Any second/third world country

>>1158064
Labour yes, but in a third world country land can still be valuable.

Brazil

>>1158017
United States. Seriously. Land is cheaper here and the work force is relatively cheap to use.

Land in general is going to roughly be the same price in similar conditions anywhere else.

>>1158720
Beat me to the punch, I was going to say the same thing.

>>1158720
>Work force is cheap to use
u w0t

What kind of labor?
A lot of people make the mistake of investing huge sums in Africa and when they get there they find that although they have a ton of cheap willing workers but none of them know how to do anything but steal diesel and stand around.

The chinese have to import a ton of their own native laborers because its hard to teach nigs to not nig.

>>1158720
For what I'm looking for, even the Sahara is potentially acceptable. Except then it'd be hard to keep the workers supplied and cool.

>>1159041
Digging.
Two different kinds though for two different potential projects:
>channelling to make a canal and a lake, to see if making an evaporation lake connected to the sea in a dry area can successfully make a massive area slowly become more habitable
>digging through rock, going deep and branching out in an attempt to stumble across unusual underground encounters, like that pocket deep underground full of ridiculously huge crystals that was found once

>>1159039
Here is the thing, as long as you have a location the costs of maintaining a work force are minimal. You can easily get your money's worth because most employees are relatively intelligent, have an education that is far better than most of the undeveloped world and can be fired relatively easily if they don't work out.

>>1159109
You can literally hire 80 labourers in a poor African country for the price of hiring 1 in the US though.

Even if the African workers were a tenth as efficient, they would still blow the US worker out of the water in terms of work for price.