not afford the housing are in many cases the same people who do absolutely nothing to improve their lot in life by getting skills that provide for a better job. 

If by doing nothing a person recognizes that somehow society will provide them with food, shelter, clothing, medical assistance then why try to provide those things for oneself. 

Since 1964 when LBJ declared the war on poverty the USA has spent an estimated 22 Trillion dollars on poverty programs excluding Medicare and Social Security.  There are 122.8 million families in the USA.  That means over the course of 58 years the USA has spent $179,158 per family.  In 2020 there were an estimated 7.3 million American Families living below the poverty line.  That same 22 trillion equates to $3.136 million per poor family.  Now that is over 54 years so on average each and every year for 54 years the USA has spent $55,809 per poverty family  to "help" those in need.  How has that worked out?  In 2020 there were 11.4% of the USA defined as being in poverty.  In 1964.  That means that the rate is approximately the same if not slightly higher than in the early 1970's despite spending trillions of dollars.  

By contrast a mere 20 years ago almost 50% of the Chinese population lived in poverty.  Today that percentage is approaching zero.  They have no "welfare" programs.  How did they accomplish that in a shorter period of time with a much larger population.  Easy.  They got jobs for their people. 

Liberals don't understand there is a difference between "helping" and "enabling"  If I train a person and allow them to be employable at a living wage I am helping them.  If I hand out money including subsidized "affordable housing" I am enabling them.  The problem does not go away.  Quite the opposite, I have removed the incentive to work to improve my station in life.  It is a very simple economic principle.  It is called a subsidy.  If you subsidize anything you get "more of it"  You provide extra money to unwed mothers, you get more unwed mothers. If you provide more generous food stamp benefits, you get more people who apply  Worst of all, you disincentify those to enter the job market to become self sufficient because they see very little if any benefit from earning a wage and paying taxes versus living off public assistance. 

The answer does not lie with making housing cheaper.  It lies with assisting those to "earn more" to allow them to afford the more expensive housing. 


https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/the-war-poverty-after-50-years

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1086836/china-poverty-ratio/



 

2 hours ago, 33 RPM said:

grass will perform best in a full sun situation

I use to live in Texas.  Bermuda is used throughout the Southern part of the USA.  It loves sun and is extremely resilient.  They do sell it on Shopee and Lazada. 

Bermuda grass prefers full sun. It is tolerant of both heat and drought as well as dry soil, so full sun during to hotter months is not a problem. It does not do well in shade, however. In such growing conditions -- less than 4 hours of full, direct sunlight each day -- Bermuda grass photosynthesizes less.

46 minutes ago, pontious said:

Anyone know where to buy it.? Mice in the car engine compartment.

I don't know if it works or not.  Some say it does, others say no.  You can however buy it as "essential oil" on Lazada or Shopee.  

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

 

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

How do those successful people get richer? Magic? Exploiting gouging poor and middle people isn't a part of it?

Wealthy people get wealthy by providing goods or services that others "value"  You call it exploitation.  Well here are the 10 wealthiest people in the world 

Elon Musk - $218.3 billion. ... Employs 110,000 people 

The average estimated annual salary, including base and bonus, at Tesla Motors is $153,755, or $73 per hour, while the estimated median salary is $160,936, or $77 per hour.

 

Bernard Arnault & Family - $188.6 billion. ...
Employs 19,000 People 
While Louis Vuitton employees earn an average yearly salary of $39,614,
 

Jeff Bezos - $165 .5 billion. ...
Employs  1,608,000 people
Amazon.com Inc pays its employees an average of $101,464 a year.

 

Bill Gates - $130.7 billion. ...
Employs 182,268 people 
The average employee at Microsoft earns a yearly salary of $139,993 per year
 

Warren Buffet - $111.1billion. ..
employees 360,000 people 
he average estimated annual salary, including base and bonus, at Berkshire Hathaway is $131,433, or $63 per hour

 

Larry Page - $111 billion. ...
Sergey Brin - $107.1 billion.

Employs 150,028 people
The average estimated annual salary, including base and bonus, at Google is $138,383, or $66 per hour, while the estimated median salary is $154,276, or $74 per hour.
 

Larry Ellison - $108.2 billion. ...
Employs 132,000 people 
The average estimated annual salary, including base and bonus, at Oracle is $136,410, or $65 per hour, while the estimated median salary is $135,962, or $65 per hour.

Now Jinthing,

Tell me how much more "enriched" the world would be if these people were all miserable failures 

Tell me exactly which of these people you feel exploits the worst.  It seems only one company Louis Vuitton has an average wage of under $100,000 and that is because a huge proportion of its employees are retail sales clerks. 

Now tell me for those people working at Google, Oracle, Amazon, and Microsoft all making over $100,000 is that Exploitation or Oportunity. 

Basic economic principle.  You reward things you want to have more of and you punish (tax) things you want less of.  You reward buyers of electric cars to incentify buyers to acquire them, you tax gas guzzling cars to have fewer of them. 

The same is true for entrepreneurs.  Those who are successful should be rewarded not punished for their success.  The world is enriched by the products and services their success has brought.  And the millions of employees all enjoy a higher standard of living because they were successful. 

At $130.7 billion I suggest that Bill Gates has received the least compensation in return for the productivy the world gained by Microsoft.  His software so increased the wealth of the world by an exponential amount.  You want MORE Bill Gates, not less of them. 

No one forces you, exploits you to purchase any product from Louis Vuitton, Oracle, Microsoft, Amazon, or anyone else.  You do so because YOU FIND VALUE in what they offer. 

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

So its class warfare then?

Which class do you reckon is winning?

To an OBSCENE degree.

No, not class warfare.  This idea that you can somehow confiscate unlimited amounts from those who contribute to the tax system to give to those who don't is nothing more than blatant communism. 

In economic terms you always get what is rewarded.  If those who are productive members of society are rewarded you get more of them.  If you reward those who live off the government, you will get more of them. 

Also an important point is that if I am self sufficient I am not a slave.  If I am living off what the government sees fit to bestow on me, I am essentially a slave beholden to them. 

From an economic standpoint you want more "successful" people and fewer that are economically dependent. 
 

I empathize with the Russian and Ukrainian people who are stuck in other countries.  Unless they came with some hard currency like Euro's or USD whatever purchasing power they thought they had with Rubles is now worth either very little or nothing at all.  If they can't access money back from their home country or use credit cards I can't imagine what alternatives they have. 
 

On 3/5/2022 at 2:43 AM, webfact said:

The Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT) aims to attract 10 million foreign tourists

I love these posts.  I am not sure if the TAT really quotes them or they are reported to just to get a reaction from people.  It seems each week sometimes more than once a week I see a similar headline with a new number of tourists to be attracted and a new group of people whether that is Chinese, Russian, Indian etc to be targeted.  If they really are making these predictions, I suspect they are using the following wheel to assist them in coming up with the number of expected tourists. 

On 9/12/2021 at 10:18 AM, cmarshall said:

Rents are a problem and the government should give more tax advantages to renters since currently all such advantages go to homeowners.  But buying a house is not a very useful solution to high rents.  Seems worse to me

I love these people who say " the government should give"  Who the heck do you think the "government is"  It is the taxpayer.  

This notion that you can just give "college" "healthcare" "rent"  or anything else for FREE and it doesn't cost somebody something is just mindblowing that anyone can be that naive.  

All you have to do is look at the rampant hyper inflation in the USA that is caused by the government printing money that it did not have. 

Also the building owner of a rental unit is "the owner" so whatever tax benefits come from being an owner are reflected in the rent the building owner charges.  Take away those "benefits" and the rent has to go even higher. Also the homeowner in my state pays real estate tax each and every year which the renter does not.  That real estate tax goes to pay for municipal services such as police, fire, roads, and schools which the renter is getting without paying any real estate tax. 

16 hours ago, mahjongguy said:

The OP, if the ground is settling nowhere near the drain connection,

The erosion is next to the lateral that leads into the drain box in the street.  Pehaps you are correct that it is a leak in the main that is washing the soil away.  

16 hours ago, bluejets said:

Normally running storm water into sewer lines is forbidden....

They are storm sewer drains in the street.  Not sanitary sewers. 

7 hours ago, mahjongguy said:

The lateral drains have two 30cm x 30cm covers on each side of each house that are flush with the ground. Even in a downpour they prevent the water from getting more than a centimeter deep, and only for a few minutes.

That is exactly the system here.  There are concrete covers over the entry access to the storm sewer pipe that runs paralel to the houses.  Our home has a lateral that extends from the street pipe into the yard.  I suppose it is possible that the pipe in the street has shifted and the water running through it is escaping and causing the erosion.  I can envision how with the lateral pipe getting suction from the moving water how it might be sucking the water along with sand from inside our yard and causing the erosion also.  

That is why I am hoping to find someone "knowledgeable" about these types of drainage system.  The typical Thai will pour cement, use duct tape, and and ample amount of silicone to fix just about anything with no experience as to whether any of what they have done is effective. 

1 hour ago, SiSePuede419 said:

Basically a pipe with holes on the top covered in some kind of metal mesh screen (we call "hardware cloth")

I am familiar with French drains.  They would work to carry the groundwater out but they are at the top of the soil surface.  The main storm sewer drain is about 2 meters below ground and it is already in place.  So if I put in a French Drain my only place to drain it would be to drill a hole in my concrete fench to allow a pipe to carry the water to the street. 

There is a pipe that runs through the village street with drains that allow the rain water to be carried away.  When the village was built underground pipes connecting the yards of the home were laterally installed to allow the ground water from the yards to flow into the main storm sewer pipe.  Now those pipes "we believe" are creating a sucking action that is sucking the sand in the yard and creating a large area of erosion.  

I am not sure exactly how this needs to be fixed.  If the pipe leading to the storm sewer is capped the water collecting in the yard will also cause erosion.  It would seem to need some sort of screen to allow water to pass but prevent soil from being sucked into main storm pipe.  

Having used some "Thai" workers they all will tell you they know how to fix it.  However my experience is that they are willing to express their ability to do anything despite the fact they know nothing about how to really fix it. 

I would think that someone who has worked in the construction of a village and has installed similar lateral drains might be a good place to find a competent repair person. 

We tried calling Huay Yai water and sewer who feigned they only fix the street and don't know of anyone. 

Does anyone have a suggestion of who might be competent or a supply house that would know of workers who deal in this sort of repair?