Is unemployment rate really going down ?
-
Lots of uni grads in mainland china are also now going back for vocational training in technical skills. Bo pian, cannot find job so have to retrain to do other kinds of jobs, especially with their expanding manufacturing sector.
Mybe we can go take ITE courses and migrate to China? -
if they want you.
-
OK lah, since today i got some time, ObviousMan is here to point out the obvious reasons why our umemployment rate has gone down but people on the ground is not seeing any improvement.
At first glance, and as reported by the State Times, 2005 Q3 employment situation improved vastly over 2005 Q2. A check on MOM website reveals the same reports, but if one looks closely, there is some facts that our responsible press has wisely chosen not to inform Singaporeans.
At the MOM unemployment rate webpage:
http://www.mom.gov.sg/Statistics/ManpowerResearchNStatistics/LabourMarketStatistics/Unemployment-print.htm
In the middle of the page (after the data tables) there is a note about revision of the unemployment figures (in August 2005). (click to access the pdf file)
I draw attention to 2 points mentioned within:
(2)As the Labour Force Survey is conducted on a representative sample of households in Singapore, its coverage excludes construction workers living on site and workers commuting from abroad to work in Singapore. To achieve full coverage of the total labour
force in Singapore, the new methodology combines data on residents(Comprises Singaporeans and Singapore Permanent Residents)
obtained from the survey with foreign workforce data compiled from work passes issued by the Ministry of Manpower.
(5) By applying the new methodology to survey data obtained in previous years, the unemployment data from March 1992 onwards have been revised. The overall and resident unemployment rates before and after the revision are provided in Tables 1 and 2 and charted below. The revision has the effect of reducing the overall unemployment rate as the
denominator i.e. total labour force is now larger, taking into account full coverage of the foreign workforce. However, the trend movement over time remains broadly the same. The impact of the revision on the resident unemployment rate series is minimal.
There you have it -- In a nutshell, by changing the methodology of calculation of unemployment, we have a lower figure of unemployment.
In the future, our unemployment rate counts Singaporeans, PRs and foreign labour hor. Please hor, tourists are not counted as foreign labour -- i dare say that unemployment rate among foreign labour is among the lowest. (After all, most of them will secure a job here before they come to stay here mah)
With the govt refusal to release the distribution breakdown of new jobs to Singaporeans, PRs and foreigners, we are left with the previous official figure of 9 in 10 new jobs goes to Singaporean (and PR?) or 1 in 10 new jobs goes to Singaporeans by NTU professors.
On the ground, the above analysis strongly suggest a few things that common people like me know:
1) Foreign labor is coming into Singapore and taking up jobs -- the reason why our unemployment rate falls when they are included.
2) Why better unemployment figures does not translate to better welfare for Singaporeans (unless you belive 9 out of 10 new jobs goes to Singaporean) -- because jobs created may not be taken up by Singaporeans. -
Originally posted by ObviousMan:
I draw attention to 2 points mentioned within:
(2)As the Labour Force Survey is conducted on a representative sample of households in Singapore, its coverage excludes construction workers living on site and workers commuting from abroad to work in Singapore. To achieve full coverage of the total labour
force in Singapore, the new methodology combines data on residents(Comprises Singaporeans and Singapore Permanent Residents)
obtained from the survey with foreign workforce data compiled from work passes issued by the Ministry of Manpower.
(5) By applying the new methodology to survey data obtained in previous years, the unemployment data from March 1992 onwards have been revised. The overall and resident unemployment rates before and after the revision are provided in Tables 1 and 2 and charted below. The revision has the effect of reducing the overall unemployment rate as the
denominator i.e. total labour force is now larger, taking into account full coverage of the foreign workforce. However, the trend movement over time remains broadly the same. The impact of the revision on the resident unemployment rate series is minimal.
There you have it -- In a nutshell, by changing the methodology of calculation of unemployment, we have a lower figure of unemployment.
I read the statistics and did a quick analysis on it.
For the past five year dating from 2000-2005, the Resident Unemployment Rates before and after revision is a shortfall of only approximately 0.1-0.2% for both seasonal and non-seasonal. The impact of the revision on the resident unemployment rate series is minimal.
In the future, our unemployment rate counts Singaporeans, PRs and foreign labour hor. Please hor, tourists are not counted as foreign labour -- i dare say that unemployment rate among foreign labour is among the lowest. (After all, most of them will secure a job here before they come to stay here mah)
With the govt refusal to release the distribution breakdown of new jobs to Singaporeans, PRs and foreigners, we are left with the previous official figure of 9 in 10 new jobs goes to Singaporean (and PR?) or 1 in 10 new jobs goes to Singaporeans by NTU professors. Only by generating actual and true statistics, can these accurate and comparable data be better use for drafting policies and new law. Also, which clause in the document suggest that there will be no Resident Unemployment Rates data in the near future. It only advise on the new methodology.
On the ground, the above analysis strongly suggest a few things that common people like me know:
1) Foreign labor is coming into Singapore and taking up jobs -- the reason why our unemployment rate falls when they are included. Fall? The unemployment rates are on the raise. Look at the chart. Although it is seen raising, I wish to refer you to philip's curve (page 2) - where there would be a trade-off between inflation and unemployment.
2) Why better unemployment figures does not translate to better welfare for Singaporeans (unless you belive 9 out of 10 new jobs goes to Singaporean) -- because jobs created may not be taken up by Singaporeans. Yes. Being employed does not necessary means better welfare. But that is all about it.
Look at the Residential Unemployment figures. At least 7/10 jobs are taken by Singaporeans. -
Originally posted by ObviousMan:
Thank you ObviousMan. I find your info very refreshing and eye-opening.
OK lah, since today i got some time, ObviousMan is here to point out the obvious reasons why our umemployment rate has gone down but people on the ground is not seeing any improvement.
At first glance, and as reported by the State Times, 2005 Q3 employment situation improved vastly over 2005 Q2. A check on MOM website reveals the same reports, but if one looks closely, there is some facts that our responsible press has wisely chosen not to inform Singaporeans.
At the MOM unemployment rate webpage:
http://www.mom.gov.sg/Statistics/ManpowerResearchNStatistics/LabourMarketStatistics/Unemployment-print.htm
In the middle of the page (after the data tables) there is a note about revision of the unemployment figures (in August 2005). (click to access the pdf file)
I draw attention to 2 points mentioned within:
(2)As the Labour Force Survey is conducted on a representative sample of households in Singapore, its coverage excludes construction workers living on site and workers commuting from abroad to work in Singapore. To achieve full coverage of the total labour force in Singapore, the new methodology combines data on residents(Comprises Singaporeans and Singapore Permanent Residents) obtained from the survey with foreign workforce data compiled from work passes issued by the Ministry of Manpower.
(5) By applying the new methodology to survey data obtained in previous years, the unemployment data from March 1992 onwards have been revised. The overall and resident unemployment rates before and after the revision are provided in Tables 1 and 2 and charted below. The revision has the effect of reducing the overall unemployment rate as the denominator i.e. total labour force is now larger, taking into account full coverage of the foreign workforce. However, the trend movement over time remains broadly the same. The impact of the revision on the resident unemployment rate series is minimal.
There you have it -- In a nutshell, by changing the methodology of calculation of unemployment, we have a lower figure of unemployment.
In the future, our unemployment rate counts Singaporeans, PRs and foreign labour hor. Please hor, tourists are not counted as foreign labour -- i dare say that unemployment rate among foreign labour is among the lowest. (After all, most of them will secure a job here before they come to stay here mah)
With the govt refusal to release the distribution breakdown of new jobs to Singaporeans, PRs and foreigners, we are left with the previous official figure of 9 in 10 new jobs goes to Singaporean (and PR?) or 1 in 10 new jobs goes to Singaporeans by NTU professors.
[b]On the ground, the above analysis strongly suggest a few things that common people like me know:
1) Foreign labor is coming into Singapore and taking up jobs -- the reason why our unemployment rate falls when they are included.
2) Why better unemployment figures does not translate to better welfare for Singaporeans (unless you belive 9 out of 10 new jobs goes to Singaporean) -- because jobs created may not be taken up by Singaporeans.[/b]
Seriously, we need more people like you here. Instead of some coming here to shout, jeer and hit out at one another. -
Originally posted by TooFree:I read the statistics and did a quick analysis on it.
For the past five year dating from 2000-2005, the Resident Unemployment Rates before and after revision is a shortfall of only approximately 0.1-0.2% for both seasonal and non-seasonal. The impact of the revision on the resident unemployment rate series is minimal. True. Even though the effect is minimal, it still subtracts 0.1 – 0.2% of the unemployment rate. For non-resident population, it takes away 0.4 – 0.8%. In business / economy / politics, it is often the case whereby overall unemployment rate is quoted. Taking the two together to get the overall rate, the new methodology results in lower unemployment. It is like doing nothing and claiming the economy is improved. In fact, China did announce to change their methodology recently.http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-10/22/content_3666127.htm Our govt just quietly change can liao.
Only by generating actual and true statistics, can these accurate and comparable data be better use for drafting policies and new law. Also, which clause in the document suggest that there will be no Resident Unemployment Rates data in the near future. It only advise on the new methodology. Correct. I was not hinting at no data, it is whether the data is useful that matters. For example, suppose 100 out of a population of 1000 people are unemployed on a small island – 10% overall unemployment. Of these 100, 60 are natives, 20 are visitors (8% resident unemployed) and 20 are outsiders. Now, 40 jobs are created, and the visitors and outsiders become employed. Therefore, overall unemployment falls from 10% to 6%, resident unemployment falls from 8% to 6%. Economy improves that is for sure, resident welfare improved?
Fall? The unemployment rates are on the raise. Look at the chart. Although it is seen raising, I wish to refer you to philip's curve (page 2) - where there would be a trade-off between inflation and unemployment. Correct on Philips curve, but I was referring to MOM report.
(cut and paste again below)
5) Preliminary estimates show that the seasonally adjusted overall unemployment rate improved slightly to 3.3% in September 2005 from 3.4% registered three months ago. Among the resident labour force, the rate was 4.4%, also lower than the 4.5% in June 2005.
6) On a non-seasonally adjusted basis, the overall unemployment rate dropped sharply from 4.3% in June 2005, when this yearÂ’s batch of tertiary graduates joined the pool of job seekers, to 2.9% in September 2005 as more job seekers secured employment. The seasonal decline also resulted from fewer students looking for temporary jobs as they returned to school after the mid-year vacation. Among the resident labour force, the non-adjusted rate was 3.8% in September 2005. An estimated 69,400 residents were unemployed in September 2005. The seasonally adjusted figure was 81,200.
Yes. Being employed does not necessary means better welfare. But that is all about it. Look at the Residential Unemployment figures. At least 7/10 jobs are taken by Singaporeans. Where did you get the closely guarded information? The NTU professors got into trouble because they worked out their own calculation, simply because MOM does not publish sensitive information. The Resident Unemployment figures are whole numbers in units of thousands (‘000) not in percentages. -
I think the government should give monetary handouts to the unemployed pple who are actively seeking employment.
I think this should be how it works:
The unemployed can register themselves with the nearest CDC. The CDC will be responsible for looking employment for them. In the meantime, these unemployed pple will receive monetary handouts from the govt. If the unemployed refuse to take up a job recommendated by the CDC, the monetary handouts will cease as well.
I have registered with the NE CDC for about 2 months already. No a single news from them regarding potential positions or even temp jobs!! It was such a disappointment.
I think with the monetary handouts, the CDCs will be more "pressurised" to help pple find jobs. -
It will never be implemented.Originally posted by shouyi:I think the government should give monetary handouts to the unemployed pple who are actively seeking employment.
I think this should be how it works:
The unemployed can register themselves with the nearest CDC. The CDC will be responsible for looking employment for them. In the meantime, these unemployed pple will receive monetary handouts from the govt. If the unemployed refuse to take up a job recommendated by the CDC, the monetary handouts will cease as well.
I have registered with the NE CDC for about 2 months already. No a single news from them regarding potential positions or even temp jobs!! It was such a disappointment.
I think with the monetary handouts, the CDCs will be more "pressurised" to help pple find jobs.
Any form of handout is a slippery slope that the government will do its best to avoid.
Seriously.
-
Hi ShouyiOriginally posted by shouyi:I think the government should give monetary handouts to the unemployed pple who are actively seeking employment.
I think this should be how it works:
The unemployed can register themselves with the nearest CDC. The CDC will be responsible for looking employment for them. In the meantime, these unemployed pple will receive monetary handouts from the govt. If the unemployed refuse to take up a job recommendated by the CDC, the monetary handouts will cease as well.
I have registered with the NE CDC for about 2 months already. No a single news from them regarding potential positions or even temp jobs!! It was such a disappointment.
I think with the monetary handouts, the CDCs will be more "pressurised" to help pple find jobs.
If you have a Master from NUS, you should network with your Professors or uni's job centre for help.
As for CDC's jobs, I very sure they have a priority system, ie if you are a family man, main bread winner, low educated, priority helpline will go to you. The rest ..... it's anyone guess ........ -
handouts, cpf withdrawal is no-no forever.
-
Handout maybe no good but ppl still have to eat. So maybe food voucher will be better idea. Something along the line of town council where arrears are paid in kind with citizen doing estate auditing/checking.Originally posted by dragg:handouts, cpf withdrawal is no-no forever. -
a lot of things are done on a small scale and they are for show only.Originally posted by pat33:Handout maybe no good but ppl still have to eat. So maybe food voucher will be better idea. Something along the line of town council where arrears are paid in kind with citizen doing estate auditing/checking. -
X2Originally posted by dragg:a lot of things are done on a small scale and they are for show only.
-
Well saidOriginally posted by dragg:a lot of things are done on a small scale and they are for show only. x3 -
remember how they help people with utilites payment? at first sight of economic recovering the whole scheme ended.
did the economic recovery benefit all households?
most schemes die a natural death... -
hand outs is a big no noOriginally posted by shouyi:I think the government should give monetary handouts to the unemployed pple who are actively seeking employment.
I think this should be how it works:
The unemployed can register themselves with the nearest CDC. The CDC will be responsible for looking employment for them. In the meantime, these unemployed pple will receive monetary handouts from the govt. If the unemployed refuse to take up a job recommendated by the CDC, the monetary handouts will cease as well.
I have registered with the NE CDC for about 2 months already. No a single news from them regarding potential positions or even temp jobs!! It was such a disappointment.
I think with the monetary handouts, the CDCs will be more "pressurised" to help pple find jobs.
lets look at it from an aggregate level. Hand-outs cost money. Where is the govt. gonna get $ from? tax-payers. this mean higher taxes for the people. Which brings us to the incentive problem.
using a simple economics concept. the theory of adverse selection. If the govt raises the taxes, the richer people in s'pore will seek to migrate out. people living on hand-outs will stay. this in simple terms will cause a hollowing out of our economy. This is exactly what is happening in the Scandanavian countries due to their over-emphasis on welfare.
i do like the job-placement idea though. maybe the bonus of the workers in the CDC can be based on the number of jobs they help seek out. hahaa.. this will most definitely stress them. -
Conclusion:
Look twice at the statistics coming from our gahment
Statistic can lie, but what we see around us can't. -
how about the welfare we provided to the gahment officals...especially those recieving 7 figure pay n pension.Originally posted by ben1xy:hand outs is a big no no
lets look at it from an aggregate level. Hand-outs cost money. Where is the govt. gonna get $ from? tax-payers. this mean higher taxes for the people. Which brings us to the incentive problem.
using a simple economics concept. the theory of adverse selection. If the govt raises the taxes, the richer people in s'pore will seek to migrate out. people living on hand-outs will stay. this in simple terms will cause a hollowing out of our economy. This is exactly what is happening in the Scandanavian countries due to their over-emphasis on welfare.
i do like the job-placement idea though. maybe the bonus of the workers in the CDC can be based on the number of jobs they help seek out. hahaa.. this will most definitely stress them. -
ehh... u dun anyhow miscontrue my statements leh ....Originally posted by SnowFlag:how about the welfare we provided to the gahment officals...especially those recieving 7 figure pay n pension.
i wasn't talking abt the government's salary lah -
But i am talking abt their pay...it is making life tough for the citizens in bad times like this when we offer such a "welfare" to them.Originally posted by ben1xy:ehh... u dun anyhow miscontrue my statements leh ....
i wasn't talking abt the government's salary lah -
hahaa.. i agree with u somewhat on this.Originally posted by SnowFlag:But i am talking abt their pay...it is making life tough for the citizens in bad times like this when we offer such a "welfare" to them. -
its not tough.
they always ensure there are enough money to pay themselves. -
Originally posted by Lazylordz:i spam for a living