Bangkok still a cheap cost of living location

[GrantSmith]

If you buy imported things they tend to be more expensive.

But a small bottle of Heineken in a pub in London is around £4-5 (200-250 baht), In New York about $7-9 (210-270 baht), while in Bangkok it's around 50-75 baht.

Not sure why all the expats in Bangkok aren't moving to Germany and Tokyo where they claim it's cheaper. Obviously they know it's cheaper here but for some reason won't admit it.

Imrting goods in UK are mega expensive as well e.g. durian, dragon fruit, etc. Sometimes 10 times the price of Bangkok.

Heineken's cheap here because it's not imported. It's brewed under license. Big difference! Doesn't stop the importer from stinging you for the branding though as the details are mostly lost on the consumer.

For me, Bangkok's much cheaper than back in farangland. Alcohol prices are similar given both countries penchant for taxation on the good things in life, so picking up a bottle of Singha at the 7|11 - also another novelty as we don't have that back home (booze in convenience stores) for less than a dollar represents good value IMHO.

Housing: much cheaper, expats decry the foreign ownership laws. I'm ok with it. I'm married and have a mortgage with my wife - in her name. Overall price for the property and land vs like for like back home - well ahead.

Fuel: Again MUCH cheaper than back home.

Eating: Depends on what I feel like really, spoilt for choice here in Bangkok. Not much you can't get. I'll have a decent meal once or twice a week, three or four during holidays and special occasions. The rest of the time, it's less than 150 baht a meal, 300 if I'm with my wife. We rarely cook at home aside from the odd weekend breakfast fry up.

I think overall it's more of a whatever floats your boat scenario here. Some find it cheap as chips, some long for yesterday when they got more bang for their buck...

[sabaijai]

Numbeo.com is a good source of cost of living stats, with a neat itemized comparison feature.

Someone suggested the cost of living in the south of Spain, for example, was lower than in Bangkok. Here are the results for a comparison of Bangkok and Granada:

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Thailand&country2=Spain&city1=Bangkok&city2=Granada

Bangkok vs Sevilla:

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Spain&country2=Thailand&city1=Sevilla&city2=Bangkok

Bangkok comes out pretty well in both cases.

[davejones]

Numbeo.com is a good source of cost of living stats, with a neat itemized comparison feature.

Someone suggested the cost of living in the south of Spain, for example, was lower than in Bangkok. Here are the results for a comparison of Bangkok and Granada:

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Thailand&country2=Spain&city1=Bangkok&city2=Granada

Bangkok vs Sevilla:

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Spain&country2=Thailand&city1=Sevilla&city2=Bangkok

Bangkok comes out pretty well in both cases.

I think this mat be what some people do. The come from a small town in USA, UK or Europe and then compare prices to Bangkok. Capital cities are almost always more expensive than the rest of the country. It would cost more to move from a small town in UK to London. If you want to compare like for like, then compare London vs Bangkok and Peterborough to Korat.

Also, what's cheap to one person can be expensive to another. When may say things are expensive, they just mean expensive for them because they are poor, but they don't make that clear. Most Westerners find Bangkok and Thailand very cheap, which is partly why so many come here. If it was expensive, then be far less tourists. So maybe it would be good if it got more expensive, as that would keep the riff raff away.

[Bangkok45]

It all has to do with where in Bkk do you live, if you're a Silom to Sukhumvit areas resident than it's

nt so cheap, if you go live in the boondocks of Bkk, that you can practically live on a shoe string...

I totally agree with you! When I first moved to Bangkok my obvious choice was to live in Sukhumvit at La Raffine Condominium which costs me 120k baht a month. Yes, it's posh and classy but years down the road and with a little bit more gravitas to my senses. I moved to a townhouse 15 minutes outside the city center. It cost me 25k baht for a 4 story 3 bedrooms all with ensuite bathrooms amd a rooftop garden. I'm happy now, but recently I discovered a gem of a townhouse in Bang Buae Tong in Nonthaburi, just as good as my current home and here's the shocker...it's only 9k baht a month. Thus location determines the cost:)

120K/month?? Hope your company was paying for it.

I stayed 6 months in a pretty posh and classy place in Suk for 30K/month with unlimited electricity and daily maid service.

I'm 10 minutes away now and the wife pays all of 4K/month though she's had it 15 years. There's no BTS or MRT so taxis can eat up more than the rent.

Sorry for the late reply. But yes, indeed my company did gave me a housing allowance of 40k baht a month and me being stupid top up the rest by my own income. Yes, it's classy and it has a nice pool on the 12th floor in my unit not big enough to do a lap but to big enough to frollick with a few girls when I want to. It works in getting to score the girls but it was stupid of me and after paying the rent, utilities and such I don't have any to save at all, and could not afford a car. Travelling only by taxis, motorcycle or walk my 300m into the soi.

After about 11 months of being stupid and a showoff, and as I had signed a 1 year contract I had to do an optional 2 months extension before I found the townhouse in Bang Sue, gave notice to the owner ( to get my 2 months deposit) as I had already came to my senses and decided that not only was I stupid but pretty retarded for having done that. I became a cheapskate when it boils down to my personal toiletries and such while seeming to be living the good life. Cheap Tesco razors, bought my pastries after 8 at Lotus just to save a few hundred.

Then when I moved to the nice townhouse in Bang Sue I had already gotten my deposit back which was 240k baht, paid the new landlord 50k baht for deposit + 1 month 25k rent, I had enough balance from that deposit to buy some SB furnitures for all the bedrooms, 2 LG Smart TV's on promotion at The Mall and cheap but nice vases and plastic flowers at Sirinthorn Road.

As my housing allowances is pegged at 40k baht I still have 10k baht balance after paying each month rent and bills. As my salary does not need to cover the lifestyle I chose then, it became a huge progress for me financially. I saved for about 4 months, made a deposit for a Ford Fiesta, with the 10k balance from my housing allowance and just dipping about 2k baht from my salary to pay the monthly instalment. I'm moving on fine and still got to score the girls but not anymore now, as I'm already in a relationship.

I would love to move to the townhouse that cost only 9k baht a month in Bang Buae Tong but it's not practical as I had to drive farther to my office and the traffic is bad and it would have cost me more time to and fro work.

Thus I'm staying put in Bang Sue for now. Compared to Singapore, where I was before being posted here I would not be able to live the way I do now. Happy, contented and living well! Kept my boss happy and hopefully live here for as long as I can

[hermespan]

More useful questions are...

'is it good value? Maybe

and

Is it cheap compared to other ASEAN nations? Depends

and

Is it cheaper than other Theravada Buddhist nations (Laos, Sri Lanka, Burma, Cambodia)? NO!

Not the same of course.

But the short answer is no.

.

[hermespan]

and

'is Thailand cheap for foreigners on a budget of $1500 (USD) a month?' No.

'Is Thailand cheap for employees of international corporations, NGOs and governments?' Yes

[hermespan]

davejones...

numbeo is crap. Very inaccurate except for the jet set. It is not a realistic comparison since instead of comparing costs for local fruit in season it lists apples. Likewise veggies are potatoes. Very upper middle class foreigner-oriented. And much of it is guesswork.

[Noi657]

Everyone can keep going on about how expensive Thailand is, and yes prices have risen.. However if you ask most of the retirees here, where would you rather live? LOS or UK? I can guarantee you will get more for your money in Thailand! After you've paid your gas, electric, council tax etc this could easily add up to a monthly stay in Thailand. So people's, stop moaning! If you don't like it, you can always go back home!

[kksd2]

Still much that is cheap here,

but with Thailand's inflation (20-30% / year), it's just a matter of time.

I am happy I purchased a Condo in Bangkok in 2006 ! At times I debate whether to sell it, but it seems that the real estate values are going up each year ! So I'll keep it ! Maybe should invest in a place that I like even more ... Pattaya !

[davejones]

More useful questions are...

'is it good value? Maybe

and

Is it cheap compared to other ASEAN nations? Depends

and

Is it cheaper than other Theravada Buddhist nations (Laos, Sri Lanka, Burma, Cambodia)? NO!

Not the same of course.

But the short answer is no.

.

I for one don't care at all whether it's cheaper that other ASEAN or not. I came from the UK and often holiday in NYC, so for me Bangkok is incredibly cheap.

In any case you should be comparing cities not countries, as this thread is about Bangkok. So by your analysis, Thailand is cheaper than Bangkok.

[celso]

Bangkok is a capitalist, consumerist paradise, you set your own cost of living. I've had months spending 40k, and months spending 120k. I have Thai friends who live alone on 20k a month. And im sure there are rich retirees spending 200k+.

[mariner16]

"The only negative over that time has been the tories allowing the pound to devalue 30% which has reduced the amount of baht I get for my unearned income coming from UK"

This has to be one of the dumbest statements I've seen for quite a while. The Tories didn't devalue the pound or allow it to be devalue. There was a financial crisis and the market decided they didn't like the pound and the pound fell versus many currencies that were considered safer, including many in Asia.

The fall in the pound started in 2008 when the crisis syarted. The Tories were not voted in until 2010. Prior to that it was Labour's Gordon Brown in power. As Labour ran the UK's reserves down to more or less zero there is no way they could have stopped the decline in the pound even if they had wanted to.

The problems the UK faced in the crisis were largely based on the state of its finances, weak banks and massive debt overload. Labour's policies over 15 years took the UK close to bankruptcy. The Tories in the past 3 years have tried to reduce spending and get the UK back on an even keel. So far their policy of the country living within its means seems to be working.

Really, talk about ignorance, but this really takes the biscuit.

Seemed to me that Gordon Brown was doing a fairly good job of managing the fallout from what was/is essentially a crisis started in USA which flowed into UK via the banking system. However if UK had been in the Eurozone then there would be no opportunity for any currency changing and UK would now be in the same situation as Greece and the others, would the UK have been to turn things around like Ireland has, I doubt it. The tories allowed the pound to continue falling as it suited their own ends of making the rich richer and the poor poorer, same as they always do. Not that different from Thailand in fact - same North/South divide even although I do realise that the individual circumstances are completely different.

[davejones]

"The only negative over that time has been the tories allowing the pound to devalue 30% which has reduced the amount of baht I get for my unearned income coming from UK"

This has to be one of the dumbest statements I've seen for quite a while. The Tories didn't devalue the pound or allow it to be devalue. There was a financial crisis and the market decided they didn't like the pound and the pound fell versus many currencies that were considered safer, including many in Asia.

The fall in the pound started in 2008 when the crisis syarted. The Tories were not voted in until 2010. Prior to that it was Labour's Gordon Brown in power. As Labour ran the UK's reserves down to more or less zero there is no way they could have stopped the decline in the pound even if they had wanted to.

The problems the UK faced in the crisis were largely based on the state of its finances, weak banks and massive debt overload. Labour's policies over 15 years took the UK close to bankruptcy. The Tories in the past 3 years have tried to reduce spending and get the UK back on an even keel. So far their policy of the country living within its means seems to be working.

Really, talk about ignorance, but this really takes the biscuit.

Seemed to me that Gordon Brown was doing a fairly good job of managing the fallout from what was/is essentially a crisis started in USA which flowed into UK via the banking system. However if UK had been in the Eurozone then there would be no opportunity for any currency changing and UK would now be in the same situation as Greece and the others, would the UK have been to turn things around like Ireland has, I doubt it. The tories allowed the pound to continue falling as it suited their own ends of making the rich richer and the poor poorer, same as they always do. Not that different from Thailand in fact - same North/South divide even although I do realise that the individual circumstances are completely different.

You are either completely deluded or extremely naive if you think that a UK government has the power to manipulate international currency markets to this degree.

Also note that not all Western countries were affected the way the UK was because they had different banking rules in place. Blair/Brown set up the banking climate the way it was and that's how UK was affected so badly.

I also don't follow how letting the GBP depreciate makes rich people richer and poor people poorer. Whether it benefits a rich person or not depends where his/her investments are. It will have affected some positively and others negatively.

You really should take a basic course in economics in order to stop embarrassing yourself with such naive posts.

Edited December 27, 2013 by davejones

[Bpuumike]

"The only negative over that time has been the tories allowing the pound to devalue 30% which has reduced the amount of baht I get for my unearned income coming from UK"

This has to be one of the dumbest statements I've seen for quite a while. The Tories didn't devalue the pound or allow it to be devalue. There was a financial crisis and the market decided they didn't like the pound and the pound fell versus many currencies that were considered safer, including many in Asia.

The fall in the pound started in 2008 when the crisis syarted. The Tories were not voted in until 2010. Prior to that it was Labour's Gordon Brown in power. As Labour ran the UK's reserves down to more or less zero there is no way they could have stopped the decline in the pound even if they had wanted to.

The problems the UK faced in the crisis were largely based on the state of its finances, weak banks and massive debt overload. Labour's policies over 15 years took the UK close to bankruptcy. The Tories in the past 3 years have tried to reduce spending and get the UK back on an even keel. So far their policy of the country living within its means seems to be working.

Really, talk about ignorance, but this really takes the biscuit.

Seemed to me that Gordon Brown was doing a fairly good job of managing the fallout from what was/is essentially a crisis started in USA which flowed into UK via the banking system. However if UK had been in the Eurozone then there would be no opportunity for any currency changing and UK would now be in the same situation as Greece and the others, would the UK have been to turn things around like Ireland has, I doubt it. The tories allowed the pound to continue falling as it suited their own ends of making the rich richer and the poor poorer, same as they always do. Not that different from Thailand in fact - same North/South divide even although I do realise that the individual circumstances are completely different.

You must be joking!

Gordon Brown ran the UK economy down the drain and 2008 events were only a smokescreen.

Start with his gold sales and go from there.

Please tell us something positive he contributed.

[Bpuumike]

We all know the one thing that is cheap here.

20%-30% inflation is a typo or nonsense.

[paddyjenkins]

"The only negative over that time has been the tories allowing the pound to devalue 30% which has reduced the amount of baht I get for my unearned income coming from UK"

This has to be one of the dumbest statements I've seen for quite a while. The Tories didn't devalue the pound or allow it to be devalue. There was a financial crisis and the market decided they didn't like the pound and the pound fell versus many currencies that were considered safer, including many in Asia.

The fall in the pound started in 2008 when the crisis syarted. The Tories were not voted in until 2010. Prior to that it was Labour's Gordon Brown in power. As Labour ran the UK's reserves down to more or less zero there is no way they could have stopped the decline in the pound even if they had wanted to.

The problems the UK faced in the crisis were largely based on the state of its finances, weak banks and massive debt overload. Labour's policies over 15 years took the UK close to bankruptcy. The Tories in the past 3 years have tried to reduce spending and get the UK back on an even keel. So far their policy of the country living within its means seems to be working.

Really, talk about ignorance, but this really takes the biscuit.

Seemed to me that Gordon Brown was doing a fairly good job of managing the fallout from what was/is essentially a crisis started in USA which flowed into UK via the banking system. However if UK had been in the Eurozone then there would be no opportunity for any currency changing and UK would now be in the same situation as Greece and the others, would the UK have been to turn things around like Ireland has, I doubt it. The tories allowed the pound to continue falling as it suited their own ends of making the rich richer and the poor poorer, same as they always do. Not that different from Thailand in fact - same North/South divide even although I do realise that the individual circumstances are completely different.

Its more depressing than amazing to see how much factually incorrect garbage gets passed around as truth by idiots. Case in point is this last post, in which he says the Tories allowed the pound to continue falling, the poster saying to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. First, the pound bottomed and then stabilised in the year the Tories got into power, so the poster is factually wrong. But then there is the nonsense about making the rich richer and the poor poorer etec. Even if the poster has been right about the pound, where is the argument or evidence to suppprt this imebcilic assertion. Where is the evidence? Does the poster not have the brain cells to even think it through superficially. How about a weak pound making the British economy more competitive and creating jobs...for ordinary people. Does that occur to this dummy? Or how about that the British rich are mostly rich in British pounds so that a weak pound makes them poorer. Does that occur to this thicko? I give up on politics everywhere, including the UK, as the majority are just too stupid to understand the simplest facts about the world around them.

[Hardened Spanker]

All I know is that I came to Bangkok from Singapore, still work for a Singapore company on Singapore rates of pay and my living costs are 70 per cent lower.

Spent two years renting at THB 25k per month for 2 bed 2 bath 95m2 apartment in Sukhumvit Soi 8, similar in Singapore even then would have been SGD 4,000 per month (THB 100k) so four times the rent in Bangkok

Brought a 3 bed 2 bath 2 storey townhouse in Phra Khanong earlier this year, and even factoring in a complete set of furniture and a total redecoration only set me back THB 4 million try comparing that to Singapore or London prices

The only negative over that time has been the tories allowing the pound to devalue 30% which has reduced the amount of baht I get for my unearned income coming from UK

I for one have no plans to leave Bangkok

Try factoring in that you can't own a 3 bed 2 bath 2 story townhouse anywhere in Thailand!

[Hardened Spanker]

"The only negative over that time has been the tories allowing the pound to devalue 30% which has reduced the amount of baht I get for my unearned income coming from UK"

This has to be one of the dumbest statements I've seen for quite a while. The Tories didn't devalue the pound or allow it to be devalue. There was a financial crisis and the market decided they didn't like the pound and the pound fell versus many currencies that were considered safer, including many in Asia.

The fall in the pound started in 2008 when the crisis syarted. The Tories were not voted in until 2010. Prior to that it was Labour's Gordon Brown in power. As Labour ran the UK's reserves down to more or less zero there is no way they could have stopped the decline in the pound even if they had wanted to.

The problems the UK faced in the crisis were largely based on the state of its finances, weak banks and massive debt overload. Labour's policies over 15 years took the UK close to bankruptcy. The Tories in the past 3 years have tried to reduce spending and get the UK back on an even keel. So far their policy of the country living within its means seems to be working.

Really, talk about ignorance, but this really takes the biscuit.

Seemed to me that Gordon Brown was doing a fairly good job of managing the fallout from what was/is essentially a crisis started in USA which flowed into UK via the banking system. However if UK had been in the Eurozone then there would be no opportunity for any currency changing and UK would now be in the same situation as Greece and the others, would the UK have been to turn things around like Ireland has, I doubt it. The tories allowed the pound to continue falling as it suited their own ends of making the rich richer and the poor poorer, same as they always do. Not that different from Thailand in fact - same North/South divide even although I do realise that the individual circumstances are completely different.

Its more depressing than amazing to see how much factually incorrect garbage gets passed around as truth by idiots. Case in point is this last post, in which he says the Tories allowed the pound to continue falling, the poster saying to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. First, the pound bottomed and then stabilised in the year the Tories got into power, so the poster is factually wrong. But then there is the nonsense about making the rich richer and the poor poorer etec. Even if the poster has been right about the pound, where is the argument or evidence to suppprt this imebcilic assertion. Where is the evidence? Does the poster not have the brain cells to even think it through superficially. How about a weak pound making the British economy more competitive and creating jobs...for ordinary people. Does that occur to this dummy? Or how about that the British rich are mostly rich in British pounds so that a weak pound makes them poorer. Does that occur to this thicko? I give up on politics everywhere, including the UK, as the majority are just too stupid to understand the simplest facts about the world around them.

All rich people export and all poor people import obviously!

[A1Str8]

An international organization that is the world's leading info etc provider, after doing a lot of research and stuff has stated that Bkk is still cheap. But people here argue the obvious and say no it's not. Why, experts? Because the price of Archa you drink everyday has gone up lately??

[Soi Sauce]

Being totally irresponsible, and not having had much of a Christmas, I went for a beer at 4pm yesterday.

Got home this morning at 8 0'clock, blind drunk, having spent about 50 quid which included 2 packets of cigarettes and a taxi home. The fags and the taxi would have been 30 notes in London.

.

This was on Sukhumvit so now tell us all that Bkk is expensive.

Try that in the Europe or the States.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Soi Sauce

[Bpuumike]

Well, alcohol has risen 2x in recent memory and is more expensive here than most US states. Everything is up, toiletries are scandalously expensive. Vegetables, Cleaning supplies can be pretty poor value, many snack foods. We have been in same flat three years, raised when first lease was up, changed rooms - raised again. Seems only things not up in price are staples controlled by govt. Street food has both risen and not, so that is a wash.

MRT is a bit more and BTS is stupid expensive (now).

Restaurants, about the same. Pharma, same.

Many tourism related enterprises have risen, some not as much as others. Buses, speedboats. National Parks are trying to raise foreigners entrance fees. It was delayed. Seems air tickets are more expensive.

Many visa services and the way visa processes manipulated that in affect makes extensions more expensive.

I recently gave my dentist the big <deleted> after ten + years for raising prices into stratosphere. Medical checks are ridiculously priced now.

I still live very cheaply, but it is by design. It takes effort, discipline and control. Lucky I have a great wife.

Ten years the 401k will mature, another few social security. Until then, its tight. Should have perhaps not got married, that would have saved me most. Four years together, 2 years married and she is as lovely as the day I met her. First marriage for both.

Have to agree on the BTS which has become very expensive. If 2 or more people it's generally cheaper to take a taxi but depending on route and time of day it can be the only speedy option.

Again, 20% - 30% inflation is either a typo or deluded.

[HardenedSoul]

Well, alcohol has risen 2x in recent memory and is more expensive here than most US states. Everything is up, toiletries are scandalously expensive. Vegetables, Cleaning supplies can be pretty poor value, many snack foods. We have been in same flat three years, raised when first lease was up, changed rooms - raised again. Seems only things not up in price are staples controlled by govt. Street food has both risen and not, so that is a wash.

MRT is a bit more and BTS is stupid expensive (now).

Restaurants, about the same. Pharma, same.

Many tourism related enterprises have risen, some not as much as others. Buses, speedboats. National Parks are trying to raise foreigners entrance fees. It was delayed. Seems air tickets are more expensive.

Many visa services and the way visa processes manipulated that in affect makes extensions more expensive.

I recently gave my dentist the big <deleted> after ten + years for raising prices into stratosphere. Medical checks are ridiculously priced now.

I still live very cheaply, but it is by design. It takes effort, discipline and control. Lucky I have a great wife.

Ten years the 401k will mature, another few social security. Until then, its tight. Should have perhaps not got married, that would have saved me most. Four years together, 2 years married and she is as lovely as the day I met her. First marriage for both.

Have to agree on the BTS which has become very expensive. If 2 or more people it's generally cheaper to take a taxi but depending on route and time of day it can be the only speedy option.

Again, 20% - 30% inflation is either a typo or deluded.

What do you mean "very expensive"?

Maximum fare on the BTS - 42 baht. That's less than £1 or $1.50 to traverse a huge chunk of a city the size of London.

Anyone thinking that's "very expensive" should be finding work or heading home for a reality check

[GrantSmith]

Well, alcohol has risen 2x in recent memory and is more expensive here than most US states. Everything is up, toiletries are scandalously expensive. Vegetables, Cleaning supplies can be pretty poor value, many snack foods. We have been in same flat three years, raised when first lease was up, changed rooms - raised again. Seems only things not up in price are staples controlled by govt. Street food has both risen and not, so that is a wash.

MRT is a bit more and BTS is stupid expensive (now).

Restaurants, about the same. Pharma, same.

Many tourism related enterprises have risen, some not as much as others. Buses, speedboats. National Parks are trying to raise foreigners entrance fees. It was delayed. Seems air tickets are more expensive.

Many visa services and the way visa processes manipulated that in affect makes extensions more expensive.

I recently gave my dentist the big <deleted> after ten + years for raising prices into stratosphere. Medical checks are ridiculously priced now.

I still live very cheaply, but it is by design. It takes effort, discipline and control. Lucky I have a great wife.

Ten years the 401k will mature, another few social security. Until then, its tight. Should have perhaps not got married, that would have saved me most. Four years together, 2 years married and she is as lovely as the day I met her. First marriage for both.

Have to agree on the BTS which has become very expensive. If 2 or more people it's generally cheaper to take a taxi but depending on route and time of day it can be the only speedy option.

Again, 20% - 30% inflation is either a typo or deluded.

What do you mean "very expensive"?

Maximum fare on the BTS - 42 baht. That's less than £1 or $1.50 to traverse a huge chunk of a city the size of London.

Anyone thinking that's "very expensive" should be finding work or heading home for a reality check

I nearly choked on my filet mignon reading that

[Soi Sauce]

Well, alcohol has risen 2x in recent memory and is more expensive here than most US states. Everything is up, toiletries are scandalously expensive. Vegetables, Cleaning supplies can be pretty poor value, many snack foods. We have been in same flat three years, raised when first lease was up, changed rooms - raised again. Seems only things not up in price are staples controlled by govt. Street food has both risen and not, so that is a wash.

MRT is a bit more and BTS is stupid expensive (now).

Restaurants, about the same. Pharma, same.

Many tourism related enterprises have risen, some not as much as others. Buses, speedboats. National Parks are trying to raise foreigners entrance fees. It was delayed. Seems air tickets are more expensive.

Many visa services and the way visa processes manipulated that in affect makes extensions more expensive.

I recently gave my dentist the big <deleted> after ten + years for raising prices into stratosphere. Medical checks are ridiculously priced now.

I still live very cheaply, but it is by design. It takes effort, discipline and control. Lucky I have a great wife.

Ten years the 401k will mature, another few social security. Until then, its tight. Should have perhaps not got married, that would have saved me most. Four years together, 2 years married and she is as lovely as the day I met her. First marriage for both.

Have to agree on the BTS which has become very expensive. If 2 or more people it's generally cheaper to take a taxi but depending on route and time of day it can be the only speedy option.

Again, 20% - 30% inflation is either a typo or deluded.

What do you mean "very expensive"?

Maximum fare on the BTS - 42 baht. That's less than £1 or $1.50 to traverse a huge chunk of a city the size of London.

Anyone thinking that's "very expensive" should be finding work or heading home for a reality check

Max fare on the BTs was 40b a year or so back. Now it's 43 to go from On Nut to Siam!.

Can't be bothered to go thru the cost of Baring to the end of the line, but the increases really hurt the average Thai worker.

U are wrong, fellah.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Soi Sauce

[HardenedSoul]

Max fare on the BTs was 40b a year or so back. Now it's 43 to go from On Nut to Siam!.

Can't be bothered to go thru the cost of Baring to the end of the line, but the increases really hurt the average Thai worker.

U are wrong, fellah.

No I'm not . . . fellah cos I'm not talking about the average Thai worker, am I?

While the average Thai worker might find 42 or 43 baht each way pricey, any Westerner finding such a sum equally crippling on their finances should be looking to wrap up their "tour of duty" in the city or finding gainful employment

[Soi Sauce]

Max fare on the BTs was 40b a year or so back. Now it's 43 to go from On Nut to Siam!.

Can't be bothered to go thru the cost of Baring to the end of the line, but the increases really hurt the average Thai worker.

U are wrong, fellah.

No I'm not . . . fellah cos I'm not talking about the average Thai worker, am I?

While the average Thai worker might find 42 or 43 baht each way pricey, any Westerner finding such a sum equally crippling on their finances should be looking to wrap up their "tour of duty" in the city or finding gainful employment

You are wrong as the max fare is 65 baht. That is simple to understand, is it not?

Am I right or am I right?