Poor really are getting poorer in Thailand

[Orton Rd]

I cannot be bothered to look it up again, but did see that after Russia and about level with India Thailand was the second biggest wealth gap in the world with half a % owning over 50% of the wealth, Russia was 75%. 

[amvet]

3 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

It may not be so but I doubt that data is reliable.

So, post some better data besides prejudicial anecdotal observations.  Until then I'd submit the data is the best source. 

[wakeupplease]

14 hours ago, Thongkorn said:

Most People,  foreigners who live in Thailand have never been in the provinces and seen the real poverty.

You have hit the nail on the head with this, nice people who make you welcome, yet suffer so much from the lack of amenities while others who do noting for the country take the riches and deliver the bull.

 

14 hours ago, halloween said:

When their "representation" danced to the tune of a corrupt fugitive criminal in return for a fat monthly payment, their influence must have been huge.

With a mentality like that you can see why he is here or born here. Poor people, they have only got themselves to blame comes to mind.

 

12 hours ago, trogers said:

Look at VENEZUELA!

 

Want to follow their path?

I thought Venezuela had followed the Thai path.

 

I watched a television program last night, a true story of events of the second world war in this neck of the woods, I can now see some are still following certain formulas that where happening then.

[JAG]

7 hours ago, Cadbury said:

Isn't that all part of the Thai philosophy known as “sufficiency economy”? Looks like the wheels are falling off that grand plan big time. With some little help from the military.

In my personal opinion. the original idea of the "Sufficiency Economy has been subverted to the extent that it is now used to excusekeeping the poor as poor as possible, whilst allowing a very small proportion of the population a free hand with the nation's wealth. Almost certainly not the original thought...

[coulson]

2 hours ago, blackcab said:

 

I don't quite get Dave's point. Can anyone explain his post to me please?

 

I can't ask him myself because he ignored me.

 

Please do not start your post, "Blackcab said..."

What Dave said was people who rummage in bins usually don't have the hygiene, communication skills, the right clothes or attitude to apply for a job in a restaurant....so they don't bother.

 

If anyone really wished to fill a position with the needy, why don't they do more than stick a sign in a window and just wait. (Wonder was the vacancy sign in english)

 

Society is fckd innit

[JAG]

5 hours ago, jenny2017 said:

There's not even one person with 10 gram overweight in our village.

 

   I'm just wondering where he's got the info from? 

An internet forum?

 

"It must be true, I saw it on a website..."

 

[JAG]

5 hours ago, blackcab said:

 

That is illogical. Poor people have nothing worth taking.

If there are a very large number of poor people, even a small amount per person adds up to a large sum, especially if it is transferred to a very small number of people on the top of the pile....

 

By the way, not a bad Mr Spock impression!

Edited November 19, 2017 by JAG

[JAG]

4 hours ago, blackcab said:

 

You make excellent points and I completely agree with you.

 

What you didn't mention is that the internet holds an unimaginable quantity of knowledge and resources. Many people can access the internet in Thailand, even if they use a friend's internet or the free WiFi outside a coffee shop/guest house, etc.

 

With all of this knowledge available, where are the digital entrepreneurs, the ingenious little micro businesses, tiny start-up service businesses, etc.

 

These things could be happening and I could well be missing them.

 

Am I?

They do exist. But as soon as they show any signs of growing they are squashed, you see they would pose a threat to the established order. The established order controls access to the capital such businesses require to grow. Pernicious isn't it?

 

 

 

 

[simoh1490]

45 minutes ago, amvet said:

So, post some better data besides prejudicial anecdotal observations.  Until then I'd submit the data is the best source. 

"According to a January 2017 release of data from the National Statistical Office of Thailand, more than 90% of internet users in the country go online via smartphone, far the exceeding rates for any other device". 

 

https://www.emarketer.com/Article/More-than-90-of-Internet-Users-Thailand-Use-Smartphones-Go-Online/1015217

[JAG]

4 hours ago, blackcab said:

 

Or was it to help sustain the building of new condos, hotels, factories, etc.

 

All of which create jobs for Thai people, taxes and economic wealth.

 

You seem to be viewing things at the micro level of the worker -v- the employer.

 

There are often much bigger, macro decisions to consider, especially in a developing country.

The "micro-level" (worker v employer) is the level at which poverty results. The "macro-level" here only benefits those at the top of the pile.

 

That could well (inevitably perhaps) result in, - if we are going to continue using jargon - what could be described as a "kinetic adjustment" of the current situation.

[amvet]

13 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

"According to a January 2017 release of data from the National Statistical Office of Thailand, more than 90% of internet users in the country go online via smartphone, far the exceeding rates for any other device". 

 

https://www.emarketer.com/Article/More-than-90-of-Internet-Users-Thailand-Use-Smartphones-Go-Online/1015217

What does that have to do with how many people in Thailand have smartphones?  90% of people online in Thailand are too poor to afford a computer so they have to use a smartphone?  I understand that.  But the question was how many people own Smartphones out of a population of 70 million?

[finnomick]

" low income people earning less than 100,000 baht a year ". Well, that's everyone on the government recommended 300 baht a day wage ( working 6 days a week ). Next bright idea or comment please government

[Sid Celery]

It's been widely believed that the army was put up to the job by the amaat in Thailand (by which is meant the wealthy aristocracy), in order to protect and enhance their privilege at a time of flux.

 

So why would it be a surprise that they continue to line their pockets at what must be the direct expense of the wider population? Third world countries are notorious for their rapacious elites and their levels of corruption. When you view Thailand, whatever the current (probably dodgy) numbers are, their place in the lower echelons of the third world is cemented by their culture and mindset. This makes it extremely unlikely that they will be dining at the top international table in my lifetime, and probably not at all.

 

A country is (or certainly ought to be in the 21st Century) judged by the way they treat people whom they do not have to treat well.

[finnomick]

You can't get poorer than broke unless you count getting into debt. The rural farmworkers in our area have had a wage increase of 33.3%. Wow ! From 150 baht to 200 baht a day. I wonder how the government categorises them ? The government could help them by re-instating the electricity scheme Ms. yingluck scrapped. If I can remember correctly, if your bill was less than 100 baht a month you didn't have to pay.

[coulson]

5 minutes ago, finnomick said:

" low income people earning less than 100,000 baht a year ". Well, that's everyone on the government recommended 300 baht a day wage ( working 6 days a week ). Next bright idea or comment please government

Minimum recommended wage is classed as low income anywhere in the world.

[Cadbury]

47 minutes ago, JAG said:

An internet forum?

 

"It must be true, I saw it on a website..."

 

I regularly go to a very small village about 1.5 hours east of Udon.  The women between the ages of 21 -51 appear  well "rounded" but not fat. The older women look like they are moving slowly toward skeletal status. The men in the village just appear to hang about doing nothing. The men NOT in the village are out doing farming work just so their families can survive.

A big difference to the silvertails in Bangkok.

Edited November 19, 2017 by Cadbury

[amvet]

3 minutes ago, Sid Celery said:

It's been widely believed that the army was put up to the job by the amaat in Thailand (by which is meant the wealthy aristocracy), in order to protect and enhance their privilege at a time of flux.

 

So why would it be a surprise that they continue to line their pockets at what must be the direct expense of the wider population? Third world countries are notorious for their rapacious elites and their levels of corruption. When you view Thailand, whatever the current (probably dodgy) numbers are, their place in the lower echelons of the third world is cemented by their culture and mindset. This makes it extremely unlikely that they will be dining at the top international table in my lifetime, and probably not at all.

 

A country is (or certainly ought to be in the 21st Century) judged by the way they treat people whom they do not have to treat well.

Countries with a higher difference between rich and poor than Thailand are USA, Singapore and China just to name 3. 

 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html

[StayinThailand2much]

15 hours ago, greatwhitenorth said:

  I don t think you have ever left your tiny expat enclave.  Poverty  in rural Thailand is commonplace. As to getting fat, drink a lot and travelling overseas, I suspect you have taken your significant other and concluded she is representative of all Thais.  

Also, Bangkok is not representative for Thailand as a whole. While most people in Bangkok may have a good or reasonable income and lifestyle, the same my not be true for all people 'upcountry', despite the ownership of farmland property.

[StayinThailand2much]

1 hour ago, simoh1490 said:

"According to a January 2017 release of data from the National Statistical Office of Thailand, more than 90% of internet users in the country go online via smartphone, far the exceeding rates for any other device". 

 

https://www.emarketer.com/Article/More-than-90-of-Internet-Users-Thailand-Use-Smartphones-Go-Online/1015217

While almost all Thais own a smartphone these days, including most teenagers, quite a few (of the adults) seem to finance the purchase via credit card debt. 

Edited November 19, 2017 by StayinThailand2much

[Sid Celery]

1 hour ago, amvet said:

Countries with a higher difference between rich and poor than Thailand are USA, Singapore and China just to name 3. 

 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html

Interesting implications to the statement.

 

It necessarily follows the argument you suggest that we shouldn't do anything about gun crime in TL because there is more gun crime in USA. We shouldn't bother doing anything about HIV/AIDS in TL because the incidence of HIV/AIDS is higher in Uganda. No point China engaging in space research because the USA has gone further already.

 

The argument is, in my opinion, moot, designed only to perpetuate the inequality that exists, on the sole basis that there are other countries who have managed the inequality even more poorly, probably for even more unworthy reasons and objectives.

 

In other words, friend, I am unpersuaded by your protestations, though of course, you are entitled to make them.

Edited November 19, 2017 by Sid Celery

[Sid Celery]

57 minutes ago, StayinThailand2much said:

Also, Bangkok is not representative for Thailand as a whole. While most people in Bangkok may have a good or reasonable income and lifestyle, the same my not be true for all people 'upcountry', despite the ownership of farmland property.

 

Having lived in both places, I think you're right. I recall my first visit to Isaan. I honestly could not believe that in the 21st Century, people still lives in houses (shacks) like this. It seemed to me that Isaan was a very large and ramshackle shanty town.

 

Having said that, many,perhaps BKK folk are up to their ears in debt and do not enjoy a lifestyle I would envy. Some do, most don't. I suspect there is a normal (gaussian) distribution in there somewhere, there often is.

[jenny2017]

21 minutes ago, Sid Celery said:

 

Having lived in both places, I think you're right. I recall my first visit to Isaan. I honestly could not believe that in the 21st Century, people still lives in houses (shacks) like this. It seemed to me that Isaan was a very large and ramshackle shanty town.

 

Having said that, many,perhaps BKK folk are up to their ears in debt and do not enjoy a lifestyle I would envy. Some do, most don't. I suspect there is a normal (gaussian) distribution in there somewhere, there often is.

It seemed to me that Isaan was a very large and ramshackle shanty town.

 

  "The Isaan town" is 33 % of the whole country. And I can assure you that we are not living in a bamboo shag.

[Familyonthemove]

17 hours ago, Get Real said:

And that statement made it look much better? It´s still 10% of the population, that should not have to suffer like they do.

Most people in the west owns things like the ones you describe too, but they have a better social security or salury. That was the point.

Agree.  Smart phones, motorcycles, all bought with borrowed money.  Increasing debt is another side to the growing social imbalance 

[jenny2017]

3 hours ago, JAG said:

An internet forum?

 

"It must be true, I saw it on a website..."

 

 No.

Edited November 19, 2017 by jenny2017

[jenny2017]

2 hours ago, Cadbury said:

I regularly go to a very small village about 1.5 hours east of Udon.  The women between the ages of 21 -51 appear  well "rounded" but not fat. The older women look like they are moving slowly toward skeletal status. The men in the village just appear to hang about doing nothing. The men NOT in the village are out doing farming work just so their families can survive.

A big difference to the silvertails in Bangkok.

Perhaps you forgot your glasses and they were pregnant? 

[Sid Celery]

44 minutes ago, jenny2017 said:

It seemed to me that Isaan was a very large and ramshackle shanty town.

 

  "The Isaan town" is 33 % of the whole country. And I can assure you that we are not living in a bamboo shag.

 

'We' meaning you and yours, not all, nor even most. Some people live opulent lifestyles in Isaan. Some of those are Thais, many are not. Most people in Isaan do not live opulent lifestyles, though it's possible I live in a poorer and therefore unrepresentative part according to your worldview.

 

Your words suggest you are responding to the threat of a loss of face for some reason I don't understand but I do perceive. No need. But loss of face or not, it is what it is. It might help if you persuade yourself I live in the only poor square mile in Isaan, and that this has influenced my view. A bit precious, but if it helps, you're welcome.

 

Perhaps you meant 'shack'. As anyone from UK will tell you, 'shag' is not the same thing. Not at all.

 

Edited November 19, 2017 by Sid Celery

[Sid Celery]

36 minutes ago, Familyonthemove said:

Agree.  Smart phones, motorcycles, all bought with borrowed money.  Increasing debt is another side to the growing social imbalance 

 

Spot on with that, it's a very big problem in the making. Debt is the thing that maintains face in the short term but bites very hard in the long term. Thais have poor long-term appreciation, today is what counts.

[phantomfiddler]

The sad fact is that the poor are poor because they are mostly s****d. If the rich people gave all their money to the poor people they would have it back by the end of the month !

[Jonah Tenner]

13 hours ago, yellowboat said:

They are clearly providing benefits only to the wealthy which rarely trickle down.  

 

[simoh1490]

5 hours ago, amvet said:

What does that have to do with how many people in Thailand have smartphones?  90% of people online in Thailand are too poor to afford a computer so they have to use a smartphone?  I understand that.  But the question was how many people own Smartphones out of a population of 70 million?

Are you suggesting people don't own the smartphones they go online with!