More deflection. As you well know, it is not that I am 'denying' your facts. You post your national facts, which is fine. I post boots on the ground, personal experience. What I have repeatedly stated is that national facts, or facts for other parts of the country, such as Chiang Mai, do not hold relevance for Pattaya with local transactions. True whether you're hunting for a used car or buying a property. One part of Thailand might be doing well, another part not so well. You need local data to know how your area is doing. National data gives average income for Thailand at around 15,000 to 16,000 baht a month. Local data shows Isan at about half that--a big difference. I've given you examples to explain this--you just keep repeating the importance of your national data and ignoring my point. National vs. local is not unique to Thailand, by the way. How is it helpful, or meaningful, to someone selling a house in West Virginia, and trying to price it, that national data shows houses selling in California for an average of $754,000? Is that relevant? No. Wouldn't it be more useful to have West Virginia data, and even more useful to have data for the town in WV where your house will be for sale? Of course, it would. That's useful, that's relevant. The average home price for WV is around $182,000, by the way. How is it helpful for me, as a seller, to know that there are 50 3-bedroom pool villas priced at under 6MB in CM, if I am selling one in Pattaya? Would it be more helpful to know the figure for Pattaya? And, even more helpful to know the figure for my area of Pattaya? This is not rocket science. Nobody is disputing that investment returns can be better than real estate with some other investments. I have said repeatedly do what works best for you. However, there are some people who prefer to own, even with you telling them to rent and invest elsewhere and they'll do better financially. That includes me. For some, a home is much more than just a financial consideration--you are the one who always ignores this aspect, including your recent post. What I pointed out in my last post was, for those who choose to own rather than rent, even though their property might lose some value, or perhaps just retain its value, an owner who lives in his or her home for a number of years will likely end up with a net plus, with the rent savings. The longer you own, the more that is likely. This is focused solely on owning, with making a better financial return on something else a separate issue. Had we stayed in one of the first condos we bought when we first came to Pattaya, and not moved from it, it would likely be paid for by now with the rent savings. Even if it lost some value, we would still have a net plus. Likely we would have had a bigger financial net plus with renting and investing but owning over those years has given us happiness and contentment that can't be measured financially--which I know falls on deaf ears for you, with only the bottom line mattering. That's perfectly fine if the bottom line takes top priority for you with rent vs. own. It should always be what works best for you, and what works best for me--they don't need to be the same. And, once again, one can do both--own property and also have other investments, as well. America is producing 1,200 millionaires a day with that combination.
Create an account or sign in to comment