15 hours ago, BritTim said:

I gave you a like for your post overall, but I strongly disagree with this. Free markets (and that does include free trade and free movement of labor) does mostly benefit business and the wealthy. However, it does not overall hurt those lower down the chain. There are swings and balances there. In fact, the way to help those who are negatively affected is by intelligent tax policies (expecting those who benefit from open markets to contribute to programs that help those impacted by free market policies). Meanwhile, protectionism usually damages the economy in the long run which ultimately hurts everyone, not just the rich.

Although I am generally a free-market guy - because it can deliver the best quality of life for the greatest % of the population - I do believe that the conditions of wealth and population world-wide, mandate a national-barriers to prevent the destruction of the high-wage economies that exist, and to allow the rise of new ones.

 

In the context of supply-and-demand, consider there is a virtually-unlimited supply of labor in the world, relative to good-paying jobs - so pay to labor will always fall to bare-subsistence without artificial limitations on foreign-labor entering developed nations.  A min-wage can be applied, but this assumes one can still find a job with an unlimited supply of workers, and fails to recognize that an artificial wage law does not change the "real" demand-balance for labor vs goods and services.  I believe this is why a raise in the "min-wage" is eaten by inflation in short-order (my experience, when young). 

 

In the USA, we saw a 60% drop in the construction-sector wages (USA) for skilled workers, when foreign labor was hired.  Everyone's homes, cars, and families were lost - tens of millions of us - while the "TV" claimed (and still claims) that "wages are flat."  It was not in the vested-interests of those who literally "own the media" to tell our stories, so, from the standpoint of public-perception, we "did not exist."  I think many people's views on this topic are the result of this distorted media-lens - which is why many are so shocked with events such as Brexit and Trump's victory - they don't know about the millions whose lives "globalism" has destroyed, until the victims are given a chance to vote for policies which benefit them (for ~40 years, in the USA, there was no such option on the ballot).

 

Strict immigration restrictions on laborers not only prevents the destruction of existing middle-classes, it allows new ones to develop.  For example, if Cambodians could not be hired in Thailand for skilled-trades (Tile, Plumbing, Electric, etc) in construction, all those workers would become middle-class Thais.  My wife told me, "Those are jobs Thais won't do."  I had heard this story before (always leaving out "for what wage"), and asked if they would do those jobs if they paid 20K Baht/mo - "Well, of course," she replied.  Bingo.  And with one policy-change, the red-shirts would lose millions of supporters - since people only support socialism when the economic-ladder is absent, and handouts are the only available "step up."  

 

I doubt this would make the cost per sq-mt of new-construction rise significantly, relative to the demand-based (inflated, IMO) prices.  Generally, the vast majority "low cost labor" savings are transferred directly to the board of directors bonuses and shareholders - since there are few cases where the cost of labor is significant portion of retail prices.

 

One could argue that higher taxes on the wealthy-developers would be another way to provide the funds to help the less fortunate - but I generally prefer rewarding labor, which creates working-class self-sufficient, anti-communists, to tax-based artificial forms of wealth-transfer, which create a humiliating dependency on socialist policies for survival.  I do think a minimal social safety-net is needed - so not a hard-liner on this - but, this is, itself, incompatible with "open borders" (see Europe, today).

 

With regard to protectionism / tariffs - the purpose should be to ensure that overseas slave-wage labor cannot be used to compete with local high-paid labor.  When I was a child, most everything sold in the USA was "Made in the USA" - because of tariffs.  Global shipping was nothing new, but tariffs kept out slave-wage made goods - and the middle-class prospered.  As with any policy - it can be overdone or misapplied - but we had a good balance through the mid 1980s. 

 

Nothing (reasonable) can stop overseas investment for the purpose of selling into foreign-markets, but those with developed economies, and high consumer-spending, can easily do as Thailand has done, and ensure that most products sold in-country are "Made in Thailand" - while developing nations strive to reach that goal.

pdf for  OA visa application.. Thai Embassy Canberra..  I don't see any changes here from past application forms:

 

///C:/Users/User/Documents/retirement-long-stay-visa-application-o-a-visa.pdf