Price Of Life

[thaibeachlovers]

I beg to differ that western women are less interested in money. It's just that the ways of aquring a man's money is different. Welfare states are by and large a grand scheme to redistribute money from men to women they don't even know. In Denmark, an official study was made showing that women recive 300.000 USD more than they pay in taxes over a lifetime, while men contribute 130.000 USD more in taxes than they get over a liftetime. So of course, the western women won't seem as interested in money as the welfare states already have taken care of the challenge of getting financial security from a man. Just a fact that many are not aware off. Personally, I find the idea of forced redistribution from one sex to another abhorrent and I believe it ruins families and provides women with little incentive to actively seek out men for marriage and thereby curtailing their selfishness, just like men are forced to change certain undesirable things about themselves to get women. But women in the west don't need to be attractive to men to get their money, the welfare state does that for them.

Though of course there are plenty of hot women in any country, but style and behavior varies quite a lot. Women in Northern Europe dress very masculine, have shorter hair and behave in ways which would be considered rude and obnoxious in most traditional countries.

This doesn't change the usual 'I'm dating a hooker' issues, but it's a fact that many western countries provide little incentive for women to compromise to men.

Welfare states are not a grand scheme to redistribute money from men to women; they redistribute wealth from those with money to those without. Last time I checked, there were a hell of a lot of women working in the West too.

Are you seriously suggesting that, say, a British woman who would otherwise be out there looking to bag a guy with money has less motivation to do so because the sums she can get from the welfare state are so attractive??

The legions of women I know back in the UK work just like everyone else, pay their bills just like everyone else and support themselves just like everyone else. Obviously they're not at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder but they're also not out there looking for a man to hand over a monthly stipend either.

I spent the majority of my life in the UK and I witnessed nothing that could justify the animosity toward Western women as a group that many - not you, personally - display towards them. I can only deduce that a lack of success when trying to attract and retain the more attractive specimens has made them bitter and resentful.

Coming here and trying to attract and retain beautiful girls by holding out one's relative wealth as some kind of inducement very often doesn't result in a better outcome since the "compromises" you think Thai women are willing to make don't last long once her proverbial feet are under the table. One only has to read the snide comments made about Thai women on this forum for confirmation of that.

Without getting into the "I hate western women" thing at all ( I have many western women platonic friends ), despite working in a female dominated career for 23 years after leaving my western partner in the 1980s I did not meet a single western woman that I wanted to marry, as I found them too demanding and PC.

BTW, my Thai wife married me despite me NOT building her a house, buying her a car, supporting her extended family, paying vet fees for the buffalo, etc etc.

In fact, she has to go and work for her own money. So not all Thai women are gold diggers.

[thaibeachlovers]

HardenedSoul,

Yes, welfare states are run by socialists and feminists who believe the family to create inequality. Btw there are not any poor people in Scandinavia and there have recently been countless of examples of single moms receiving more in beneftis than full time employed academics. Every time with 3-5 children with different fathers whom are all absent. Welfare recipents are far majority women, go look up the stats. This is the European model we're talking about here, not the American.

Children growing up in single mom child hood have higher rates for becoming criminal, being abused, doing drugs, just about any bad thing.

It may be difficult for two 9/10, handsom studs like the two of us to understand that there are other factors at play in attraction and relationships than charm and good looks, but that is never the less the case.

Women date up. It's a simple fact. In Scandinavia where lots of women know have university education, more than men, there is now a growing group of middle aged academic women who are alone because they simply can't bring themselves to date someone with less education/status than they perceive themselves to have. Never mind that their masters is in humanities and they're employed in play-jobs with the government. That is just the way the female psyche works. So when you take money away from men and give to women through taxation, you're actually making lots of men less attractive a proposition status wise. A lot of men in the new welfare states simply have very little to offer in the new society on the dating market. A lot of people's fathers likely wouldn't be able to score their wives either in the new society. It's a well described sociological subject. And the reason is that their money and thereby social status is taken and given to women.

These viewpoints really aren't radical, they're becoming quite commonplace actually, as the European socialists states detiriorate.

Personally, I am not threathened in the slightest by a woman's education or her ability to earn, I just dislike the masculinastion of women as a result of this new lifestyle. I encourage you to go visit a city like Copenhagen to see for yourself. Or read this travel blog from a guy who travels around trying to pick up women in different countries. It's called: Danish women are the most masculine in the world. Made quite a stir, even made the TV news.

I'd rather not get into the welfare state's role in the demise of the family unit if for no other reason than I just don't believe it ever played a significant one, if at all.

Although I defer to your superior knowledge of the lay of the land in Scandinavian countries, in the UK, the situation isn't nearly as dire. I would ask, though, aren't working women in Denmark taxed? Don't their tax krone pay for university educations for men too?

In my homeland, there are well educated women dating and marrying men who earn modest money and with less in the way of education. I know several couples including a high-powered, female tax barrister and a male hairdresser who've been happily married more than 10 years.

The traditional male/female roles have become well and truly blurred and, personally, I welcome the development. For every guy who feels marginalised by it, there are 10 who couldn't give a rat's arse.

Fast forward to Thailand and it's clear that a lot of older men prefer to adhere to the traditional roles. Their reasoning is that by being in control of the money, they get the final say and if the wife doesn't like it, she can go whistle. That, sir, is a form of control. If a man can't co-exist with his wife on the strength of mutual respect and compatibility, what makes him think that by tightening or loosening the purse strings arbitrarily, she'll be any more likely to fall into line? Even if she does, what man really wants to exist in that kind of environment?

The control these men seek is an illusion.

Well, I have to say that after 28 years working in hospitals I don't know a single instance of a female Dr marrying "down", while Male Drs usually ( but not always ) did.

[MrHammer]

Well, I have to say that after 28 years working in hospitals I don't know a single instance of a female Dr marrying "down", while Male Drs usually ( but not always ) did.

Exactly, though exceptions obviously exist. However, the problem for the well educated, career driven woman, is that the men they're interested in (high value, high net worth, high achievers), do not want to marry a career woman, but in most cases want someone who is happy to make them a happy home and put work second to home, partner and children.

[lovelomsak]

I have said over and over that I can live a good life cheaper in the US than in LOS, I can't speak for other Western countries.

I would simply choose the climate type I prefer, then move to small rural US in that climate. I can find a good solid liveable home in rural US for under $100k and I own the land. I own the land. I own the land.

There are places like Southern Texas and the Appalachians and N. Alabama and N. Mississipi all with warm weather. There are places like Wyoming and N. Idaho for those who like four distinct seasons. I could go on.

I can't go Thai food 24/7. The food I actually buy and eat would break the bank in LOS. Last week I hit another sale and put another 60 pounds of USDA choice beef in the freezer for $2.99 a pound. I could go on and on about food.

Sundries. Outrageous in Thailand. Just mention laundry detergent. Gasoline, $2.79 a gallon with a coupon last time, and my pickup holds 27 gallons.

Cars? About 1/2 price. Someone mentioned Camry. I can buy one here for $18,000 - an LE model with all the goodies and no sales tax. LOS - more than double that.

If medical is ever an issue, I have $125 per month Medicare Advantage. That could tip the scales in a huge way very quickly as I get older.

I think it's time we quit kidding ourselves. I'm a citizen here, not a guest, and I don't need anyone's leave to be here and move about. The reason to live in LOS is still good, but it's not about money unless I move to a village in Isaan and live like the locals.

You can only compare rural areas with rural areas and cities with cities. It doesn't make any sense to compare rural Alabama with Bangkok or Pattaya.

I'll show you a beautiful first class infrastructure, clean air town in the US where you can pull it of and it will be nothing like Bangkok. No matter how much lipstick you put on Bangkok, it is still a third world hole. In a Western country, everything you buy in the store will be regulated and clean and so will the water and the traffic conditions and anything else you want to name. Small town, lightly populated area.

The photo looks more like Comox on Vancouver Island Canada to me. Than in the US.

[livinthailandos]

well postings are already getting off topic I will say price does vary depending on comparisons although agree on the price of getting a car here vs the US. much cheaper back home but the trade off is higher car insurance rates

on houses I gave up trying to buy one back in the US. all the newer developments are all HOA plus assessment s and on top of that property taxes

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Thaivisa Connect App

[Pacificperson]

HardenedSoul,

Yes, welfare states are run by socialists and feminists who believe the family to create inequality. Btw there are not any poor people in Scandinavia and there have recently been countless of examples of single moms receiving more in beneftis than full time employed academics. Every time with 3-5 children with different fathers whom are all absent. Welfare recipents are far majority women, go look up the stats. This is the European model we're talking about here, not the American.

Children growing up in single mom child hood have higher rates for becoming criminal, being abused, doing drugs, just about any bad thing.

It may be difficult for two 9/10, handsom studs like the two of us to understand that there are other factors at play in attraction and relationships than charm and good looks, but that is never the less the case.

Women date up. It's a simple fact. In Scandinavia where lots of women know have university education, more than men, there is now a growing group of middle aged academic women who are alone because they simply can't bring themselves to date someone with less education/status than they perceive themselves to have. Never mind that their masters is in humanities and they're employed in play-jobs with the government. That is just the way the female psyche works. So when you take money away from men and give to women through taxation, you're actually making lots of men less attractive a proposition status wise. A lot of men in the new welfare states simply have very little to offer in the new society on the dating market. A lot of people's fathers likely wouldn't be able to score their wives either in the new society. It's a well described sociological subject. And the reason is that their money and thereby social status is taken and given to women.

These viewpoints really aren't radical, they're becoming quite commonplace actually, as the European socialists states detiriorate.

Personally, I am not threathened in the slightest by a woman's education or her ability to earn, I just dislike the masculinastion of women as a result of this new lifestyle. I encourage you to go visit a city like Copenhagen to see for yourself. Or read this travel blog from a guy who travels around trying to pick up women in different countries. It's called: Danish women are the most masculine in the world. Made quite a stir, even made the TV news.

I'd rather not get into the welfare state's role in the demise of the family unit if for no other reason than I just don't believe it ever played a significant one, if at all.

Although I defer to your superior knowledge of the lay of the land in Scandinavian countries, in the UK, the situation isn't nearly as dire. I would ask, though, aren't working women in Denmark taxed? Don't their tax krone pay for university educations for men too?

In my homeland, there are well educated women dating and marrying men who earn modest money and with less in the way of education. I know several couples including a high-powered, female tax barrister and a male hairdresser who've been happily married more than 10 years.

The traditional male/female roles have become well and truly blurred and, personally, I welcome the development. For every guy who feels marginalised by it, there are 10 who couldn't give a rat's arse.

Fast forward to Thailand and it's clear that a lot of older men prefer to adhere to the traditional roles. Their reasoning is that by being in control of the money, they get the final say and if the wife doesn't like it, she can go whistle. That, sir, is a form of control. If a man can't co-exist with his wife on the strength of mutual respect and compatibility, what makes him think that by tightening or loosening the purse strings arbitrarily, she'll be any more likely to fall into line? Even if she does, what man really wants to exist in that kind of environment?

The control these men seek is an illusion.

Well, I have to say that after 28 years working in hospitals I don't know a single instance of a female Dr marrying "down", while Male Drs usually ( but not always ) did.

My first wife did.

[thaibeachlovers]

HardenedSoul,

Yes, welfare states are run by socialists and feminists who believe the family to create inequality. Btw there are not any poor people in Scandinavia and there have recently been countless of examples of single moms receiving more in beneftis than full time employed academics. Every time with 3-5 children with different fathers whom are all absent. Welfare recipents are far majority women, go look up the stats. This is the European model we're talking about here, not the American.

Children growing up in single mom child hood have higher rates for becoming criminal, being abused, doing drugs, just about any bad thing.

It may be difficult for two 9/10, handsom studs like the two of us to understand that there are other factors at play in attraction and relationships than charm and good looks, but that is never the less the case.

Women date up. It's a simple fact. In Scandinavia where lots of women know have university education, more than men, there is now a growing group of middle aged academic women who are alone because they simply can't bring themselves to date someone with less education/status than they perceive themselves to have. Never mind that their masters is in humanities and they're employed in play-jobs with the government. That is just the way the female psyche works. So when you take money away from men and give to women through taxation, you're actually making lots of men less attractive a proposition status wise. A lot of men in the new welfare states simply have very little to offer in the new society on the dating market. A lot of people's fathers likely wouldn't be able to score their wives either in the new society. It's a well described sociological subject. And the reason is that their money and thereby social status is taken and given to women.

These viewpoints really aren't radical, they're becoming quite commonplace actually, as the European socialists states detiriorate.

Personally, I am not threathened in the slightest by a woman's education or her ability to earn, I just dislike the masculinastion of women as a result of this new lifestyle. I encourage you to go visit a city like Copenhagen to see for yourself. Or read this travel blog from a guy who travels around trying to pick up women in different countries. It's called: Danish women are the most masculine in the world. Made quite a stir, even made the TV news.

I'd rather not get into the welfare state's role in the demise of the family unit if for no other reason than I just don't believe it ever played a significant one, if at all.

Although I defer to your superior knowledge of the lay of the land in Scandinavian countries, in the UK, the situation isn't nearly as dire. I would ask, though, aren't working women in Denmark taxed? Don't their tax krone pay for university educations for men too?

In my homeland, there are well educated women dating and marrying men who earn modest money and with less in the way of education. I know several couples including a high-powered, female tax barrister and a male hairdresser who've been happily married more than 10 years.

The traditional male/female roles have become well and truly blurred and, personally, I welcome the development. For every guy who feels marginalised by it, there are 10 who couldn't give a rat's arse.

Fast forward to Thailand and it's clear that a lot of older men prefer to adhere to the traditional roles. Their reasoning is that by being in control of the money, they get the final say and if the wife doesn't like it, she can go whistle. That, sir, is a form of control. If a man can't co-exist with his wife on the strength of mutual respect and compatibility, what makes him think that by tightening or loosening the purse strings arbitrarily, she'll be any more likely to fall into line? Even if she does, what man really wants to exist in that kind of environment?

The control these men seek is an illusion.

Well, I have to say that after 28 years working in hospitals I don't know a single instance of a female Dr marrying "down", while Male Drs usually ( but not always ) did.

My first wife did.

There's always an exception. However I don't personally know of any women that married "down". I do know some that deliberately set out to marry a doctor though.

The only example I know of was Charlie on Casualty ( BBC show ) that married a Dr and it ended badly for him. I know that's a fictitious show, but based in reality. It was the most realistic hospital tv show that I ever saw ( other than the exraordinarily high staff death rate ) in the way it portrayed the staff.

[evanson]

Well, I have to say that after 28 years working in hospitals I don't know a single instance of a female Dr marrying "down", while Male Drs usually ( but not always ) did.

There's always an exception. However I don't personally know of any women that married "down". I do know some that deliberately set out to marry a doctor though.

The only example I know of was Charlie on Casualty ( BBC show ) that married a Dr and it ended badly for him. I know that's a fictitious show, but based in reality. It was the most realistic hospital tv show that I ever saw ( other than the exraordinarily high staff death rate ) in the way it portrayed the staff.

And this my friends, is the depressingly deluded and archaic mindset of the majority of posters on this forum Edited January 14, 2013 by evanson

[the cougal]

How did this thread get on to this? Suggest Mods close it down!!

[chiangmaikelly]

How did this thread get on to this? Suggest Mods close it down!!

To what?

[alfieconn]

£ 4.90 at Kings Cross for a large Cornish pastie last night,need I say any more.

So comparing like for like how much is a Cornish Pastie at Bangkok station

[chiangmaikelly]

£ 4.90 at Kings Cross for a large Cornish pastie last night,need I say any more.

So comparing like for like how much is a Cornish Pastie at Bangkok station

Kings Cross Sidney?

[StreetCowboy]

£ 4.90 at Kings Cross for a large Cornish pastie last night,need I say any more.

So comparing like for like how much is a Cornish Pastie at Bangkok station

Who cares about the pasties, what about the tarts?

And to echo my favourite joke about Falkirk - Hualampong or Bangkok Noi?

SC

[TommoPhysicist]

£ 4.90 at Kings Cross for a large Cornish pastie last night,need I say any more.

So comparing like for like how much is a Cornish Pastie at Bangkok station

Who cares about the pasties, what about the tarts?

And to echo my favourite joke about Falkirk - Hualampong or Bangkok Noi?

SC

I had a gigantic Cornish Pastie at Sausage King in CM last Saturday (or was it the week before) for 75bht.

I'm betting it was bigger than yours and tasted better at less than one third of the cost ...... need I say any more!

Edited January 15, 2013 by TommoPhysicist

[thaibeachlovers]

£ 4.90 at Kings Cross for a large Cornish pastie last night,need I say any more.

So comparing like for like how much is a Cornish Pastie at Bangkok station

Who cares about the pasties, what about the tarts?

And to echo my favourite joke about Falkirk - Hualampong or Bangkok Noi?

SC

I had a gigantic Cornish Pastie at Sausage King in CM last Saturday (or was it the week before) for 75bht.

I'm betting it was bigger than yours and tasted better at less than one third of the cost ...... need I say any more!

I certainly hope it was gigantic. 75 baht could feed an extended Thai family for a week, LOL.

[PoodMaiDai]

I'm finding that Thailand is not so cheap these days. I'm not far from what I was paying to live in the USA now once I balance all expenses out at the end of the month. If things continue to rise I will rethink my long term strategy. There many advantages to living here, but slowly a lot of them are losing their luster.

[bangkokburning]

In the end it could be as expensive as Dubai and all the single sociopaths wouldnt go back. The answer to it all is not money - but floozies. Most farang men in Thailand wouldn't get the time of day from a woman outside this country.

I've come to the conclusion it is still way cheaper in Thailand based on minimum lifestyle I would have in states or Thailand. Apples Apples is absurd.

I can tell you stellar house in a nice part of ruralish USA vs some box of crap in Samui or Phuket or BKK (6m).

Cant own land, business or even work on the Internet technically.

Seems Thai bureaucracy loves to make it as difficult as possible.

Decent schools for kids are private and $$$$

There are very good reasons to return if you have a solid marriage, esp if yiu have kids.

Most single men will stay though. Even I dont want to "date" women anywhere near my age. If they have not already fallen apart, they are bitter if not those two then they are out of my league as I am not interested in buying them all sorts of bs to fill their empty heads and lives.

The 40+ women in FL and CA are really toooooo much.

[chiangmaikelly]

I'm finding that Thailand is not so cheap these days. I'm not far from what I was paying to live in the USA now once I balance all expenses out at the end of the month. If things continue to rise I will rethink my long term strategy. There many advantages to living here, but slowly a lot of them are losing their luster.

Inflation rates. 2012

Us 1.8% UK 2.7 Australia 2.0% Thailand 3.2% I don't think 1 percent is really going to make much difference.

[bangkokburning]

I'm finding that Thailand is not so cheap these days. I'm not far from what I was paying to live in the USA now once I balance all expenses out at the end of the month. If things continue to rise I will rethink my long term strategy. There many advantages to living here, but slowly a lot of them are losing their luster.

Inflation rates. 2012

Us 1.8% UK 2.7 Australia 2.0% Thailand 3.2% I don't think 1 percent is really going to make much difference.

Wrong. The difference between two and three percent is 50% more inflation. 3.2 (perhaps really nearly 4%) is some serious inflation especially yoy.

5% inflation yoy for a few years coupled with 10% strengthening of thb against major fx and you will see legions of farang running for the doors.

Thailand has huge inflation pressures on it. Everyone is underpaid, food is underpriced, services are kept down because Thai simply cant afford service. It is this magic formula of exploitation that makes Thailand such a foreigners paradise in addition to agrocultural businesses with world class economies of scale.

Edited January 16, 2013 by bangkokburning

[chiangmaikelly]

I'm finding that Thailand is not so cheap these days. I'm not far from what I was paying to live in the USA now once I balance all expenses out at the end of the month. If things continue to rise I will rethink my long term strategy. There many advantages to living here, but slowly a lot of them are losing their luster.

Inflation rates. 2012

Us 1.8% UK 2.7 Australia 2.0% Thailand 3.2% I don't think 1 percent is really going to make much difference.

Wrong. The difference between two and three percent is 50% more inflation. 3.2 (perhaps really nearly 4%) is some serious inflation especially yoy.

5% inflation yoy for a few years coupled with 10% strengthening of thb against major fx and you will see legions of farang running for the doors.

Thailand has huge inflation pressures on it. Everyone is underpaid, food is underpriced, services are kept down because Thai simply cant afford service. It is this magic formula of exploitation that makes Thailand such a foreigners paradise in addition to agrocultural businesses with world class economies of scale.

Wrong.

Lets look at it. For my chicken sandwich in Thailand I pay .30 cents. At 3.2% inflation it has gone up .096 cents or lets say 1 cent. Now if we use the inflation rate in the US it has gone up a half a cent. So lets say it stayed the same. At any rate this year I will pay in Thailand one cent more for my chicken sandwich. That is hardly 50% more. 50% more would be .45 cents not .31 cents.

2.2, 5.5, -0.9, 3.3. 3.8 Last 5 years inflation in Thailand. I don't know how you got an average of 5%. A lie perhaps?

Compared to the neighboring countries of Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam and Burma everyone in Thailand is overpaid, food is expensive and almost all the middle class and above in Thailand can afford as much service as they want.

Thailand is fine, at full employment; stock market going up and inflation reasonable. Thais love Thailand. Thais don't want to leave Thailand. That's one of the big differences between Thailand and the Philippines. In the Philippines the women leave and go to the husbands country. In Thailand the husbands come to Thailand, the wife's country. Agriculture is becoming less important every year in Thailand and industry is growing.

[TommoPhysicist]

............ Most farang men in Thailand wouldn't get the time of day from a woman outside this country.

I think you need to travel the world a bit more.

Plenty of countries in the world with women happy to date an older white guy.

[Phronesis]

............ Most farang men in Thailand wouldn't get the time of day from a woman outside this country.

I think you need to travel the world a bit more.

Plenty of countries in the world with women happy to date an older white guy.

Can you please take a moment to jot them down for me.

[TommoPhysicist]

............ Most farang men in Thailand wouldn't get the time of day from a woman outside this country.

I think you need to travel the world a bit more.

Plenty of countries in the world with women happy to date an older white guy.

Can you please take a moment to jot them down for me.

Argentina, Belarus, Bolivia, Bosnia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chad, Chechnya, Columbia, Costa Rica, Cuba ........... tired already and I only got to "C"

Edited January 16, 2013 by TommoPhysicist

[Phronesis]

Plenty of countries in the world with women happy to date an older white guy.

WITH MONEY

[TommoPhysicist]

Plenty of countries in the world with women happy to date an older white guy.

WITH MONEY

Very few countries in the world where women are happy to date a guy (of any age) who is broke.

[chiangmaikelly]

Plenty of countries in the world with women happy to date an older white guy.

WITH MONEY

Very few countries in the world where women are happy to date a guy (of any age) who is broke.

Could you please take a moment and jot them down for me.

[StreetCowboy]

Plenty of countries in the world with women happy to date an older white guy.

WITH MONEY

Very few countries in the world where women are happy to date a guy (of any age) who is broke.

Could you please take a moment and jot them down for me.

Thailand. We are constantly being told that our girlfriends are sending all their money to their "brother" who does nothing but drink whisky, shag other women and grumble in futile*sullen xenophobia, (same as the rest of us)

SC

* couldn't think of the word. A word meaning apathetically ineffective. Sullen. That'll do

[Phronesis]

* couldn't think of the word. A word meaning apathetically ineffective. Sullen.

Farang?

[homeownership]

Thailand has a 3 major flaws as far as I am concerned:

1. Foreigners cannot own land.

2. It is difficult to get a reliable internet connection.

3. Everytime I visit my money doesnt go as a far as the previous time.

I am not an economist and so I cant tell you much about the the above, but they are the facts above. If the Thais were to let foreigners own land, then they would be the richest country in SE Asia. Like who wouldnt want to retire and live in Thailand.

They need to open up their internet services, so that people can set up a service easily.

This I am sure would reduce the inflation and benefit the Thais too.

[StreetCowboy]

Thailand has a 3 major flaws as far as I am concerned:

1. Foreigners cannot own land.

2. It is difficult to get a reliable internet connection.

3. Everytime I visit my money doesnt go as a far as the previous time.

I am not an economist and so I cant tell you much about the the above, but they are the facts above. If the Thais were to let foreigners own land, then they would be the richest country in SE Asia. Like who wouldnt want to retire and live in Thailand.

They need to open up their internet services, so that people can set up a service easily.

This I am sure would reduce the inflation and benefit the Thais too.

How would wealthy foreigners buying up land reduce inflation? I'm not an economist either, but it seems to me that the reason land is relatively cheap in Thailand is because of the restrictions on ownership.

SC

EDIT: I'm not sure I'd want to retire in Thailand. Perhaps Scotland, with its extensive clean beaches and long summer evenings, or Hong Kong with its vibrant nightlife, or Kiev, for its beautiful women, or Malaysia for its neat and tidy roads. Fortunately, it's not a question that is likely to arise, as I expect to have to work till I drop...

Edited January 17, 2013 by StreetCowboy