Thailand Urged To Provide Incentives For Women To Produce 'Qualitative' Children

[pooket]

I'm absolutely shocked that the birth rate is going down in Thailand. Everywhere I go are babies, babies, babies! Plus, Thai cities always seem so overcrowded with people living on top of people on top of people... How about six people living in a small, cement room? Or the constant building and development here? Or the crowded roads and tons of touts? Are these people sure the population rate is going down? If it is, it's probably the best thing that's happened here for years.

[TAWP]

Remind me again, what does the minimum wage level in UK have to do with anything?

Unless it is a salary level extended to UK citizens even as they work in Thailand it is of no use for anyone to care about.

[inthepink]

Remind me again, what does the minimum wage level in UK have to do with anything?

Unless it is a salary level extended to UK citizens even as they work in Thailand it is of no use for anyone to care about.

OK, I will remind you once again but this is getting a little tedious. Posters on this thread, such as yourself, are claiming that Western men make better fathers because they earn more money and can therefore look after their family better. They are also (apparently) more interested in ensuring their offspring get a decent education.

My contention is, that any Westerner who cannot even earn as much as a trainee in a McDonalds store in the UK (or any other developed country) is not financially secure to my way of thinking (and unless they are just working here for fun, most likely not very well educated either).

Any foreign national who lives and works in Thailand and earns less than 40k baht is also not a roaring success in my opinion. This is not to say that I judge people's parenting ability by their income. That is the position taken by other posters. I am just pointing out that the level of income required to obtain a non-immigrant '0' visa based on marriage to a Thai national is very low for anyone from the Western world. If they cannot earn that much then obviously their superior Western education was a bit of a waste.

Assuming you wanted a decent standard of living here, 40k is not going to be enough, especially if you are responsible for the welfare of a wife and children.

Edited July 18, 2010 by inthepink

[TAWP]

Remind me again, what does the minimum wage level in UK have to do with anything?

Unless it is a salary level extended to UK citizens even as they work in Thailand it is of no use for anyone to care about.

OK, I will remind you once again but this is getting a little tedious. Posters on this thread, such as yourself, are claiming that Western men make better fathers because they earn more money and can therefore look after their family better. They are also (apparently) more interested in ensuring their offspring get a decent education.

My contention is, that any Westerner who cannot even earn as much as a trainee in a McDonalds store in the UK (or any other developed country) is not financially secure to my way of thinking (and unless they are just working here for fun, most likely not very well educated either).

Any foreign national who lives and works in Thailand and earns less than 40k baht is also not a roaring success in my opinion. This is not to say that I judge people's parenting ability by their income. That is the position taken by other posters. I am just pointing out that the level of income required to obtain a non-immigrant '0' visa based on marriage to a Thai national is very low for anyone from the Western world. If they cannot earn that much then obviously their superior Western education was a bit of a waste.

Assuming you wanted a decent standard of living here, 40k is not going to be enough, especially if you are responsible for the welfare of a wife and children.

Actually, if the man makes 35 and the girl makes 30 per month, that is a family income of 65k per month. I am quite sure it is high enough. And way higher than the average family income of two 30 year old partners of an average newly married family.

But it is not enough to get an extension for Non-O.

And outside Bangkok that is even more money.

In any way, if you think that the rules are fair or 'good', when it is de facto easier to emmigrate to several European countries, than that is your opinion that isn't shared by all.

And remember, to beat an average family income a person only has to have the exact income and higher as the average family. Such is the game of statistics. Hence, having rules that indicate that one partner has to have perhaps double this number isn't sain. No-matter what the price of butter is in the UK. As no-one here will ever buy it.

[inthepink]

Remind me again, what does the minimum wage level in UK have to do with anything?

Unless it is a salary level extended to UK citizens even as they work in Thailand it is of no use for anyone to care about.

OK, I will remind you once again but this is getting a little tedious. Posters on this thread, such as yourself, are claiming that Western men make better fathers because they earn more money and can therefore look after their family better. They are also (apparently) more interested in ensuring their offspring get a decent education.

My contention is, that any Westerner who cannot even earn as much as a trainee in a McDonalds store in the UK (or any other developed country) is not financially secure to my way of thinking (and unless they are just working here for fun, most likely not very well educated either).

Any foreign national who lives and works in Thailand and earns less than 40k baht is also not a roaring success in my opinion. This is not to say that I judge people's parenting ability by their income. That is the position taken by other posters. I am just pointing out that the level of income required to obtain a non-immigrant '0' visa based on marriage to a Thai national is very low for anyone from the Western world. If they cannot earn that much then obviously their superior Western education was a bit of a waste.

Assuming you wanted a decent standard of living here, 40k is not going to be enough, especially if you are responsible for the welfare of a wife and children.

Actually, if the man makes 35 and the girl makes 30 per month, that is a family income of 65k per month. I am quite sure it is high enough. And way higher than the average family income of two 30 year old partners of an average newly married family.

But it is not enough to get an extension for Non-O.

And outside Bangkok that is even more money.

In any way, if you think that the rules are fair or 'good', when it is de facto easier to emmigrate to several European countries, than that is your opinion that isn't shared by all.

And remember, to beat an average family income a person only has to have the exact income and higher as the average family. Such is the game of statistics. Hence, having rules that indicate that one partner has to have perhaps double this number isn't sain. No-matter what the price of butter is in the UK. As no-one here will ever buy it.

I don't think the rules are necessarily fair or good, just that, given all the "advantages" of having been educated and brought up in the West, an income of 40k baht a month should not be that hard to manage.

Incidentally, do you think it is fair or good that a Thai national has to prove they have a good enough reason to want to come home (i.e. decent job etcetera) before they can get even a tourist visa to many Western countries? I'd be pretty annoyed if those rules were applied to me when I wanted to go on holiday.

Edited July 18, 2010 by inthepink

[TAWP]

I don't think the rules are necessarily fair or good, just that, given all the "advantages" of having been educated and brought up in the West, an income of 40k baht a month should not be that hard to manage.

Right, if we assumed that everyone that lived here was 45+ year old, however there even live people here that is 20-25 years old, so... (not that I am that young).

Incidentally, do you think it is fair or good that a Thai national has to prove they have a good enough reason to want to come home (i.e. decent job etcetera) before they can get even a tourist visa to many Western countries? I'd be pretty annoyed if those rules were applied to me when I wanted to go on holiday.

No, but you are barking up the wrong tree as I believe everyone should be free to travel whereever they can afford to go. But then again I am not handicapped with having the notion that the government should be doing handouts of their tax payers stolen money...

[aussiebebe]

The death rate is falling, that is amazing.

I assumed it would stay at 100% like other countries.

:jap: LOL. Genius. I salute you.

[inthepink]

I don't think the rules are necessarily fair or good, just that, given all the "advantages" of having been educated and brought up in the West, an income of 40k baht a month should not be that hard to manage.

Right, if we assumed that everyone that lived here was 45+ year old, however there even live people here that is 20-25 years old, so... (not that I am that young).

Incidentally, do you think it is fair or good that a Thai national has to prove they have a good enough reason to want to come home (i.e. decent job etcetera) before they can get even a tourist visa to many Western countries? I'd be pretty annoyed if those rules were applied to me when I wanted to go on holiday.

No, but you are barking up the wrong tree as I believe everyone should be free to travel whereever they can afford to go. But then again I am not handicapped with having the notion that the government should be doing handouts of their tax payers stolen money...

Well, we'll have to agree to disgree on the subject of income requirements or this could go on forever.

I don't understand your second point - who thinks that the government should be giving handouts to people? Unless you mean that if the social security system was not there to be abused then there wouldn't be any problem in letting anyone travel there (in which case we agree on one thing at least!)?

Edited July 19, 2010 by inthepink

[TAWP]

Yes, that is exactly my point.

One cannot have freedom of moving and a well-fare state at the same time.

[Thai at Heart]

I can't imagine why for one second anyone would feel the need to ban that.

Whether or not anyone feels moved by it, I really can't see why anything in it should be an issue.

And it asks a lot of questions that society should be asking of itself. Now that is something new.

[TAWP]

I can't imagine why for one second anyone would feel the need to ban that.

Whether or not anyone feels moved by it, I really can't see why anything in it should be an issue.

And it asks a lot of questions that society should be asking of itself. Now that is something new.

Uhm, wrong thread? Looking for this one: ?

[Thai at Heart]

I can't imagine why for one second anyone would feel the need to ban that.

Whether or not anyone feels moved by it, I really can't see why anything in it should be an issue.

And it asks a lot of questions that society should be asking of itself. Now that is something new.

Uhm, wrong thread? Looking for this one: ?

Whoops