On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:21:14 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Mon, 2 May 2022 22:15:40 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 12:29:15 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> On Sun, 1 May 2022 23:20:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 5/1/2022 9:42 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 01 May 2022 19:26:09 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> On 5/1/2022 7:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> >>>> On 5/1/2022 7:10 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> >>>>> On Sun, 01 May 2022 10:58:50 -0500, AMuzi
> >> >>>>> <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On 4/30/2022 11:32 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >>>>>>> On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 6:29:26 PM UTC-5, John B.
> >> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>> Cycling is very dangerious
> >> >>>>>>>> https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/2302558/wife-friend-arrested-for-plotting-to-kill-danish-husband-for-b10m-insurance-payout?#ins_sr=eyJwcm9kdWN0SWQiOiIyMzAyNTU4In0=
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> --
> >> >>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> John B.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> I had to look up the Thailand Bhat to US Dollar
> >> >>>>>>> conversion ratio to see if this made any sense or not.
> >> >>>>>>> Insurance payout was for 10 million Bhat. Equals
> >> >>>>>>> $292,000. So I concluded it made sense to kill someone
> >> >>>>>>> for that amount of money. I was worried that the 10
> >> >>>>>>> million Bhat would equate to something like $292 or some
> >> >>>>>>> nonsensical number. And then wonder about the stupidity
> >> >>>>>>> of people around the world. But murdering someone for
> >> >>>>>>> $292,000 at least meets some kind of rationality.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Here in USA you can have someone murdered for a lot less
> >> >>>>>> than that (and pocket the difference). Also, one might live
> >> >>>>>> well for a long while on that kind of money in Thailand
> >> >>>>>> where average household income is around $3500~$4000 per
> >> >>>>>> annum.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I believe that your numbers are somewhat outdated as
> >> >>>>> currently minimum
> >> >>>>> salary is 300 baht/daily, or $3,229 per annum, and it is very
> >> >>>>> difficult to get anyone for that price now.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Statista has it that average monthly income, per
> >> >>>>> household, is in the
> >> >>>>> region of $1,200/monthly in Bangkok ranging to as low as
> >> >>>>> $590/monthly
> >> >>>>> in the extreme north of the country.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> From my own experience I wood say that the Statista
> >> >>>>> number are at
> >> >>>>> least indicative.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> (I would note that when we first married, 50 years ago, my
> >> >>>>> wife could
> >> >>>>> eat for a cost of 1 baht - $0.05 per day - $18.25/annum :-)
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I've done a bit of wondering about appropriate ways of
> >> >>>> comparing salaries and living styles between countries. ISTM
> >> >>>> that simple currency conversions don't do the job. Some
> >> >>>> countries seem to be much less expensive, others much more
> >> >>>> expensive than the currency conversion would indicate.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> One of our first overseas vacations was to Ireland, back in
> >> >>>> the days of travelers' checks. We were to be there nearly a
> >> >>>> month, touring by bikes. I wanted no money worries, so I
> >> >>>> took considerably more in traveler's checks than our travel
> >> >>>> agent recommended. Within a few days, I realized that we had
> >> >>>> to seriously economize or we'd run out of money.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> OTOH, when we traveled to about six European countries in
> >> >>>> the early 2000s, it seemed to me that Poland was
> >> >>>> astonishingly cheap. By my estimate, my converted dollars
> >> >>>> purchased about three times what they would have in the U.S.
> >> >>>> And we were staying in quite nice B&Bs, hotels, etc.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Yes, that's right. Besides which style matters.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> In Japan I stay at ryokans and 'business hotels'. Breakfast
> >> >>> 'toast set' (toast with tea) roughly $1 if you walk a block
> >> >>>from the train station.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> My business partner at the time stayed at the New Otani Hotel:
> >> >>> https://www.guestreservations.com/hotel-new-otani-osaka/booking?msclkid=6a6e5549dc47131af2a43726f809d62a
> >> >>>
> >> >>> at a bajillion dollars per night and had coffee bacon and
> >> >>> eggs from room service at something like $90. Every damned
> >> >>> morning. Ouch.
> >> >>
> >> >> Years ago I was in Tokyo with my, then, girlfriend and as we had been
> >> >> walking and it was hot, stopped in a small restaurant more to sit down
> >> >> and rest than anything else. I, showing off, ordered a cup of tea, in
> >> >> Japanese, my girl friend, probably to show off, ordered a cup of
> >> >> coffee, in English, I don't remember the prices but I might have paid
> >> >> 10 yen for my tea and she paid 100 yen for her coffee.
> >> >>
> >> >> When we left she was muttering about how the restaurant had "cheated"
> >> >> her and I told her, "Act like a Gaigin you pay like a Gaigin (:-)
> >> >
> >> >Another layer of complexity regarding this issue: Sometimes I've come
> >> >across articles describing the horrible poverty in certain countries, in
> >> >terms like "the average salary is only $XXX.XX per year." But many
> >> >cultures simply don't need American-sized salaries. The residents may be
> >> >quite happy without cars, mortgages, huge flat screen TVs, medical
> >> >insurance (or expensive medical costs), shopping malls, etc.
> >> >
> >> >Our expensive "western" lifestyle is not the only possible lifestyle. In
> >> >many ways, it's also not the best.
> >> It is more complex then that. Along with huge salaries you have huge
> >> costs in the U.S. probably largely because of the huge salaries.
> >> While, in Thailand we certainly have lower salaries but also lower
> >> costs.
> >> https://www.worlddata.info/cost-of-living.php
> >> seems to compare the U.S. (index 100) cost of living with other
> >> countries. Thailand, for example has an index of 40.6 which indicates
> >> that the costs here are about 60% lower then in the U.S.
> >> But, of course, at the same time salaries far lower.
> >>
> >> But, I'm not sure about your "expensive Western Style". Is it so
> >> different? I live in a rather large housing development. Roughly 1
> >> square kilometer and I can't think of a single house that isn't
> >> sporting a TV antenna or at least one car in the yard.
> >
> >John, here in America we park our cars on asphalt or concrete surfaces. Not on the grass yard. As for antennas, that is kind of old school now. Coaxial cable or fiber optic cable for purchased cable TV. Or best of all, get TV through the internet connection. Antennas are going away.
> >
> Well, the word "yard" has a number of meanings and among them is " the
> enclosed land around a house or other building". And here at least it
> is not uncommon to see a concrete or "black top" parking area
> incorporated into the yard. Our place has two, one in the front of the
> house for friends and visitors and one in the rear between the
> servants quarters and the rear of the house for tradesmen, deliveries,
> etc.
>
> As for T.V. Antennas are still very common here. Why would one want to
> pay for what is free by piping it in via the Internet?

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:21:14 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Mon, 2 May 2022 22:15:40 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >Not sure what the car ownership rate for the whole USA is. But it is very dependent on where you live. If you surveyed New York City, Philadelphia, Boston, Washington DC, you might end up with less than 50% car ownership. Maybe much less. Whereas if you surveyed people in Kentucky, Tennessee, Iowa, Wisconsin, Colorado, Idaho, you might get 99% car ownership.
> https://www.valuepenguin.com/auto-insurance/car-ownership-statistics
> D.C. - 65% with car
> Total U.S. auto registration (2015) 263,610,219
> U.S. population (2015) 320,878,312
> 82%
>
> John B.

Sorry I forgot to add this into my first response. But I did explicitly say New York CITY, and Philadelphia CITY, and Boston CITY. Apparently Washington DC the city is not as dense population wise as I thought as almost two thirds do have cars. I always envisioned DC as all apartment buildings once you got out of the government building area. I have been to DC back on New Years night 1990-91. It was dark so I did not see much outside the bar.. I still maintain that for the cities I mentioned above, the car ownership rate is far far far less than for the entire state. Take New York. NYC has 8.8 million. NY state has 20.2 million. NYC is 44% of total population. Your website has 29% of New York state without a car. 71% of New York with a car. If we do a little math, and every single NY state resident outside of NYC owns a car, and only 33% of every NYC resident owns a car, then we get to the 71% of New York state residents with a car.

So as I stated above, "If you surveyed New York City, ........., you might end up with less than 50% car ownership." Yes you would.

On 5/3/2022 4:27 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:21:14 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 May 2022 22:15:40 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 12:29:15 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 1 May 2022 23:20:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/1/2022 9:42 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 01 May 2022 19:26:09 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 7:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 7:10 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 May 2022 10:58:50 -0500, AMuzi
>>>>>>>>> <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/30/2022 11:32 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 6:29:26 PM UTC-5, John B.
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cycling is very dangerious
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/2302558/wife-friend-arrested-for-plotting-to-kill-danish-husband-for-b10m-insurance-payout?#ins_sr=eyJwcm9kdWN0SWQiOiIyMzAyNTU4In0=
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I had to look up the Thailand Bhat to US Dollar
>>>>>>>>>>> conversion ratio to see if this made any sense or not.
>>>>>>>>>>> Insurance payout was for 10 million Bhat. Equals
>>>>>>>>>>> $292,000. So I concluded it made sense to kill someone
>>>>>>>>>>> for that amount of money. I was worried that the 10
>>>>>>>>>>> million Bhat would equate to something like $292 or some
>>>>>>>>>>> nonsensical number. And then wonder about the stupidity
>>>>>>>>>>> of people around the world. But murdering someone for
>>>>>>>>>>> $292,000 at least meets some kind of rationality.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here in USA you can have someone murdered for a lot less
>>>>>>>>>> than that (and pocket the difference). Also, one might live
>>>>>>>>>> well for a long while on that kind of money in Thailand
>>>>>>>>>> where average household income is around $3500~$4000 per
>>>>>>>>>> annum.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I believe that your numbers are somewhat outdated as
>>>>>>>>> currently minimum
>>>>>>>>> salary is 300 baht/daily, or $3,229 per annum, and it is very
>>>>>>>>> difficult to get anyone for that price now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Statista has it that average monthly income, per
>>>>>>>>> household, is in the
>>>>>>>>> region of $1,200/monthly in Bangkok ranging to as low as
>>>>>>>>> $590/monthly
>>>>>>>>> in the extreme north of the country.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From my own experience I wood say that the Statista
>>>>>>>>> number are at
>>>>>>>>> least indicative.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (I would note that when we first married, 50 years ago, my
>>>>>>>>> wife could
>>>>>>>>> eat for a cost of 1 baht - $0.05 per day - $18.25/annum :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've done a bit of wondering about appropriate ways of
>>>>>>>> comparing salaries and living styles between countries. ISTM
>>>>>>>> that simple currency conversions don't do the job. Some
>>>>>>>> countries seem to be much less expensive, others much more
>>>>>>>> expensive than the currency conversion would indicate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One of our first overseas vacations was to Ireland, back in
>>>>>>>> the days of travelers' checks. We were to be there nearly a
>>>>>>>> month, touring by bikes. I wanted no money worries, so I
>>>>>>>> took considerably more in traveler's checks than our travel
>>>>>>>> agent recommended. Within a few days, I realized that we had
>>>>>>>> to seriously economize or we'd run out of money.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OTOH, when we traveled to about six European countries in
>>>>>>>> the early 2000s, it seemed to me that Poland was
>>>>>>>> astonishingly cheap. By my estimate, my converted dollars
>>>>>>>> purchased about three times what they would have in the U.S.
>>>>>>>> And we were staying in quite nice B&Bs, hotels, etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, that's right. Besides which style matters.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In Japan I stay at ryokans and 'business hotels'. Breakfast
>>>>>>> 'toast set' (toast with tea) roughly $1 if you walk a block
>>>>>> >from the train station.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My business partner at the time stayed at the New Otani Hotel:
>>>>>>> https://www.guestreservations.com/hotel-new-otani-osaka/booking?msclkid=6a6e5549dc47131af2a43726f809d62a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> at a bajillion dollars per night and had coffee bacon and
>>>>>>> eggs from room service at something like $90. Every damned
>>>>>>> morning. Ouch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Years ago I was in Tokyo with my, then, girlfriend and as we had been
>>>>>> walking and it was hot, stopped in a small restaurant more to sit down
>>>>>> and rest than anything else. I, showing off, ordered a cup of tea, in
>>>>>> Japanese, my girl friend, probably to show off, ordered a cup of
>>>>>> coffee, in English, I don't remember the prices but I might have paid
>>>>>> 10 yen for my tea and she paid 100 yen for her coffee.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we left she was muttering about how the restaurant had "cheated"
>>>>>> her and I told her, "Act like a Gaigin you pay like a Gaigin (:-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Another layer of complexity regarding this issue: Sometimes I've come
>>>>> across articles describing the horrible poverty in certain countries, in
>>>>> terms like "the average salary is only $XXX.XX per year." But many
>>>>> cultures simply don't need American-sized salaries. The residents may be
>>>>> quite happy without cars, mortgages, huge flat screen TVs, medical
>>>>> insurance (or expensive medical costs), shopping malls, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Our expensive "western" lifestyle is not the only possible lifestyle. In
>>>>> many ways, it's also not the best.
>>>> It is more complex then that. Along with huge salaries you have huge
>>>> costs in the U.S. probably largely because of the huge salaries.
>>>> While, in Thailand we certainly have lower salaries but also lower
>>>> costs.
>>>> https://www.worlddata.info/cost-of-living.php
>>>> seems to compare the U.S. (index 100) cost of living with other
>>>> countries. Thailand, for example has an index of 40.6 which indicates
>>>> that the costs here are about 60% lower then in the U.S.
>>>> But, of course, at the same time salaries far lower.
>>>>
>>>> But, I'm not sure about your "expensive Western Style". Is it so
>>>> different? I live in a rather large housing development. Roughly 1
>>>> square kilometer and I can't think of a single house that isn't
>>>> sporting a TV antenna or at least one car in the yard.
>>>
>>> John, here in America we park our cars on asphalt or concrete surfaces. Not on the grass yard. As for antennas, that is kind of old school now. Coaxial cable or fiber optic cable for purchased cable TV. Or best of all, get TV through the internet connection. Antennas are going away.
>>>
>> Well, the word "yard" has a number of meanings and among them is " the
>> enclosed land around a house or other building". And here at least it
>> is not uncommon to see a concrete or "black top" parking area
>> incorporated into the yard. Our place has two, one in the front of the
>> house for friends and visitors and one in the rear between the
>> servants quarters and the rear of the house for tradesmen, deliveries,
>> etc.
>>
>> As for T.V. Antennas are still very common here. Why would one want to
>> pay for what is free by piping it in via the Internet?
>
> Because "free" TV does not include all of the good channels. Such as sports. The recent NCAA basketball final games were on TBS. Cable channel Turner Broadcast Station. No "free" antennae can get that. Many college football and basketball games are only shown on cable channels. No "free" viewing. Or pro football and baseball. On cable/internet TV, you can watch your team's games. You do not have to settle for whichever team the "free" channels are showing. And of course with regular TV shows and movies, you can have the choice of which shows/movies to watch when you want to watch them. You are not forced to watch whatever episode the broadcaster puts on. Once you have had the pleasure of watching TV through the internet, there is no going back to the caveman ways of antennas.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> A distant relative of my wife usually visits us at New Years time. Get
>>>> out in the country, national park, elephants, stay with relatives :-)
>>>
>>> Elephants!!!!! Only exotic animal we have in the USA is buffaloes. And they aren't really that exotic. I used to live near a park that had half dozen or so buffaloes in a field.
>> Well, wrong again as I see in the news a little girl was attacked by
>> coyotes In Huntington Beach, CA.
>> https://apnews.com/article/california-animals-coyotes-department-of-fish-and-wildlife-e7fb1bf582b9b766fe27cec890d6af67
>> Aren't coyotes considered exotic?
>
> No. Coyotes are definitely not exotic. Coyotes live in every single state except maybe not Hawaii. But maybe someone made the mistake of bringing them over to Hawaii 100 years ago and they are now thriving there too. There are coyotes living inside NYC, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, Atlanta, Houston, Denver, Seattle, San Fran, and LA. And very other hamlet and town in the country too. Coyotes are as exotic in the USA as snakes and lizards are in Thailand.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> But perhaps you live in the wrong part of the U.S. for exotic
>> creatures. There were 7,035 moose-vehicle collisions in the state of
>> Maine from 2003 to 2017. And There were 23 fatal black bear attacks
>> in the US between 2000–2016.
>
> In the midwest we have deer instead of moose. Same type of animal, species, genus, whatever. Antelope, elk, deer, moose, etc. All the same more or less. I did not look it up but I bet we have far more car-deer collisions in Iowa than Maine had car-moose collisions over the same time period. Some parts of the US have black bears. Some have brown bears. Some have Grizzly bears. Have to go up Alaska to get polar bears. They are all bears. You're close to China so you have panda bears.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Perhaps you just need to get out and about more.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, during their last visit it seems his oldest son is out of
>>>> collage and has a job as a salesman at a large Toyota dealer in
>>>> Bangkok and I asked the lad what percentage of his customers paid cash
>>>> for their car and he said that from 75 - 80 percent of the cars he
>>>> sold were for cash.
>>>>
>>>> Another indication. At the major department stores here I think you
>>>> would be hard pressed to find a TV on display that was less the 36".
>>>> All "flat screen" of course.
>>>
>>> Local Walmart has several pods of TVs in one of the aisles. First pod has 75" TVs. Expensive ones. $650-750 for a TV. Next pod has 65" TVs. Few hundred cheaper. Next pod has 55" TVs. Cheaper. Last pod has the puny 45" TVs. Few dollars for them. Back wall of the store has about 50 TVs on the shelves. Every size imaginable. I'm guessing Walmart sells a lot of TVs.
>> Walmart must cater, at least in part, to poor folks as here we have
>> Lotus and Big C, "sell everything super stores" and neither display
>> anything smaller then 36"
>
> Yes Walmart caters to lower income people. And everyone else too. Old Sam Walton figured out long ago that there are far more poor people who buy a lot more stuff than rich folks. So he opened up lots of stores to cater to that huge market. If you only sell Rolex watches or Rolls Royce cars, you don't need too many stores to sell to your very few customers.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> (If you are British, Lotus used to be Tesco-Lotus a joint venture
>> between Tesco and a Thai company, now bought out by the Thai company)
>>>> In one survey, reported by Statista, some 60.17% of the 10,295
>>>> questioned stated that they owned a car.
>>>
>>> Not sure what the car ownership rate for the whole USA is. But it is very dependent on where you live. If you surveyed New York City, Philadelphia, Boston, Washington DC, you might end up with less than 50% car ownership. Maybe much less. Whereas if you surveyed people in Kentucky, Tennessee, Iowa, Wisconsin, Colorado, Idaho, you might get 99% car ownership.
>> https://www.valuepenguin.com/auto-insurance/car-ownership-statistics
>> D.C. - 65% with car
>> Total U.S. auto registration (2015) 263,610,219
>> U.S. population (2015) 320,878,312
>> 82%
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.

On Tue, 3 May 2022 14:43:21 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:21:14 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 May 2022 22:15:40 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >Not sure what the car ownership rate for the whole USA is. But it is very dependent on where you live. If you surveyed New York City, Philadelphia, Boston, Washington DC, you might end up with less than 50% car ownership. Maybe much less. Whereas if you surveyed people in Kentucky, Tennessee, Iowa, Wisconsin, Colorado, Idaho, you might get 99% car ownership.
>> https://www.valuepenguin.com/auto-insurance/car-ownership-statistics
>> D.C. - 65% with car
>> Total U.S. auto registration (2015) 263,610,219
>> U.S. population (2015) 320,878,312
>> 82%
>>
>> John B.
>
>Sorry I forgot to add this into my first response. But I did explicitly say New York CITY, and Philadelphia CITY, and Boston CITY. Apparently Washington DC the city is not as dense population wise as I thought as almost two thirds do have cars. I always envisioned DC as all apartment buildings once you got out of the government building area. I have been to DC back on New Years night 1990-91. It was dark so I did not see much outside the bar. I still maintain that for the cities I mentioned above, the car ownership rate is far far far less than for the entire state. Take New York. NYC has 8.8 million. NY state has 20.2 million. NYC is 44% of total population. Your website has 29% of New York state without a car. 71% of New York with a car. If we do a little math, and every single NY state resident outside of NYC owns a car, and only 33% of every NYC resident owns a car, then we get to the 71% of New York state residents with a car.
>
>So as I stated above, "If you surveyed New York City, ........., you might end up with less than 50% car ownership." Yes you would.

Yup, or at least the best numbers I find in an admittedly quick search
is NYC population (2018) was 2018,398,748 while private owned auto
registration was 1,923,041 cars registered to city residents at the
end of 2017.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 03 May 2022 17:20:25 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 5/3/2022 4:27 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:21:14 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2 May 2022 22:15:40 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 12:29:15 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 1 May 2022 23:20:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 9:42 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 May 2022 19:26:09 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 7:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 7:10 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 May 2022 10:58:50 -0500, AMuzi
>>>>>>>>>> <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/30/2022 11:32 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 6:29:26 PM UTC-5, John B.
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cycling is very dangerious
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/2302558/wife-friend-arrested-for-plotting-to-kill-danish-husband-for-b10m-insurance-payout?#ins_sr=eyJwcm9kdWN0SWQiOiIyMzAyNTU4In0=
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I had to look up the Thailand Bhat to US Dollar
>>>>>>>>>>>> conversion ratio to see if this made any sense or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Insurance payout was for 10 million Bhat. Equals
>>>>>>>>>>>> $292,000. So I concluded it made sense to kill someone
>>>>>>>>>>>> for that amount of money. I was worried that the 10
>>>>>>>>>>>> million Bhat would equate to something like $292 or some
>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsensical number. And then wonder about the stupidity
>>>>>>>>>>>> of people around the world. But murdering someone for
>>>>>>>>>>>> $292,000 at least meets some kind of rationality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Here in USA you can have someone murdered for a lot less
>>>>>>>>>>> than that (and pocket the difference). Also, one might live
>>>>>>>>>>> well for a long while on that kind of money in Thailand
>>>>>>>>>>> where average household income is around $3500~$4000 per
>>>>>>>>>>> annum.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I believe that your numbers are somewhat outdated as
>>>>>>>>>> currently minimum
>>>>>>>>>> salary is 300 baht/daily, or $3,229 per annum, and it is very
>>>>>>>>>> difficult to get anyone for that price now.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Statista has it that average monthly income, per
>>>>>>>>>> household, is in the
>>>>>>>>>> region of $1,200/monthly in Bangkok ranging to as low as
>>>>>>>>>> $590/monthly
>>>>>>>>>> in the extreme north of the country.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From my own experience I wood say that the Statista
>>>>>>>>>> number are at
>>>>>>>>>> least indicative.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (I would note that when we first married, 50 years ago, my
>>>>>>>>>> wife could
>>>>>>>>>> eat for a cost of 1 baht - $0.05 per day - $18.25/annum :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've done a bit of wondering about appropriate ways of
>>>>>>>>> comparing salaries and living styles between countries. ISTM
>>>>>>>>> that simple currency conversions don't do the job. Some
>>>>>>>>> countries seem to be much less expensive, others much more
>>>>>>>>> expensive than the currency conversion would indicate.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One of our first overseas vacations was to Ireland, back in
>>>>>>>>> the days of travelers' checks. We were to be there nearly a
>>>>>>>>> month, touring by bikes. I wanted no money worries, so I
>>>>>>>>> took considerably more in traveler's checks than our travel
>>>>>>>>> agent recommended. Within a few days, I realized that we had
>>>>>>>>> to seriously economize or we'd run out of money.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OTOH, when we traveled to about six European countries in
>>>>>>>>> the early 2000s, it seemed to me that Poland was
>>>>>>>>> astonishingly cheap. By my estimate, my converted dollars
>>>>>>>>> purchased about three times what they would have in the U.S.
>>>>>>>>> And we were staying in quite nice B&Bs, hotels, etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, that's right. Besides which style matters.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In Japan I stay at ryokans and 'business hotels'. Breakfast
>>>>>>>> 'toast set' (toast with tea) roughly $1 if you walk a block
>>>>>>> >from the train station.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My business partner at the time stayed at the New Otani Hotel:
>>>>>>>> https://www.guestreservations.com/hotel-new-otani-osaka/booking?msclkid=6a6e5549dc47131af2a43726f809d62a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> at a bajillion dollars per night and had coffee bacon and
>>>>>>>> eggs from room service at something like $90. Every damned
>>>>>>>> morning. Ouch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Years ago I was in Tokyo with my, then, girlfriend and as we had been
>>>>>>> walking and it was hot, stopped in a small restaurant more to sit down
>>>>>>> and rest than anything else. I, showing off, ordered a cup of tea, in
>>>>>>> Japanese, my girl friend, probably to show off, ordered a cup of
>>>>>>> coffee, in English, I don't remember the prices but I might have paid
>>>>>>> 10 yen for my tea and she paid 100 yen for her coffee.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we left she was muttering about how the restaurant had "cheated"
>>>>>>> her and I told her, "Act like a Gaigin you pay like a Gaigin (:-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another layer of complexity regarding this issue: Sometimes I've come
>>>>>> across articles describing the horrible poverty in certain countries, in
>>>>>> terms like "the average salary is only $XXX.XX per year." But many
>>>>>> cultures simply don't need American-sized salaries. The residents may be
>>>>>> quite happy without cars, mortgages, huge flat screen TVs, medical
>>>>>> insurance (or expensive medical costs), shopping malls, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Our expensive "western" lifestyle is not the only possible lifestyle. In
>>>>>> many ways, it's also not the best.
>>>>> It is more complex then that. Along with huge salaries you have huge
>>>>> costs in the U.S. probably largely because of the huge salaries.
>>>>> While, in Thailand we certainly have lower salaries but also lower
>>>>> costs.
>>>>> https://www.worlddata.info/cost-of-living.php
>>>>> seems to compare the U.S. (index 100) cost of living with other
>>>>> countries. Thailand, for example has an index of 40.6 which indicates
>>>>> that the costs here are about 60% lower then in the U.S.
>>>>> But, of course, at the same time salaries far lower.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, I'm not sure about your "expensive Western Style". Is it so
>>>>> different? I live in a rather large housing development. Roughly 1
>>>>> square kilometer and I can't think of a single house that isn't
>>>>> sporting a TV antenna or at least one car in the yard.
>>>>
>>>> John, here in America we park our cars on asphalt or concrete surfaces. Not on the grass yard. As for antennas, that is kind of old school now. Coaxial cable or fiber optic cable for purchased cable TV. Or best of all, get TV through the internet connection. Antennas are going away.
>>>>
>>> Well, the word "yard" has a number of meanings and among them is " the
>>> enclosed land around a house or other building". And here at least it
>>> is not uncommon to see a concrete or "black top" parking area
>>> incorporated into the yard. Our place has two, one in the front of the
>>> house for friends and visitors and one in the rear between the
>>> servants quarters and the rear of the house for tradesmen, deliveries,
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> As for T.V. Antennas are still very common here. Why would one want to
>>> pay for what is free by piping it in via the Internet?
>>
>> Because "free" TV does not include all of the good channels. Such as sports. The recent NCAA basketball final games were on TBS. Cable channel Turner Broadcast Station. No "free" antennae can get that. Many college football and basketball games are only shown on cable channels. No "free" viewing. Or pro football and baseball. On cable/internet TV, you can watch your team's games. You do not have to settle for whichever team the "free" channels are showing. And of course with regular TV shows and movies, you can have the choice of which shows/movies to watch when you want to watch them. You are not forced to watch whatever episode the broadcaster puts on. Once you have had the pleasure of watching TV through the internet, there is no going back to the caveman ways of antennas.

On Wed, 04 May 2022 07:19:32 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 3 May 2022 14:43:21 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
><ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:21:14 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2 May 2022 22:15:40 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>> >Not sure what the car ownership rate for the whole USA is. But it is very dependent on where you live. If you surveyed New York City, Philadelphia, Boston, Washington DC, you might end up with less than 50% car ownership. Maybe much less. Whereas if you surveyed people in Kentucky, Tennessee, Iowa, Wisconsin, Colorado, Idaho, you might get 99% car ownership.
>>> https://www.valuepenguin.com/auto-insurance/car-ownership-statistics
>>> D.C. - 65% with car
>>> Total U.S. auto registration (2015) 263,610,219
>>> U.S. population (2015) 320,878,312
>>> 82%
>>>
>>> John B.
>>
>>Sorry I forgot to add this into my first response. But I did explicitly say New York CITY, and Philadelphia CITY, and Boston CITY. Apparently Washington DC the city is not as dense population wise as I thought as almost two thirds do have cars. I always envisioned DC as all apartment buildings once you got out of the government building area. I have been to DC back on New Years night 1990-91. It was dark so I did not see much outside the bar. I still maintain that for the cities I mentioned above, the car ownership rate is far far far less than for the entire state. Take New York. NYC has 8.8 million. NY state has 20.2 million. NYC is 44% of total population. Your website has 29% of New York state without a car. 71% of New York with a car. If we do a little math, and every single NY state resident outside of NYC owns a car, and only 33% of every NYC resident owns a car, then we get to the 71% of New York state residents with a car.
>>
>>So as I stated above, "If you surveyed New York City, ........., you might end up with less than 50% car ownership." Yes you would.
>
>Yup, or at least the best numbers I find in an admittedly quick search
>is NYC population (2018) was 2018,398,748 while private owned auto
>registration was 1,923,041 cars registered to city residents at the
>end of 2017.

Wow! it must be the spelling checker what done it. The population
figure, above, "2018,398,748" should have been spelled "8,398,748"
(:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 5/3/2022 5:27 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:21:14 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>
>>
>> As for T.V. Antennas are still very common here. Why would one want to
>> pay for what is free by piping it in via the Internet?
>
> Because "free" TV does not include all of the good channels. Such as sports. The recent NCAA basketball final games were on TBS. Cable channel Turner Broadcast Station. No "free" antennae can get that. Many college football and basketball games are only shown on cable channels. No "free" viewing. Or pro football and baseball. On cable/internet TV, you can watch your team's games. You do not have to settle for whichever team the "free" channels are showing. And of course with regular TV shows and movies, you can have the choice of which shows/movies to watch when you want to watch them. You are not forced to watch whatever episode the broadcaster puts on. Once you have had the pleasure of watching TV through the internet, there is no going back to the caveman ways of antennas.

Opinions differ on this as on most things.

I've never considered the "good channels" to be the ones showing
obscenely overpaid jocks playing games. I see no point at all in
watching various tournaments or otherwise keeping track of which team is
likely to beat which other team. And taking the next steps - discussing
the draft choices, memorizing which players came from which colleges
etc. - seems like a huge waste of brain space.

I really enjoyed playing in hundreds of amateur pickup or intramural
football games. I enjoy occasionally watching the athleticism of various
sports pros. But 20 minutes per year is enough to satisfy me.

Consequently, we do use an TV antenna, and we stream some content via a
Roku unit. But overall, our "small" TV (something like 32 inches? -
bigger than any we ever owned before) is mostly used for factual
non-sports stuff, and occasional movies and documentaries from our
library system.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 3 May 2022 21:51:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 5/3/2022 5:27 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:21:14 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> As for T.V. Antennas are still very common here. Why would one want to
>>> pay for what is free by piping it in via the Internet?
>>
>> Because "free" TV does not include all of the good channels. Such as sports. The recent NCAA basketball final games were on TBS. Cable channel Turner Broadcast Station. No "free" antennae can get that. Many college football and basketball games are only shown on cable channels. No "free" viewing. Or pro football and baseball. On cable/internet TV, you can watch your team's games. You do not have to settle for whichever team the "free" channels are showing. And of course with regular TV shows and movies, you can have the choice of which shows/movies to watch when you want to watch them. You are not forced to watch whatever episode the broadcaster puts on. Once you have had the pleasure of watching TV through the internet, there is no going back to the caveman ways of antennas.
>
>Opinions differ on this as on most things.
>
>I've never considered the "good channels" to be the ones showing
>obscenely overpaid jocks playing games. I see no point at all in
>watching various tournaments or otherwise keeping track of which team is
>likely to beat which other team. And taking the next steps - discussing
>the draft choices, memorizing which players came from which colleges
>etc. - seems like a huge waste of brain space.
>
>I really enjoyed playing in hundreds of amateur pickup or intramural
>football games. I enjoy occasionally watching the athleticism of various
>sports pros. But 20 minutes per year is enough to satisfy me.
>
>Consequently, we do use an TV antenna, and we stream some content via a
>Roku unit. But overall, our "small" TV (something like 32 inches? -
>bigger than any we ever owned before) is mostly used for factual
>non-sports stuff, and occasional movies and documentaries from our
>library system.

I don't know abut "there" but "here"...

As I earlier posted, the TV at the Bangkok house "died" and they
haven't replaced it. We have a BIG, maybe 48" NEW TV here but my wife
seldom watches it and I probably haven't watched TV in 10 years, or
even more.

I just asked my wife's "cleaning Lady" whether her two kids watch TV
and she said that they don't watch it much, "mostly they are on their
phones". Every one here now has a phone, one doesn't ask whether
someone "has a phone" as phones are pretty much a mandatory attachment
to the human body. Even little kids have hand phones.

And, I recently saw a news blurb about kids playing too many computer
games so it looks like only "old Folks" watch TV any more (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 8:51:59 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/3/2022 5:27 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:21:14 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> As for T.V. Antennas are still very common here. Why would one want to
> >> pay for what is free by piping it in via the Internet?
> >
> > Because "free" TV does not include all of the good channels. Such as sports. The recent NCAA basketball final games were on TBS. Cable channel Turner Broadcast Station. No "free" antennae can get that. Many college football and basketball games are only shown on cable channels. No "free" viewing.. Or pro football and baseball. On cable/internet TV, you can watch your team's games. You do not have to settle for whichever team the "free" channels are showing. And of course with regular TV shows and movies, you can have the choice of which shows/movies to watch when you want to watch them. You are not forced to watch whatever episode the broadcaster puts on. Once you have had the pleasure of watching TV through the internet, there is no going back to the caveman ways of antennas.
> Opinions differ on this as on most things.
>
> I've never considered the "good channels" to be the ones showing
> obscenely overpaid jocks playing games. I see no point at all in
> watching various tournaments or otherwise keeping track of which team is
> likely to beat which other team. And taking the next steps - discussing
> the draft choices, memorizing which players came from which colleges
> etc. - seems like a huge waste of brain space.

During May, July, and August, one of the pay cable TV stations show the Giro, Tour, and Vuelta each evening. I ride bicycles. But don't pay too much attention to professional races. But it is fun to see the pros ride at 30mph within inches of each other. And I huff and puff to ride 20 mph on the flats and only see 30 mph pedaling down a steep hill. While the pros ride 30 mph on the flats. And I say Wow!!!!

As for the good channels showing sports, college basketball and football. The college games I like to watch are ones I attended. So I feel I have a personal stake in their games. Kind of like if you were born and raised near a big city, you might feel connected to the teams from that city.

>
> I really enjoyed playing in hundreds of amateur pickup or intramural
> football games. I enjoy occasionally watching the athleticism of various
> sports pros. But 20 minutes per year is enough to satisfy me.
>
> Consequently, we do use an TV antenna, and we stream some content via a
> Roku unit. But overall, our "small" TV (something like 32 inches? -
> bigger than any we ever owned before) is mostly used for factual
> non-sports stuff, and occasional movies and documentaries from our
> library system.
>
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski