CaptHaddock

According to CNN today the USA credit is shot as they are 52 trillion dollars in debt. Govt says the debt is 9.5 trillion but that does not include social security, politicians retirement, medicare or military retirement.

The Bush administration has gone into debt more than all the other administrations combined. 2009 they will add a whopping 490 billion to the bill.

Some countries are not going to be buying into the US dollar any longer. Will this have any impact on LOS?

Actually, the 2009 deficit will be a lot worse than that. The USD 490 million is the Unified Budget deficit which includes borrowing from Social Security. SS is still generating a surplus each year which is loaned to the govt. If you exclude the borrowing from SS and Medicare, the deficit of the General Fund will be nearly USD 800 billion. Why is it that we never read this in the NY Times or Wall Street Journal?

I know many people have differing views on this topic, but I would very much like to hear what other people views are.

It's a form of progressive taxation and I support progressive taxation. The rich should pay more and should pay at a higher rate as well. At a first approximation, farangs are much richer than Thais. It's not fair for farangs to pay as little as Thais.

Many would say that the americans have bought it on themselves by having big lawsuits for anything.The medical profession have increased the policies due to increasingly high lawsuits and scared to do anything in case they get sued.

America invented law suits but face a backlash now with huge premiums.

I have a friend in the US who is an asthesiologist and moans and groans about paying $80,000 a year for malpractice insurance. What she fails to mention is that $80,000 is about 8% of her income and is tax deductable as a business expense.

Malpractice insurance and lawsuits aren't the largest part of the problem, except for some specialties like obstetrics. The problems with the costs of American healthcare are basically two: the insurance companies skin 30% of every healthcare dollar and they have been permitted to segment risk when the rational basis of insurance is pooling risk. Unfortunately, cutting out the insurers and/or preventing the insurers' efforts at excluding sick people are easier said than done.

Hi I'm trying to call my firends in Thailand.

I've tried skype and calling cards, and both are pretty bad. Not really sure why, but I get over and over again (mai lek tee koon riek, mai saab...). I wonder what a better way to get through is, or if there's something I don't know about calling thailand. When I lived there occasionally the servers were bad, but nothing like this.

Also, are some sims better than others. I know there are different types. Are some good at receving long distance calls, while others are no good for that.

Thanks for any much appreciated help.

J

We like jajah.com. US to Thailand at 4.7 cents/min. You can initiate the calls from a website. So we can give my wife's relatives her account info and they can initiate the call at our expense, which is helpful to us. Call quality seems to be ok. No cuts yet.

My basis for giving credit to Giuliani is based on information like this:

New York Times 09 September 2007, written by Matt Bai

"In New York, Giuliani started a practice — later imitated by mayors around the country — of instilling "metrics" to measure government's progress. The most notable of these was in policing, where William Bratton, Giuliani's first police chief, introduced the "Compstat" program, under which the city was divided by police precinct and detailed reports were compiled outlining the incidence of crime in each of those precincts. Based on these reports, the department could analyze where exactly crime was a problem and why, and depending on the likely causes, the police could then assign more or specialized units to specific blocks and neighborhoods. Compstat was one of the shining government successes of its era, and Giuliani expanded the principle to other city departments. "If you can't measure something," he likes to say, "then you cannot manage it.""

I cannot disagree with Kat and CaptHaddock that he may have been lucky in his timing, and I'm sure he took credit for improvements that were not his. You will have to admit while he was mayor things improved, so maybe, just maybe it was due to the fact that as a good manager he put the right people in the right places and good things happened. You don't always have to be a nice person to be a good manager.

Just to be clear about this he would not get my vote for president.

But I do thank you for adding to my word knowledge, I did have to look up "paeans".

This is a Thailand forum so debates about former Mayors of US cities isn't really appropriate so I'll end my part in it here.

Compstat was, and is, an excellent achievement. It was the contribution of William Bratton between 1994 and 1996 when Giuliani fired him. Why did Giuliani fire his outstanding chief of police? Because Bratton, not Giuliani, was featured on the cover of Time magazine.

You bring up some very good points which I want to discuss.

Interested in your views. You are not, by any chance, the Kat who lived in BKK and had a website of interviews and reports about Thailand, are you? There was a Kat's Korner or something like that linked to the Bangkok Post when I first became interested in Thailand a few years ago.

'm from the Bronx, New York, lived in Bangers for 4 years, and am an urban planner and dealt directly with Giuliani Administration, and the issues of the city. You are almost spot on, except that you quote almost verbatim the reasons for drop in NYC decline from Freakonomics. It's a good book, except that they couldn't possibly understand every detail of the city and drop in crime, because they weren't there, and there's only so much that census data tracks can tell you. It was not solely because of enforcement, incarceration or Roe vs. Wade. Any person who lived and grew up in high-crime areas of NYC throughout the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, which I did, and then went on to work on those issues as an urban planner in high-crime neighborhoods, knows that the decrease in crack cocaine use was significant as early as 1990. Crack cocaine is a highly addictive drug with a euphoric high of only 15 minutes, in which after dopamine levels drop dramatically and each successive hit is less intense, so it creates highly manic, desperate, and dangerous crack heads. Like every new drug fad, the epidemic captures its core group of crack heads and then dies out, as they die off or are either incarcerated or fall into homelessness. As the demand grew and supply decreased because of large busts and removal of dealers and users, the street price increased and the amount of product for the money was less. You can see the same trajectory of drug fads with certain generations of heroin use of 70s and current meth use today. It had nothing to do with Roe vs. Wade or Giuliani! The mayoralty of Giuliani wasn't even until 1994, after the dramatic decline in crack cocaine had already been recorded. He certainly had the big realtors in his pocket, however, from the beginning.

But, yes, I agree. I feel far more unsafe in Bangkok just crossing the street or getting into a taxi then I do in current New York.

*Added:

http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/912514.htm

The decline of crack use in New York City

Drug policy or natural controls? 1990/91

(conclusion)

There is reason to fear untutored experimentation with other drugs. The example of the 1964-72 heroin injectors is instructive. By l971, they had reached the same stage of frustration with heroin which crack smokers are today experiencing with crack. Veins had collapsed and there was not an intact one left into which to inject heroin, even if it had been offered free of charge. Craving treatment and care for health-related problems, heroin injectors were offered methadone. Soon though, unhappiness with methadone led to heavy drinking, and eventually, by 1979, to cocaine injecting (Drucker: 1986). In 1981, heroin-injectors-turned-cocaine-injectors-via-methadone complained that injecting cocaine was making them "freeze up": they believed that soon they would be too "frozen up" to bleed. Presently they began smoking cocaine - as freebase - and when this method of administering the drug proved acceptable to marijuana smokers (who were at the time suffering shortages of that drug), the first stage of the crack epidemic was set (Hamid 1990b).

A critical juncture has been reached in the crack epidemic in low-income minority communities and in drug use in New York City. As crack use declines, it functions as a high risk factor for AIDS and violence related to its distribution may increase, as distributors compete for fewer sales, or as consumers commit more desperate acts to pay increased prices.

The idea of a developmental cycle in drug epidemics incorporating distinct stages of inittiation, widespread diffusion peak, decline and stabilization is a reminder that the dangers and opportunities of the drug are different from stage to stage and should be met by policy sensitive to change.

I am very interested to hear the opinions of a NY urban planner on the subject, since it is your field of study while I have only a citizen's interest in the subject. You are correct that the explanation I posted came from the Freakonomics book. Although Leavitt originated the abortion explanation, he properly gave weight to the incarceration and enforcement issues. So the combination of those forces seems the most persuasive to me, much more so than the "broken windows" self-promotion of people like Kerik.

However, I am very wary of your argument based on the supposed special physical effects of crack cocaine or of some unproven epidemiological theory of crime. It was arguments of this kind, that crack cocaine use was uniquely addictive and disposed the user to far greater levels of violence, that persuded Tip O'Neil and others in Congress to pass the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 that imposed mandatory minimum sentences in drug cases and led to vast increase in incarceration rates for blacks and other minorities. The US Sentencing Commission confirmed in 1990 that the laws were disproportionately applied to blacks. Here's a quote:

"The Commission found that the disparity in sentencing harshness between white and black offenders had increased (U.S. Sentencing Commission, 1991, p. 82). Congress and the Administration did nothing to address this problem. By 1995, no white person had been prosecuted in federal court under the 1986 crack mandatory minimums in Los Angeles and other major cities, although hundreds of blacks had been (Weikel, 1995). Another study by the U.S. Sentencing Commission (1995) found the 100-to-1 powder cocaine-crack cocaine variation seemed to have an invidious impact on black offenders. For example, 88.3 percent of the mandatory crack sentences were imposed on blacks in FY 1993."

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/200...hatUshered.html

It is not a matter of dispute, for example, that the majority of cocaine users (including both the crack and powder forms) are white while the majority of offenders who go to prison for cocaine use are not white. All of this was justified by pleading the special, pernicious effects of crack cocaine. It calls to mind the demon weed campaign against marijuana in the 30's, when its use was largely confined to the black population. Somehow it has always been all too easy for white America to find uniquely abhorrent the intoxicants favored by minorities.

I would go further. In my opinion, there are three historic eras of the suppression and exploitation of black people in America: chattel slavery, the Jim Crow laws of legalized segregation from 1890 until the Civil Rights era of the 60's, and the selective enforcement of drug laws to achieve extraordinary levels of the judicial incarceration of black people. Each stage represents an ingenious and subtle triumph of racism over the evolution of law.

By the way, what have you observed about urban planning in BKK? The development of mass transit is very encouraging especially since BKK lacks the street area ever to manage vehicular traffic acceptably. Unless they were to redevelop in the manner of Baron Haussman. It would be great if they are able to tackle air polution at some point.

do people in thailand even know how much expenses eat away at ones returns.

yes, and the ones I mentioned are incredibly low. 1% front end fee, 1% back end fee.

Yikes! 2%! What extremely high loads and there is probably also an expense ratio that is not mentioned! Low fees are like 0.11% on US Vanguard Funds, for example. This quote form one of the numerous studies that show that even those few managers who have stock-picking ability cannot earn back their fees. So their funds underperform low-cost index funds:

"The researchers' tests found that, on a pre-expense basis, 9.6 percent of mutual fund managers in 2006 showed genuine market-beating ability — far higher than the 0.6 percent after expenses were taken into account. This suggests that one in 10 managers may still have market-beating ability. It's just that they can't come out ahead after all their funds' fees and expenses are paid."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/business...mers&st=cse

I do not consider this topic particularly helpful. Even if someone has 5 million or less but can cut his/her cloth so to speak to live on the income generated from the capital sum, then he has enough to retire and live in Thailand. The secret surely is living within ones' means and preserving the capital......

In a way you're right Zodiac and it is not that difficult to retire and live in Thailand on let's say 5mil. Question is for how long?? Which brings us back to the OP with retirement starting at age 50 for lets say 25 years until 75.

Assuming the experts are right the 5 mil will allow you to spent 200thou a year so if you can live on 16,666/month or less than you're ok.

Are you assuming that you can live on 16,666B now and still be able to live on 16,666 in 25 years? Or does the life style drop a bit each year so you can still survive. In 25 years at a inflation rate of 4% $1,000 will be worth $333 or your B16,666 will be worth B5,550 in spending power. If you can live on that go for it.

He just divided the 5 million by 300 months. So he assumes that you earn nothing on it. If you assume a 4% return you could take out 26,391 baht per month before you went broke at 75. However, depending on your health you probably have a greater than 50% chance of living past 75, which means you're still alive and broke. Also, you have to take inflation into account, to say nothing of exchange rates. Retiring on 5 million at 50 gives you only a very small chance of a successful life.

King Ramkhamhaeng, who ruled at the end of the thirteenth century, created the first Thai alphabet.

Sorry, he did not. Thai is made out of letters from various languages. King Ramkhamhaeng codified the Thai alphabet.

Or at least he took credit for it in the manner of kings everywhere.

I have been living in New York City since 1976, when crime was a major problem. I do find reading all these paeans to Giuliani sickening. Giuliani was a polarizing, racist figure in the city. During his first campaign he personally incited a police riot. He was not, repeat not, responsible for the drop in crime in NYC. His chief accomplishment was getting credit somehow for the city's response to 911. The facts are that he left the city's command center located in the World Trade Center even after being warned that it was a risky choice after the attempted bombing of it in 1993. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attack Giuliani, who was not eligible to run in the next mayoral election because of term limits. proposed the idea of suspending the election. Even during the Civil War elections were not suspended. A true lover of democracy.

As a prosecutor, it is true that Giuliani went after the mafia. It is also true that his father was a leg breaker for the mob.

During the 90's crime dropped in all major US cities, most of which were lucky enough not to have Giuliani as mayor. The universal drop in crime is most thoughtfully ascribed to three factors, none of which Giuliani was responsible for: the high incarceration rates of minorities due to the racially biased enforcement of the drug laws, the increase in police coverage following declines in the 70's, and the Roe vs Wade Supreme Court 1973 decision legalizing abortion. Legalized abortion enabled poor women the ability to avoid having unwanted children that would then have had a higher than average rate of criminality. Those states, including NY, that legalized abortion a few years prior to Roe v. Wade experienced the drop in crime a few years earlier also. Needless to say, the abortion aspect is controversial.

Giuliani, like most politicians, is distinguished chiefly by his ability to claim credit for the achievements of others.

As to whether NYC is safer than BKK, I couldn't say. However, NYC is indeed safe, at least the middle-class areas. I have been burgled and held up at gun-point, but not within the last twenty years. No one ever speaks about crime here or takes special precautions to avoid it. Once again, this observation is restricted to the middle-class neighborhoods. The poor areas are a different world.

Ade,

Are you still around? How reasonable does that 85% equity allocation seem to you now that the S&P is down 20% from its peak of last October? I hope by now you have a refined appreciation of the risks of the equity markets. And the US equities slide is by no means over. The folks who talk of a "safe" 7% return or a "safe" 4% withdrawal rate don't begin to appreciate the nature of market risk in my opinion, prticularly over the long term.

By the way, your plan to retire at 45 to Thailand struck me as risky, but not nearly as risky as an 85% equity allocation just as the US is coming into the biggest credit/housing/stocks bust in decades.

Capt Midnight

My question is not about US taxes. I understand US taxes. My question is about Thai taxes. It sounds like she would not be taxed by Thailand on IRA and 401k distributions. Thanks for the info.

There are many reasons for her to get US citizenship.

1. Most important: so that we could settle in Thailand while keeping the option open to return to the US. Otherwise, she would lose her green card a year after leaving. It took almost 3 years to get that green card.

2. When I croak she will inherit my IRA accounts. If she is not a US citizen, the IRS will treat the entire IRA as a distribution and tax it before she gets it. As a citizen she can inherit an IRA that becomes her own IRA which continues to grow tax-deferred until she takes either voluntary distributions or required minimum distributions.

3. If there were to be any legal difficulties with her inheritance as a citizen she would have access to the US courts.

4. Travel is infinitely easier with a US passport.

5. The world is a dangerous and uncertain place. Dual citizenship could be a hedge against all kinds of eventualities.

6. The financial markets in the US are much more developed and a better place to invest than those in Thailand.

Yes, it's too bad about having to pay US taxes, but that's the deal.

My wife's citizenship test date comes up next month. I expect her to pass without a problem. We currently live in the States, but may retire to Thailand at some point in the future. She currently has an IRA account and will start a 401(k) account with her employer next year. If we do settle in Thailand, does she become liable for taxes on distributions from her US retirement accounts? Do the Thai tax laws tax Thai on worldwide income or just income received in Thailand?

Is Bangkok Post really playing fair ?

By Stéphane Hanot | Jun 04, 2008

BANGKOK, Thailand (eTN) - The Bangkok Post is Thailand's most influential English-speaking newspaper with a solid reputation for respectability.

Wasn't the Bangkok Post started by the CIA using their man Jim Thompson?

But his main point is that it makes perfect sense to question "what is better" for what is probably the largest percentage of potential buyers for all the reasons he states - it's not just lifestyle - it's what is a better choice for that group of people (inc me). If money is no object, or at least not a major factor, only then is it a "lifestyle" choice.

Correct.

I don't have a crystal ball but IMO Thailand is no longer rock bottom price for the region (IMO it does not have to be), and IMO it is a country that is accelerating - If it has a short term blip up or down in the property market, I don't actually think it will matter. However look at our language 'if you are sailing close too close to the wind', 'not prepared for the long haul', 'sailing on empty (or whatever)' the list goes on you could be in serious trouble say 20 years down the line if you rent, I don't know. BUT yes you do need an income this is the flip side of the coin. Your situation your choice, but I think the rental option could be extended by looking elsewhere in the region, don't know.

However I am at a loss to say what other destination I would choose to 'reduce purchase costs'.

For a place like Thailand, including BKK, it seems odd to focus on the possibility of escalating rents as a long-term threat for the resources of a retiree. There seems to be a large and growing supply of rental housing readily available and no building restrictions. I certainly don't read constant complaints from expats on Thaivisa that they have been priced out of their flat when lease renewal time came around and they wish they had bought when they had the chance. No one here ever complains about rents as far as I can tell. They complain about inflation, but not about rents.

While it's true that inflation, in general, is the enemy of the retiree with fixed resources, the principal capacity he has to cope with inflation is flexibility, the ability to adjust his standard of living. And his ability to relocate is the most important flexibility he has, a big benefit of no longer having to remain in one area for a career/job. That's true for those of us still in the US, but even more so for expats. When you own property, particularly where the secondary market is poorly developed as in Thailand, you give up the ability to relocate quickly in response to adverse changes in legal climate, exchange rates, family situation, health, etc. Owning has always seemed to me to be a long-term commitment to an area that you no longer have to make when you are retired. You have to be willing to ride out a property cycle or else face the risk of having to sell in a down market.

The option of tying up a large part of net worth in a residence wouldn't be appealing to me unless owning were substantially cheaper than renting, which does not appear currently to be the case in Thailand. Thais have shown a preference for owning property beyond what the economic advantage indicates. We know this because we hear so often that they don't sell when the market drops and they don't rent at all if they can't get their price. Well, the way to take advantage of the Thai mispricing of property is to rent.

Your argument about Thailand property values possibly moving up in the future is an argument for speculation. In my opinion, retirees with limited resources have no business engaging in speculation since they risk unacceptable losses if the future turns out other than forecast. Renters do not risk unacceptable losses since they can always move.

Open an account at Bangkok Bank. BB has a branch in New York with an American ABA number. You can then wire from Citibank to BB using the "domestic transfers" screen on Citi's website. You enter your account info at BB and in the "special instructions" area you identify your BB branch location. Citi charges the domestic wire fee of USD 18.75 instead of the international fee and they wire dollars. Money gets there overnight.

This method got me in a lot of trouble. I was transferring from Bank of America to Bangkok Bank (NY). It worked ok for a few times, but then the Patriot Act (I guess) kicked in and I was accused of money laundering (I never transferred more than $5,000USD a month) and my transfer option was FROZEN, actually they used the word "coded" with no recourse. It is still frozen. I now use Citibank and willingly pay the $30 fee for wire transfers directly to Silom head office of Bangkok Bank.

Interesting. I have done transfers over $5,000 all after the Patriot Act and that hasn't happened to me. I did call Bangkok Bank in New York to check the procedure before I did the first transfer. Their only requirement was putting the branch in the "special instructions" box. They seemed to regard the transaction as routine. Citi called me after the first transfer to verify that it was legitimate. I haven't done very many transfers this way, probably half a dozen over the past 3 years. Also, I have had an account with Citi for 25 years. Were you doing them very frequently? Have you had a Citi account for only a short time?

You sound like the typical sociopath who always feels himself to be a victim because he is incapable of considering the viewpoint of anyone but himself.

By that lovely logic, the majority of American expats on thaivisa are sociopaths (as well as some high profile MODERATORS here) as the majority have indeed claimed they are posing as US residents for banking (etc.) purposes. I don't buy it. I don't buy that posing as a US resident for necessity and convenience is anything more than what it is, often a necessary thing to do that hurts nobody.

Back to CitiSleazeBank, the objection I have is the way in which they present their requirements. It is reasonable to assume that if you can meet their stated requirements, you can open a basic bank account with them. But no ... Actually, my theory is they are screening for identity theft and not non-US residents, so again the moralist comentators are most likely out to lunch.

Q. E. D.

But his main point is that it makes perfect sense to question "what is better" for what is probably the largest percentage of potential buyers for all the reasons he states - it's not just lifestyle - it's what is a better choice for that group of people (inc me). If money is no object, or at least not a major factor, only then is it a "lifestyle" choice.

Correct.

Jingthing,

So, let me summarize: you apply for an account at Citibank. N. A. (North America) which requires you to be resident in the US. You are not resident in the US. Citibank refuses you an account. And somehow Citibank is the sleazy one and not, for instance, you?

Capt Haddock

Yes, I am sleazy. That is not news. Just doing what probably the majority of US expats do (as evidenced by a recent survey I ran here). We pose as US residents to make things easier or even possible. So whose fault is it exactly that US financial institutions are expat unfriendly? Crime of the century, huh? Maintaining US bank accounts. There is no other way. FYI: was not rejected for not being a US resident, as I have already detailed. In fact, if the friend I use as my faux residence had a land line phone, I could have still opened that account. He also has no landline, just uses a cell or an internet based phone as do tens of millions of Americans. Again to repeat, needing a land line US phone and to show the bill was not listed as one of their requirements when you first open the account. So as we are all agreed that I am sleazy and Citibank is sleazy, it seems even more a shame that both of our sleazy parties could not find mutual ground to do some juicy banking business.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...amp;hl=maintain

BTW: Brownie points for you for highlighting that issue. I was wondering when some smart person would mention that!

About that issue, so we pose as being US residents. Who exactly are we hurting? We aren't stealing anything from any person or any bank, just trying to maintain our financial business. Maybe it deserves a separate topic as I am convinced perhaps many thousands or even millions of Americans are doing just that, and hurting nobody. They are just trying to navigate a crazy environment.

You know, I don't have any moral objection to your posing as a resident to get a bank account. What I really find offensive is your whining that you have somehow been hard done by. No one is being unfair to you. Citibank, N. A. is chartered to operate in the US. For business and/or regulatory reasons they do not offer overseas accounts. You sound like the typical sociopath who always feels himself to be a victim because he is incapable of considering the viewpoint of anyone but himself.

the decision owning or renting is based on the lifestyle of an individual. it makes no sense to discuss the question "what is better?"

Not true at all. Not counting speculators, there are two classes of buyers: those rich enough to be able to consider housing costs purely as an expense and those who must also take into account the long-term effects on their net worth. If you are fortunate enough to count yourself among the happy few, then my hat is off to you. However, most of us find ourselves in the latter camp. For us, buying or renting can not only be "better," it can make the difference between being solvent or not. Examples of bankruptcy and foreclosures due to bad housing decisions abound in the US newspapers these days.

At a first approximation, buying is better if it is cheaper than renting. But to do a proper analysis you have to consider carefully all the variables. For example, people routinely overlook the opportunity cost of a down payment, which can be considerable over the long haul. The best online buy vs rent calculator I have found comes from the New York Times. While it expects dollars, you can use baht just as well. It accounts for all the variables.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/business...NT_GRAPHIC.html?

In addition to the purely financial analysis, which, I repeat, is crucial to those of us for whom housing may represent the largest chunk of our net worth, there are the special risks to consider for Thailand: lack of transparency in the real estate market, uncertain privilege of residence for many expats, generally undeveloped resale market in Thailand, limited availability of financing for expat purchases, restrictions on expat ownership rights, poor culture of building maintenance, political instability, and so on. While I don't currently live in Thailand, from afar, renting there looks like an overwhelming bargain to me: it's cheaper and less risky. Indeed, the attractiveness of renting in BKK is one of the main reasons I am considering retiring there in a few years.

Jingthing,

So, let me summarize: you apply for an account at Citibank. N. A. (North America) which requires you to be resident in the US. You are not resident in the US. Citibank refuses you an account. And somehow Citibank is the sleazy one and not, for instance, you?

Capt Haddock

Open an account at Bangkok Bank. BB has a branch in New York with an American ABA number. You can then wire from Citibank to BB using the "domestic transfers" screen on Citi's website. You enter your account info at BB and in the "special instructions" area you identify your BB branch location. Citi charges the domestic wire fee of USD 18.75 instead of the international fee and they wire dollars. Money gets there overnight.

The problem with the nursing home in Thailand idea is that the retirement visa has a health requirement, if I recall correctly. Although I don't hear much about its being applied, a health requirement means that you could be refused a visa just when you are declining.

By the way, the only disadvantage with steel-cut oats is the long cooking time vs. rolled oats. McCann's recommends 30 minutes which is sort of an inconvenience in the morning. However, there is a great solution at hand: the rice cooker. I put 0.5 cups of oats in our Zojurushi rice cooker with 1.5 cups water, set the timer for 7:00 AM, and it's ready when I wake up. East truly meets West.