USA -- low budget repatriation specific locations that aren't horrible

[Jingthing]

7 hours ago, poanoi said:

u-huh ? relax with a cup of coffee and look at this documentary

No. This is not a thread for such politically charged debates. 

[poanoi]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

No. This is not a thread for such politically charged debates. 

one of these days, see the movie anyway, its the best on the topic. and best of all, it makes any further debate moot

Edited March 3, 2018 by poanoi

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, poanoi said:

one of these days, see the movie anyway, its the best on the topic

Please peddle your off topic propaganda elsewhere. 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

15 hours ago, sukhumvitneon said:

If you're looking at cities with a good balance between CoL/job opportunities and salaries, then Texas and other sunbelt locales such as Nashville, Charlotte, Raleigh, or Phoenix are your best bet.

If you read the article at Rolling Stone that Jing just linked above, you'd see predictions that Phoenix has a pretty bleak future climate and thus population and economy-wise.

 

[Jingthing]

6 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

If you read the article at Rolling Stone that Jing just linked above, you'd see predictions that Phoenix has a pretty bleak future climate and thus population and economy-wise.

 

There is the time factor as well. Such impacts are obviously going to have more potential long term impact on younger people. 

[meechai]

10 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

If you read the article at Rolling Stone that Jing just linked above, you'd see predictions that Phoenix has a pretty bleak future climate and thus population and economy-wise.

 

But  "if" we believe anything about climate changes affecting a place to live

in "our" lifetimes, I imagine any US State will be better prepared & better off than Thailand.

Given the way they have handled flooding in Bangkok & elsewhere.

[norrska]

2 hours ago, meechai said:

But  "if" we believe anything about climate changes affecting a place to live

in "our" lifetimes, I imagine any US State will be better prepared & better off than Thailand.

Given the way they have handled flooding in Bangkok & elsewhere.

Good point.  None of this climate change and fear mongering will happen in this lifetime.  Such major changes occur over thousands or millions of years.  The rest is just political fear mongering.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

4 hours ago, meechai said:

But  "if" we believe anything about climate changes affecting a place to live

in "our" lifetimes, I imagine any US State will be better prepared & better off than Thailand.

Given the way they have handled flooding in Bangkok & elsewhere.

 

Well, it didn't go so well for New Orleans some years back.

And it didn't go so well for Houston and Puerto Rico and the Northern California wild fires

this past year. And numerous other examples.

 

Thailand may well be utterly inept at doing almost anything.

But the U.S. hasn't proved itself to be any great shakes at coping with climate change

and the resulting changes in the frequency and severity of storms.

 

Edited March 4, 2018 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

2 hours ago, norrska said:

Good point.  None of this climate change and fear mongering will happen in this lifetime. 
Such major changes occur over thousands or millions of years.  The rest is just political fear mongering.

It's already been happening, and will continue to happen. You're just not paying any attention.

 

From NASA:

Quote

 

Already, there is evidence that the winds of some storms may be changing. A study based

on more than two decades of satellite altimeter data (measuring sea surface height) showed

that hurricanes intensify significantly faster now than they did 25 years ago. Specifically, researchers

found that storms attain Category 3 wind speeds nearly nine hours faster than they did in the 1980s.

Another satellite-based study found that global wind speeds had increased by an average

of 5 percent over the past two decades.

 

There is also evidence that extra water vapor in the atmosphere is making storms wetter.

During the past 25 years, satellites have measured a 4 percent rise in water vapor

in the air column. In ground-based records, about 76 percent of weather stations

in the United States have seen increases in extreme precipitation since 1948.

One analysis found that extreme downpours are happening 30 percent more often.

Another study found that the largest storms now produce 10 percent more precipitation.

 

Increases in global temperature have raised atmospheric humidity. (Graph by Robert Simmon,

based on data from the NOAA National Climatic Data Center.)

 

William Lau, a scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, concluded in a 2012 paper

that rainfall totals from tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic have risen at a rate of 24 percent

per decade since 1988. The increase in precipitation doesn’t just apply to rain. NOAA scientists

have examined 120 years of data and found that there were twice as many extreme

regional snowstorms between 1961 and 2010 as there were from 1900 to 1960.
 

But measuring a storm’s maximum size, heaviest rains, or top winds does not

capture the full scope of its power. Kerry Emanuel, a hurricane expert at the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, developed a method to measure the total energy

expended by tropical cyclones over their lifetimes. In 2005, he showed that Atlantic hurricanes

are about 60 percent more powerful than they were in the 1970s. Storms lasted longer

and their top wind speeds had increased by 25 percent. (Subsequent research has shown

that the intensification may be related to differences between the temperature

of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.)

 

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php

Edited March 4, 2018 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[meechai]

33 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Well, it didn't go so well for New Orleans some years back.

And it didn't go so well for Houston and Puerto Rico and the Northern California wild fires

this past year. And numerous other examples.

 

Thailand may well be utterly inept at doing almost anything.

But the U.S. hasn't proved itself to be any great shakes at coping with climate change

and the resulting changes in the frequency and severity of storms.

 

Not so sure but seems to me US has the resources & the talent to cope & bounce back.

You forget the simple things like "emergency warnings" that something big is coming.

 

If you think Phuket's  result after a evacuate/avoidable Tsunami of

The Thai government reported 4,812 confirmed deaths, 8,457 injuries, and 4,499 missing

 

Compares with New Orleans Katrina peaked at a Category 5 hurricane, with winds up to 175 mph. The final death toll was at 1,836,

 

Well then you could be right. But using this fear mongering climate change as a reason to live or

not live somewhere is weak at best. But if that is how you roll live where your crystal ball suggests

Edited March 4, 2018 by meechai

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

20 minutes ago, meechai said:

 

Well then you could be right. But using this fear mongering climate change as a reason to live or

not live somewhere is weak at best. But if that is how you roll live where your crystal ball suggests

 

Recognizing objective scientific evidence of climate changes, and the real world impacts those changes are having, is not fear mongering. It's just opening your eyes to what's going on around you. Some folks, however, obviously prefer to keep their heads stuck in the sand.

 

From  the Rolling Stone article linked above:
 

Quote

 

Hurricane Harvey, which hit Texas and Louisiana last August, causing $125 billion in damage, dumped more water out of the sky than any storm in U.S. history.

 

In 2017, a string of climate disasters – six big hurricanes in the Atlantic, wildfires in the West, horrific mudslides, high-temperature records breaking all over the country – caused $306 billion in damage, killing more than 300 people.

 

After Hurricane Maria, 300,000 Puerto Ricans fled to Florida, and disaster experts estimate that climate and weather events displaced more than 1 million Americans from their homes last year.

In the U.S., a recent study by Mathew Hauer, a demographer at the University of Georgia, estimates that 13 million people will be displaced by sea-level rise alone by the year 2100.... In Hauer's study, about 2.5 million will flee the region that includes Miami, Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach. Greater New Orleans loses up to 500,000 people; the New York City area loses 50,000.

 

The population of New Orleans today is about 390,000, roughly 100,000 fewer people than before Katrina hit. In the Lower Ninth, rebuilding has been difficult. Despite hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, large parts of the neighborhood are still abandoned: empty lots, sidewalks that lead nowhere, trash blowing in the streets. New Orleans' official statistics estimate that the population of the Lower Ninth is 37 percent of what it was before Katrina, but Laura Paul, founder of Lowernine.org, a nonprofit devoted to rebuilding the neighborhood, contends the reality is much closer to 25 percent.

 

 

No, I'm not going to be considering moving to...

--New Orleans

--coastal Florida

--Houston

--Phoenix, or

--Puerto Rico,

among others,...

anytime soon.

 

[Jingthing]

Please folks -- this is not the place for a debate on climate change. There are plenty of other places for that. It is about lower budget U.S. destinations. 

[mogandave]

Please folks -- this is not the place for a debate on climate change. There are plenty of other places for that. It is about lower budget U.S. destinations. 

You bring it up, post a link to an article about it and then call it off topic.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Here's some reasons why I probably won't be considering Phoenix, Houston or Miami as future relocation destinations:

 

 

 

 

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

You bring it up, post a link to an article about it and then call it off topic.
 

 

Dude, I brought it up to focus on the DESTINATION DISCUSSION in that article, NOT to encourage a political debate on climate change. This topic can't be that. Thank you for your cooperation. 

 

Edited March 4, 2018 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

15 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Here's some reasons why I probably won't be considering Phoenix, Houston or Miami as future relocation destinations:

 

 

Yes, those destinations are hot (and sometimes also humid) places. Houston has issues with the way it was built putting a large portion of the housing stock at flood risk. I think we've established that most every destination has its downsides, and for those with fewer, that often translates into being much more expensive.

[mogandave]

Dude, I brought it up to focus on the DESTINATION DISCUSSION in that article, NOT to encourage a political debate on climate change. This topic can't be that. Thank you for your cooperation. 

 

 

Okay dude

[Jingthing]

Another "housing" option becoming more common in high cost areas. But if you can't afford lower cost areas, it theoretically could be tried in many places. To me, it sounds like a nightmare. But people are doing it --

 

Quote

#Vanlife 2.0: Bay Area residents who live in vans not to travel, but to contend with housing costs

https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/Vanlife-Bay-Area-residents-living-rv-mobile-home-12732484.php

 

[Ulysses G.]

5 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Another "housing" option becoming more common in high cost areas. But if you can't afford lower cost areas, it theoretically could be tried in many places. To me, it sounds like a nightmare. But people are doing it --

 

https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/Vanlife-Bay-Area-residents-living-rv-mobile-home-12732484.php

 

True, but it is illegal almost everywhere. There is a constant threat of being discovered by the police.

 

 

[EVENKEEL]

On ‎1‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 6:47 AM, beavercreek said:

Here is a nice one in Ely, Nevada....way, way remote...near the Great Basin area.  14,900.

 

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/26-Connors-Ct_Ely_NV_89301_M14707-96952?ex=NV601968100

That was the place my parents with 4 kids landed when they immigrated to the US. Lived in a 2 room shack so close to railroad the walls shook when train went by.

[Jingthing]

6 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

True, but it is illegal almost everywhere. There is a constant threat of being discovered by the police.

 

 

That's true. It would be like a criminalized existence. But perhaps a step up from total homelessness. 

[tutsiwarrior]

7 hours ago, Jingthing said:

That's true. It would be like a criminalized existence. But perhaps a step up from total homelessness. 

 

for purposes of retired folks living out of a van is not suitable...folks I knew in the  early 70s lived like that in Berkeley and they were always one step ahead of the cops wanting to roust them and they parked mostly in the redevelopment area in west Berkeley where the properties were derelict anyway...and they were in their early 20s...

 

60+ y.o. and sitting with a cup of tea in yer bathrobe in yer van and minding yer own business: 'yes, officer? how may I help you?' 'get this piece of shit outta here right now or yer goin' to jail...' 'oh, dear, but I haven't yet had my morning bowel movement...' etc...

 

 

[Ulysses G.]

On 3/15/2018 at 12:23 AM, Jingthing said:

That's true. It would be like a criminalized existence. But perhaps a step up from total homelessness. 

Definitely a step up from total homelessness, but one would have to be careful where one spent the night.

[mogandave]

The police in San Francisco are arresting the homeless? I think not.




Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[Jingthing]

Something a little different.

Portland USED to be affordable (but either way it's definitely not horrible).

Some are blaming the satirical show Portlandia which ends soon after a long run.

That's silly.

I visited Portland well before the show started with a view to a move and I smelled the inevitable wave of gentrification even then. 

Easy to use that show as a scapegoat.

 

http://www.vulture.com/2018/03/portlandia-effect-how-did-the-show-change-portland.html

 

Edited March 22, 2018 by Jingthing

[sukhumvitneon]

On 3/22/2018 at 10:58 AM, Jingthing said:

Something a little different.

Portland USED to be affordable (but either way it's definitely not horrible).

Some are blaming the satirical show Portlandia which ends soon after a long run.

That's silly.

I visited Portland well before the show started with a view to a move and I smelled the inevitable wave of gentrification even then. 

Easy to use that show as a scapegoat.

 

http://www.vulture.com/2018/03/portlandia-effect-how-did-the-show-change-portland.html

 

It still is relatively affordable all things considered in 2018 USA.  Tacoma WA isn't all that pricey either.  The thing no one talks about with regards to "affordable cities" is that you get what you pay for.  Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh are all "affordable" on paper but WNY and SWPA are much more expensive one you run the numbers. Most of the houses in these so called affordable cities are 60 to 100+ years old, with the usual 60+100 year old house problems like no central A/C, poor insulation, older fixtures and toilets which increase your water bill dramatically, I could go on.  Meanwhile, you go out west and a house that's 50+ years old is considered an "old house", whereas in the rust belt that's relatively new. PA has the highest gas tax in the country and yet most of the roads look like they've had bombs dropped on them, especially in the spring after all the snowplowing has ended.  PA and needless to say NY are both high tax states so your house payment is going to be a lot higher than you might think once you factor in high property taxes (mandatory unless you plan on living in a shithole neighborhood) higher utility bills, and higher insurance premiums.  All three of these cities have high income taxes as well, and you don't get a lot to show for it. Pittsburgh has a 3% income tax, which effectively doubles your state tax, but meanwhile most cities in the US don't even collect an income tax.

 

Down south and out west, you have higher housing costs initially but it's offset by the fact that there's lower taxes and the housing stock is much newer.  Also the job markets in places like Houston, Dallas, Nashville, Raleigh/Durham, and Seattle are substantially better than in the "affordable cities" the MSM constantly touts.

Edited March 24, 2018 by sukhumvitneon

[Jingthing]

It still is relatively affordable all things considered in 2018 USA.  Tacoma WA isn't all that pricey either.  The thing no one talks about with regards to "affordable cities" is that you get what you pay for.  Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh are all "affordable" on paper but WNY and SWPA are much more expensive one you run the numbers. Most of the houses in these so called affordable cities are 60 to 100+ years old, with the usual 60+100 year old house problems like no central A/C, poor insulation, older fixtures and toilets which increase your water bill dramatically, I could go on.  Meanwhile, you go out west and a house that's 50+ years old is considered an "old house", whereas in the rust belt that's relatively new. PA has the highest gas tax in the country and yet most of the roads look like they've had bombs dropped on them, especially in the spring after all the snowplowing has ended.  PA and needless to say NY are both high tax states so your house payment is going to be a lot higher than you might think once you factor in high property taxes (mandatory unless you plan on living in a shithole neighborhood) higher utility bills, and higher insurance premiums.  All three of these cities have high income taxes as well, and you don't get a lot to show for it. Pittsburgh has a 3% income tax, which effectively doubles your state tax, but meanwhile most cities in the US don't even collect an income tax.
 
Down south and out west, you have higher housing costs initially but it's offset by the fact that there's lower taxes and the housing stock is much newer.  Also the job markets in places like Houston, Dallas, Nashville, Raleigh/Durham, and Seattle are substantially better than in the "affordable cities" the MSM constantly touts.

You're right about the importance of researching unexpected costs but I really think you're wrong to say that Portland is still affordable. Relative to places like San Francisco of course though. Many people are being priced out of Portland in recent years.

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[utalkin2me]

TO each their own but I just don’t get Portland. Have plenty of experience with it. ITs not cheap. It sucks like no other city I’ve ever been in. In the summer it is great I will admit. Honestly the rain affects me so much there I could not even enjoy the summers because I’d be thinking about how bad the winter is going to be the entire time. It’s getting more and more crowded everyday. I also have this thing about “big cities”; either give me an actual big city where I can go to an A+ club and see one of the best djs in the world, but don’t give give this no little big city stuff I’d almost rather have nothing. Overall, ID Much rather move to a California desert than Portland myself. AT Least it is actually cheap and there’s tons to do for many people and there’s are times of year it’s downright gorgeous weather. Sunsets/late afternoons are sublime almost year round. 

[mogandave]

I think if we’re talking about budget retirement places it is not likely income taxes are not as much of a concern as sales taxes, utilities, auto insurance & rent.




Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[tutsiwarrior]

believe that I'd be careful of Portland...not a good place for folks on a limited budget to live plus the city is liberal enclave surrounded by redneck Trump supporters that are armed to the teeth...search google for the demographic...

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/06/alt-rally-draws-protests-portland-oregon-170605081719281.html

 

as much as I love the Pacific NW not much has changed in that regard since I lived in Oregon 40 years ago...and the polarization now is even more acute...