An inspiring Tale
-
You sound like those guys enjoy playing God.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:There is no free lunch, least of all for the disadvantaged."
(http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4472)
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/917
-
Encouraging as this story may sound, I have just realised that our "rat race" can actually be a poor man's dream.
His spirit must be applauded but I also see naivete at its worst. -
The government is indeed moving towards a knowledge-based industry to diversify our economy, but it is a mistake to think that will avoid global competition. As it is, Australian architects are sending their technical drawings to be made by Vietnames draughtsmen and Singapore is sending plain X-rays to be read by Indian radiologists in Bangalore.Originally posted by LazerLordz:If you are always going to harp and fight about wage cost, it's not answering the question of whether we should simply aim to move manufacturing away from being the largest industrial sector and shift to a more ideas-based economy, less affected by low-skilled workers and their comparative home remittance advantage.
The key is to make sure that you always upgrade yourself and that the pricing of your goods and services are competitive in the global market. This is the real world where nobody owes you a living. If you cannot catch up with the competition, you are left behind. Ranting about it will not change anything. -
Somebody wants statistics but refuse to accept the figures. Here's more statistics...an excellent article on the French economy:
AS AN American in Paris during the French presidential election last weekend, it was hard to understand what the big deal was.
'Huge turnout as voters set stark left-right duel' read a front-page headline in the International Herald Tribune following Sunday's first-round vote in which centre-right candidate Nicolas Sarkozy and socialist Segolene Royal emerged victorious.
Another read: 'Voters endorse two visions of the future.'
Excusez-moi, but isn't that always the case? The world is divided into left and right, with shades of grey in between and bursts of colour on the outer fringes. French voters' choice - between a conservative (seasonally adjusted for France, of course) former finance and interior minister and a female lawmaker, both of whom want to resuscitate France's economy - is really not different from the one faced by Britons in the late 1970s and Americans in 1980.
The impact isn't likely to be as dramatic in France's case.
'Sarkozy is not like Reagan or Thatcher,' said Mr Christophe Maillard, secretary-general of Liberte Cherie (Beloved Freedom), a classical liberal think-tank and grassroots organisation outside Paris. 'He's still in favour of big government. He's better than Chirac or Royal. That doesn't mean he's good.'
Mr Sarkozy, or anyone else for that matter, won't be able to implement his programme without first reforming France's powerful labour unions, said Mr Maillard. The unions represent only 8 per cent of French workers but have an influence that is disproportionate to their size.
It was one year ago that French students and unions took to the streets, blocking access to many universities.
The source of their angst? A new law that would have allowed companies to fire workers younger than 26 without cause, or severance within two years of hiring. The idea that the law would have improved the job prospects of college graduates - if companies can't fire they won't hire - seems to have lost something in translation. There's no point in worrying about job security when there are no jobs.
Both Mr Sarkozy and Ms Royal, who received 31.2 per cent and 25.6 per cent of the first-round vote respectively, want to revitalise France's economy: Mr Sarkozy, with free-market reforms, including tax cuts and deregulation of the labour market; Ms Royal, with more state spending. She would raise the minimum wage, boost pensions and create more government-sponsored jobs.
We have a pretty good idea how her initiatives will work out. What we don't know is whether Mr Sarkozy will be able to implement his because of the unions.
Disproportionate influence
HOW is it that such a small percentage of French workers can virtually shut down the country? 'Their power comes from the fact that the French mentality is very statist,' said Ms Veronique de Rugy, a French citizen who is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Centre, a free-market think-tank affiliated with George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia. 'They are untrained to think there is a solution outside of government.'
The media tends to be one-sided, censoring itself so the government doesn't have to. Unless there's a shift in public sentiment, with people voicing their discontent, the unions will still call the shots, said Ms de Rugy.
To many outside observers, the France of 2007 resembles the United Kingdom of the 1970s.
'People want money, but they don't want to work,' said Mr Laurent Tordgman, a Paris taxi driver who was shuttling me from office to hotel. 'People don't think to work.'
They don't think to work because there isn't much incentive. It's no coincidence that tax rates and unemployment are high while the number of hours the French spend at work is low. France's unemployment rate is 8.8 per cent, the highest among the 13 countries that share the euro. Some 2.3 million people are unemployed.
'If Royal wins, it will be the same politics as Mitterrand,' said Mr Tordgman, referring to Mr Francois Mitterrand, another socialist and president of France from 1981 to 1995. 'If Royal wins - many, many taxes, security bad, immigration bad.'
France's public sector eats up 54 per cent of the economy, the second highest among industrialised countries (behind Sweden). Tax revenues are 51 per cent of gross domestic product. Real GDP growth - 2.5 per cent last year - has lagged behind almost all of France's neighbours for the last three years as its share of world exports has fallen.
The statistics are sending a clear signal that reform is needed, but until the French people hear it, change will come slowly.
'There's a deep-rooted resistance to abandoning the French social model' with its cradle-to-grave protections, said Mr Bernard Connolly, global strategist at Banque AIG in London.
He said the unions' hold on the government is not unlike the relationship between the trade unions and the Labour Party in 1970s Britain. Then British prime minister Margaret Thatcher stood up to the coal miners in 1984, stockpiling supplies in advance to keep power flowing in the event of a likely strike. She won concessions from the unions and proceeded to implement her programme of privatisation, freeing the economy from the unions' grip.
Mr Sarkozy, currently favoured to win the run-off in the opinion polls, should use the time between now and May 6 to revisit Lady Thatcher's memorable response when her economic reforms were challenged by her own Cabinet at the Conservative Party conference in 1980.
'Turn if you like,' she said. 'The lady's not for turning.'
BLOOMBERG
April 30, Straits Times -
I say change our expensive government, and everything will be better..
Globalization and all the crap...
It is simply because we have a High Maintenance Government!!!
Nothing more... -
Ah, but the concern is that the ones stuck in the gap and falling through the cracks must have a channel for their voices to be heard. Not many people think they are worth their time, after all, lofty figures and the important industrial incubation is more visible isn't it.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:The government is indeed moving towards a knowledge-based industry to diversify our economy, but it is a mistake to think that will avoid global competition. As it is, Australian architects are sending their technical drawings to be made by Vietnames draughtsmen and Singapore is sending plain X-rays to be read by Indian radiologists in Bangalore.
The key is to make sure that you always upgrade yourself and that the pricing of your goods and services are competitive in the global market. This is the real world where nobody owes you a living. If you cannot catch up with the competition, you are left behind. Ranting about it will not change anything.
Progress and change go together, but if the cracks are not patched and people are still falling in and not being helped upwards, it's like a car with all the upgrades from Garage R and using some cheap motor oil and improper daily maint. tasking.
Citizens are not mere digits, any government better not forget that. The Middle East is a good example of how riding roughshod can give you a blowback effect, same goes for the gastarbeiter phenomenon in Germany. -
The challenge here is mastering the balancing act between protectionism and globalisation - in the long run, I'm convinced what the thugs are doing is a recipe for disaster. Although globalisation wasn't exactly the buzzword in the Soviet era, the Soviet Union's demise would still bear testament to the fact protectionism and free market economies do not go hand-in-hand. The advent of globalisation will only accentuate that incompatibility further.
We could go on talking about global market forces for all we want (which, no doubt, will be the single biggest factor in dictating various aspects of market forces from low-cost-production to workers' wages), but what is witnessed here is a form of protectionist economy (ironically, against the interests of those responsible for delivering the industrial and economic output that catapults this economy) which is neither robust nor self-sustaining in the long run.
At the end of the day (just like anything else), hardly anything that isn't self-sustaining actually stands the test of time... -
The thugs here don't believe in protectionism. At the end of the day, all they care about is Govt revenues and maintaining their power and that's it. They just want people to be a little happy, but they know that they can always threaten people with the prospects of poor Govt (as if theirs isn't bad enough) and then people will happily vote for them.Originally posted by walesa:The challenge here is mastering the balancing act between protectionism and globalisation - in the long run, I'm convinced what the thugs are doing is a recipe for disaster. Although globalisation wasn't exactly the buzzword in the Soviet era, the Soviet Union's demise would still bear testament to the fact protectionism and free market economies do not go hand-in-hand. The advent of globalisation will only accentuate that incompatibility further.
We could go on talking about global market forces for all we want (which, no doubt, will be the single biggest factor in dictating various aspects of market forces from low-cost-production to workers' wages), but what is witnessed here is a form of protectionist economy (ironically, against the interests of those responsible for delivering the industrial and economic output that catapults this economy) which is neither robust nor self-sustaining in the long run.
At the end of the day (just like anything else), hardly anything that isn't self-sustaining actually stands the test of time...
Poor fools. -
The irony of the form of protectionism preached here stems from the thugs choosing to protect their interests at the expense of those who feed their interests. By compromising long-term gains for short-term ones, it's a classic case of being penny-wise and pound-foolish. I suppose, you could label that form of protectionism as the most hypocritical and ironic for such a myopic mindset clearly renders it anything but self-sustaining. Just watch how this will backfire over the next few decades ( and you can expect more drivel/excuses attributing the failure of such an approach to the "uncontrollable tide of globalisation" ), especially with the growth of the Chinese and Indian economy...Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:The thugs here don't believe in protectionism. At the end of the day, all they care about is Govt revenues and maintaining their power and that's it. They just want people to be a little happy, but they know that they can always threaten people with the prospects of poor Govt (as if theirs isn't bad enough) and then people will happily vote for them.
Poor fools. -
Have you replied my post? Seems like you conveniently side track into something else again, like all your replies. Don't meet your enemies head on if you don't have enough turrets, but sidetrack to out flank your enemies. When I meet you head on in your new ground, you will side track again. I am just wondering, how your post on globalisation and protectionism affecting unemployment changed to "Why are things so different today in the United States -- and so different among Muslim young men in France? That is where economics comes in."Originally posted by oxford mushroom:That is the effect of globalisation. In the same way Hong Kong and Singapore took manufacturing jobs away from the Europeans in the 70s, so cheaper economies are luring businesses away from us. If Singapore companies do not hire foreign workers who are able and willing to work harder for less, these jobs will simply move to China ir India. More Singaporeans will lose their jobs.
In a globalised world, you have to watch your productivity. Customers are price conscious. If you cannot produce the same product or offer the same quality of service at a price lower than that of your foreign competitors, you lose your job.
So you say your market value has diminished because of foreign competitors. Perhaps it is because you have priced yourself out of the global market. Asking the government to protect local jobs by installing barriers against global competition is self-defeating. Singapore has done well by relying on the global market. We have [b]no significant domestic market. If you try to protect jobs for locals by keeping the foreigners out, they will move the jobs elsewhere. If you block cheaper foreign goods into Singapore, they can do the same to yours and with a small domestic market, Singapore will come out the loser. Protectionism is a lose-lose situation for us.
France tried that and look what it has done to their economy. Here's a quotation from the Telegraph. Read about why Frenchmen are flocking to the UK for work:
" Economic data published last week illustrated yet again a familiar EU correlation: countries with high tax and protectionism pay for it with mass unemployment. While workers may be happier, pace the Swedish minister, there are far fewer at work. In France, unemployment has jumped to a five-year high of 10 per cent. In Germany, unemployment is now higher than at any time since the Weimar Republic."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/03/30/do3002.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/03/30/ixop.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,2051463,00.html[/b][/quote]
Rubbish! That's the kind of bullsh|t the gov wants you to believe. We will lose our jobs to China or India if we don't let in cheap foreign labour to bring down our labour cost (steal our jobs), but the labour force isn't homogenous (just look around Beijing for the English translations), the infrastructure isn't the same (our infrastructure framework, ports, telecommunication, public utilities, transport, etc), geographical framework is different (only summer in Singapore, unlike other countries which might have winter affecting productivity).
Say two brands of car maker exist, Hyundai and Mercedes. Why is it that Hyundai is price sensitive and Mercedes is not price sensitive? One is an elastic demand, whereas the other is inelastic. Elastic being, demand is price sensitive. Inelastic being, demand is not price sensitive.
Asking Singapore to compete on labour cost with China for these low level manufacturing job is downright stupid.
Japan has always adopted a protectionist attitude (e.g. rice, beef, insurance, automobiles, etc) towards it's domestic economy, it has a corporate tax rate 30% (22% with structured offsets for small enterprises) , yet it is still able to maintain a low natural rate of unemployment of 4.0%
France's unemployment rate is only about 1.5% off from it's natural rate of unemployment (which means full employment) (which is around 8%), which isn't as shocking as what you make it out to be. Since the 1980s, when Globalisation wasn't such a big buzz word then, the unemployment rate of France has been around 8%-11%. Some of these European countries has a high natural rate (full employment) of unemployment, because of their generous social security benefits, they can afford not to work if they are being paid less than their social security benefits. The government ensures that they maintain an average level of livelihood if their pay is less than the social security. The government cares about it's citizens. Spain, Finland, Germany, Belgium and Italy has a similar natural rate of unemployment, but you don't hear of people starving to death in the streets or major revolutions to overthrow the governments. Perhaps if our government demands less pay for their work, we might be able to afford a higher natural rate of unemployment, where anyone above 65 can retire peacefully.
You are quite the propaganda parrot.
Polly want a cracker???
You better stick to paraphrasing replies taken from other websites about diabetes in your own forum.
[quote]Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Haha...frog in the well speaking of things about which you have absolutely no clue. Thank God our government understands the economy far better than the likes of you who will only drive the nation from the first world to the third.
Here's what a commentator says of France:
"Why are things so different today in the United States -- and so different among Muslim young men in France? That is where economics comes in.
People who are less in demand -- whether because of inexperience, lower skills, or race -- are just as employable at lower pay rates as people who are in high demand are at higher pay rates. That is why blacks were just as able to find jobs as whites were, prior to the decade of the 1930s and why a serious gap in unemployment between black teenagers and white teenagers opened up only after 1950.
Prior to the decade of the 1930s, the wages of inexperienced and unskilled labor were determined by supply and demand. There was no federal minimum wage law and labor unions did not usually organize inexperienced and unskilled workers. That is why such workers were able to find jobs, just like everyone else, even when these were black workers in an era of open discrimination.
The first federal minimum wage law, the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, was passed in part explicitly to prevent black construction workers from "taking jobs" from white construction workers by working for lower wages. It was not meant to protect black workers from "exploitation"; but to protect white workers from competition.
Even aside from a racial context, minimum wage laws in countries around the world protect higher-paid workers from the competition of lower paid workers.
Often the higher-paid workers are older, more experienced, more skilled or more unionized. But many goods and services can be produced with either many lower skilled workers or fewer higher skilled workers, as well as with more capital and less labor or vice-versa. Employers' choices depend on the relative costs.
The net economic effect of minimum wage laws is to make less skilled, less experienced, or otherwise less desired workers more expensive -- thereby pricing many of them out of jobs. Large disparities in unemployment rates between the young and the mature, the skilled and the unskilled, and between different racial groups have been common consequences of minimum wage laws.
....France's unemployment rate is roughly double that of the United States and people who are unemployed stay unemployed much longer in France.
Unemployment rates among young Frenchmen are about 20 percent and among young Muslim men about 40 percent.
There is no free lunch, least of all for the disadvantaged."
(http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4472)
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/917 -
Originally posted by maurizio13:
It seems that 'mushrooms sprout best in dark places', until exposed to strong light then they tend to wither; they never die as their spores lives on parasitically.
[b]Have you replied my post? Seems like you conveniently side track into something else again, like all your replies. Don't meet your enemies head on if you don't have enough turrets, but sidetrack to out flank your enemies. When I meet you head on in your new ground, you will side track again. I am just wondering, how your post on globalisation and protectionism affecting unemployment changed to "Why are things so different today in the United States -- and so different among Muslim young men in France? That is where economics comes in."[/b] -
There will always be those who fall through the cracks. That's where re-training and re-engineering of jobs comes in. Singaporeans must ensure their skills remain relevant and competitive. There is no point harping about the 30 years' experience you have as a production worker in the garment industry. So what if you are the best in a sunset industry. The government has brought in courses for re-training in the growth industries. Those who fall behind must take the opportunity to upgrade themselves.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Ah, but the concern is that the ones stuck in the gap and falling through the cracks must have a channel for their voices to be heard. Not many people think they are worth their time, after all, lofty figures and the important industrial incubation is more visible isn't it.
The Chinese worker in the Straits Times article was willing to take a job that paid $600 a month. He worked harder than others, accepted overtime and did weekend jobs. When the Asian crisis hit and the employer had to layoff workers, his job was safe. It makes sense to keep your most productive worker and retrench the rest. Despite working longer hours than others, he attended a polytechnic course to upgrade himself, to get a diploma. When others would just complain in the forums, he worked hard and now earns a much higher salary as a supervisor.
There may a good reason why some people just keep falling through the cracks whilst others rise to the top. -
Because protectionism does not work. Margaret Thatcher caused thousands of miners and steel workers to lose their jobs in the 80s, sending their families into poverty. But her courage has created a free economy which is now in far better shape than that of protectionist France.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:The thugs here don't believe in protectionism.
Singapore must avoid the mistakes of fortress Europe. Protecting the jobs of existing workers may lead to even more unemployment, as France and Sweden have begun to learn. Higher government spending for unemployment benefits leads to higher taxes and hurts the economy further, setting up a vicious cycle that will send the economy spiralling downwards. -
...
-
...
-
...
-
Stupid ST, how can changing from being a "happy-go-lucky youth" in a place where you can "fished in his spare time" to the stress and oppression in Singapore be better? Propaganda.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:GROWING up in the eastern Chinese town of Wenzhou, Mr Cai Wendong went to school and fished in his spare time.
When he finished junior high, he found work as a pipe fitter in a shipyard. Life was hard, but predictable. Then some friends decided to work in Singapore and he went along. Life changed forever for the happy-go-lucky youth. Straits Times 28 April
What he will do is to make his money in Singapore and run home. He can buy a big house and drive a big car back home in China (using his relatives names, if he cannot use his own name)... retire when he is in his forties...
Singaporeans? You are expected to be stressed out even in your old age. This is the system P*P has dictated for Singaporeans so that they can extract blood to pay for their million dollars salaries. Stupid Singaporeans, China people are so much smarter. -
Sad to say, the government keeps making the gaps wider so that more will drop into it, despite the skills upgrading.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:There will always be those who fall through the cracks. That's where re-training and re-engineering of jobs comes in. Singaporeans must ensure their skills remain relevant and competitive. There is no point harping about the 30 years' experience you have as a production worker in the garment industry. So what if you are the best in a sunset industry. The government has brought in courses for re-training in the growth industries. Those who fall behind must take the opportunity to upgrade themselves.
The Chinese worker in the Straits Times article was willing to take a job that paid $600 a month. He worked harder than others, accepted overtime and did weekend jobs. When the Asian crisis hit and the employer had to layoff workers, his job was safe. It makes sense to keep your most productive worker and retrench the rest. Despite working longer hours than others, he attended a polytechnic course to upgrade himself, to get a diploma. When others would just complain in the forums, he worked hard and now earns a much higher salary as a supervisor.
There may a good reason why some people just keep falling through the cracks whilst others rise to the top. -
Protectionism and Free Trade.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Because protectionism does not work. Margaret Thatcher caused thousands of miners and steel workers to lose their jobs in the 80s, sending their families into poverty. But her courage has created a free economy which is now in far better shape than that of protectionist France.
Singapore must avoid the mistakes of fortress Europe. Protecting the jobs of existing workers may lead to even more unemployment, as France and Sweden have begun to learn. Higher government spending for unemployment benefits leads to higher taxes and hurts the economy further, setting up a vicious cycle that will send the economy spiralling downwards.
The benefits of Free Trade hinges on the concept of Comparative Advantage, which can be debunk.
Read up and understand the term Natural Rate of Unemployment and Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment. Since 1980s, France has had an unemployment rate of around 9%, IT IS THEIR NATURAL RATE OF UNEMPLOYMENT!!! -
Why is it that so many French people would rather riot than work?
For nearly a fortnight, French students repeatedly have taken to the streets in protest of a modest labor reform proposed by Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin. It seems that Villepin had the audacity to suggest that companies hiring workers under the age of 26 have the ability to fire those workers in the first two years of employment. VillepinÂ’s far-from-Draconian reform is a reaction to the countryÂ’s government-planned entitlement state, overregulated labor laws, and sky-high jobless rate.
But French students apparently prefer their little worker’s paradise just the way it is. The overall jobless rate in France hovers around 10 percent, so-called “youth unemployment” is 23 percent, and in some of the Muslim-heavy suburbs, joblessness is nearly 50 percent. Some paradise.
In France, you see, companies donÂ’t grow because itÂ’s too costly to hire while itÂ’s against the law to fire. Hence, since they rarely add jobs, French businesses under-perform, under-produce, and under-employ. Think of it: ItÂ’s awfully tough to increase output without a growing workforce to produce it.
The Villepin reform, of course, would make it a lot easier for firms to hire since they would no longer have to lock-in high wages and benefit costs without first confirming worker productivity, at least for two years. But in response to this mild capitalist reform, a reported 500,000 students have emerged in angry protest. ThereÂ’s now even a threat of a general strike, with government unions, trade unions, and student unions possibly teaming together to shut down the entire French economy (or whatÂ’s left of it).
Of course, it wasnÂ’t all that long ago that young Muslims rioted and vandalized urban centers across France. Their beef was cultural in nature, but it was also rooted in the fact that France is anti-opportunity, anti-wealth, anti-jobs, anti-markets, anti-work, and anti-capitalism.
Indeed, at the heart of the French problem is a statist-run socialist economy that is massively overtaxed and overregulated. FranceÂ’s public government sector, for instance, accounts for more than 50 percent of GDP. In other words, private business in France is in the minority.
Added to this, France’s top personal tax rate is 48 percent, with a VAT tax of nearly 20 percent. So that means French laborers face a combined 68 percent tax rate on consumption and investment. No wonder France has created less than 3 million jobs over the past twenty years, compared to 31 million in the United States. Economic growth in “cowboy capitalist” America has exceeded that of France’s worker paradise by nearly 50 percent.
In a dramatic speech to the European Parliament last summer, British Prime Minister Tony Blair hit the mark when he criticized all Western European economies for their inability to compete on an acceptable global level. Asked Blair, “What type of social model is it that has 20 million unemployed in Europe? Productivity rates falling behind those of the USA? That, on any relative index of a modern economy — skills, R&D, patents, information technology — is going down, not up?”
Financial Times international editor Olaf Gersemann blames French and European unemployment on high minimum-wage requirements and overly strict employment-protection laws. Gersemann, who scathingly criticized Western Europe in his book “Cowboy Capitalism,” says these labor-market regulations have created millions of involuntary unemployed throughout Europe, affecting immigrants in particular. He writes, “Most French, German, and Italian voters simply refuse to accept the necessity of a Thatcher-Reagan style economic revolution.” He notes that per capita income in the U.S. now exceeds that of France by close to 40 percent, with Germany and Italy lagging even further behind.
All of this is reminiscent of the British disease of the 1960s and Â’70s. Back then, striking labor unions closed down the English economy again and again, and it took until the early 1980s for Margaret Thatcher to put an end to it. At one point, the Iron Lady actually called in tanks and troops to stop the print unions from shutting down Fleet Street. (This is what turned media-magnate Rupert Murdoch into a pro-capitalist Thatcherite.)
Is there a Thatcher that can save Gaul? Perhaps. French Interior Minister Nick Sarkozy is a strong law-and-order man. HeÂ’s the one who ended the Muslim riots. More, he is reputed to be pro-market and pro-American. The question is, can Sarkozy wake up this nation of economic sleepwalkers and bring them into the 21st century? He ought to take a big paddle to the collective French fanny. They sure need it.
— Larry Kudlow, NRO’s Economics Editor, is host of CNBC’s Kudlow & Company and author of the daily web blog, Kudlow’s Money Politic$.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200603251037.asp -
Why is the french economy in such dire straits today? Because they went down the same path some folks in this forum want us to take: protect jobs, impose minimum wage, let the elderly retire early with a good pension and generous state welfare. Let France's economic woes be a lesson to us:
"..M. Sarkozy's ideas are based on two simple, but relatively accurate, diagnoses of French economic ills. First, France does not work enough. Young people enter the workforce late; able-bodied, experienced people retire early; the standard working week has been reduced to 35 hours.
The British "employment rate" - ie those adults who have jobs - is 72 per cent. France's is 58 per cent. France works 617 hours per inhabitant per year, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, compared to 800 hours in Britain, 865 in the US, 796 in Denmark. Only by boosting the country's workrate, M. Sarkozy says, can the economy grow faster than its present 1.8 per cent a year.
Secondly, the great burden of the French welfare state falls not on individuals directly but on employers and therefore jobs. French companies, large and small, pay the equivalent of 42.3 per cent in social charges on top of each salary - compared to 10.5 per cent in Britain...."
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/analysis_and_features/article2444445.ece
Once we take the welfare route, it will be difficult, if not impossible to turn back, as the french are beginning to realize:
"the problem for Royal, Sarkozy, and the surprise contender Bayrou, is that while many French people accept the need for economic reform – growth is weak, unemployment is falling slightly but is still 8.4% and the public debt stands at 64% of GDP – fewer are prepared to accept the consequences of those reforms..."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,2053767,00.html
Do workers in France welcome the generous welfare state? Surely it must be utopia to work in France. Not so according to WEF's analysis of "co-operation in labour-employer relations':
"But in the category of "co-operation in labour-employer relations" - that is, how workers get on with their bosses - France comes bottom of the league, in 125th place.
Whereas countries such as Denmark and Singapore score highly for their "generally co-operative" relations, France is seen by the WEF as having the most confrontational workplace environment in the world..."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6582707.stm -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
hello, friend
Why is the french economy in such dire straits today? Because they went down the same path some folks in this forum want us to take: protect jobs, impose minimum wage, let the elderly retire early with a good pension and generous state welfare. Let France's economic woes be a lesson to us:
"..M. Sarkozy's ideas are based on two simple, but relatively accurate, diagnoses of French economic ills. [b]First, France does not work enough. Young people enter the workforce late; able-bodied, experienced people retire early; the standard working week has been reduced to 35 hours.
The British "employment rate" - ie those adults who have jobs - is 72 per cent. France's is 58 per cent. France works 617 hours per inhabitant per year, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, compared to 800 hours in Britain, 865 in the US, 796 in Denmark. Only by boosting the country's workrate, M. Sarkozy says, can the economy grow faster than its present 1.8 per cent a year.
Secondly, the great burden of the French welfare state falls not on individuals directly but on employers and therefore jobs. French companies, large and small, pay the equivalent of 42.3 per cent in social charges on top of each salary - compared to 10.5 per cent in Britain...."
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/analysis_and_features/article2444445.ece
Once we take the welfare route, it will be difficult, if not impossible to turn back, as the french are beginning to realize:
"the problem for Royal, Sarkozy, and the surprise contender Bayrou, is that while many French people accept the need for economic reform – growth is weak, unemployment is falling slightly but is still 8.4% and the public debt stands at 64% of GDP – fewer are prepared to accept the consequences of those reforms..."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,2053767,00.html
Do workers in France welcome the generous welfare state? Surely it must be utopia to work in France. Not so according to WEF's analysis of "co-operation in labour-employer relations':
"But in the category of "co-operation in labour-employer relations" - that is, how workers get on with their bosses - France comes bottom of the league, in 125th place.
Whereas countries such as Denmark and Singapore score highly for their "generally co-operative" relations, France is seen by the WEF as having the most confrontational workplace environment in the world..."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6582707.stm
[/b]
Why are you so extreme in the way you think, something like how MM Lee likes to talk.
"If we lose the cabinet, women will become maids in other country"
"If you have dud ministers, the money we save will be lost"
No one said we want to replace the entire cabinet. No one told you we want a country where we can riot. This is so extreme a thinking (Just becoz we don't want an extreme, means we want another extreme???)
The issues at hand are simple:
Globalisation results in Singaporeans getting a lower std of living becoz they are told to accept lower pay to be more competitive, whilst those in the cabinet enjoy a kind of pay invulnerable to market conditions.
It's THAT simple. They don't practise what they preach. They don't walk the talk. They just talk the talk. They enjoy what globalization brings to Singapore, whilst the avg Singaporean has to suffer?
We are not talking about those that fall thru the gaps here. We are talking about Singaporeans in general. And it is a FACT that the avg Singaporean earns only 1.5k to 4k, which is extremely disproportionate to what the minister earns.
US has already put up a protectionism law to protect their workers. Its not an extreme law, just a partial protection, so I think its inappropriate for you to draw comparisons to full-welfare or full-protectionism countries. Once again, pls talk moderate, don't be an extremist. -
lion note:i assume it is MY The Star,not the canadian one.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:“It’s not that the elderly don’t want to retire, many simply cannot afford to,” said Rick Lim in a letter.
He was responding to a government backbencher who had asked why the senior citizens could not just retire early and enjoy life, and he wondered if their expectations of life were too high.
Lim wrote: “Are the senior citizens working as cleaners because they are saving to purchase a condominium or a luxury car, or is it because they need to feed themselves and their families?”
This is the other face of prospering Singapore, which has one of the worldÂ’s fastest ageing populations.
Recently, a student from China who was interviewed said that he found it strange to see so many cleaners were elderly, compared to poorer China where they would be enjoying their retirement.
Blame it on globalisation, insufficient safety net or poor education when they were young (probably all together) but it has made old age synonymous – rightly or wrongly – with poverty and hardship.
This is why some Singaporeans who are 45 or older are not looking forward to the prospect of living in one of the worldÂ’s richest nations in 20 yearsÂ’ time.
The reason? By then they will be joining the unappealing ranks of the cityÂ’s greying population (aged 65 or more) even as the city moves upwards.
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew painted the exciting scenario recently of a fast-developing Singapore moving “into the upper half of the First World. We can do this in the next 10-20 years.”
Even today growing old is not a good thing. Many employers consider 45-year-olds as over the hill, preferring to replace them with younger, cheaper workers.
(Making things worse is the large influx of foreign workers who are ready to accept lower salaries.)
The majority of aged workers are lowly skilled and make up the bulk of SingaporeÂ’s struggling class. In recent years, their income has either stagnated or declined, while the rich got richer.
This affects their ability to save for retirement, despite their mandatory Central Provident Funds.
Only 27% of Singaporeans between 25 and 75 said that they have sufficient funds to retire, compared with 61% of Thais and 47% of Malaysians, according to an insurance company survey.
Today one in 12 Singaporeans are 65 or older; by 2030, this will become one in five.
Like elsewhere, this age group has more than a higher rate of homeless and poor, the depressed, and the desperately sick. Many are becoming victims of cheating or crime; suicide rates are high.
In a post-mortem of the 2006 election, leaders of the ruling PeopleÂ’s Action Party attributed its large 9% drop in popularity to older votes.
If it is true, it doesnÂ’t augur well for its future because this base of senior citizens is growing very quickly.
The decision to increase its 5% Goods and Services tax (GST) to 7% will be an added blow to Singaporeans, especially the elderly low-income or retirees group.
To mitigate the impact, the government is offering GST credits of up to S$1,000 (RM2,296) to all over 21 years old, that will be apportioned according to income and home value.
In addition, the 2007 Budget also gave Singaporeans a bonus of up to S$1,000 to all Singaporeans who make S$100,000 (229,600) or less, with those over 55 getting the lionÂ’s share.
Two-thirds will be in cash and the rest in Medisave for healthcare.
But it is jobs that remain the bugbear for the seniors because many employers are reluctant to employ – or keep – people over 50.
Lee Seck Kay says that government efforts to keep elderly people gainfully employed are failing, citing a friend who was retrenched from a foreign oil company.
“When he applied to a local one, he was told that at 55 he was too old. They were looking for someone below 48,” he added.
Citizens over 55 are given discounts for public transport and entertainment places (non-peak hours), far short of what the public wants.
These Singaporeans have spent a lifetime working hard to build Singapore up, whether as coolies or managers, and should be looked after during their sunset years, many believe.
Singapore is one of the most expensive places in Asia to retire in, observes a grandmother of two. “The old should be enjoying their time, not working as cleaners.”
Singapore has the worldÂ’s highest rate of public home ownership. It may be establishing a new trend of downgrading, owners selling their flats for smaller ones to free up cash for retirement.
A newspaper reader, Lee Chin Wai, notices that official figures show potential up-graders (the opposite) still outnumbering down-graders by three to one.
If one rules out migration, this ratio could drop to one-to-one by 2017.
A retiree suggested the government dip into its reserves to pay each Singaporean over 65 a monthly S$200-S$300 (RM459-RM689) for the rest of his life so that he can enjoy his sunset years – an unlikely event.
(This article was publised im The Star on Saturday, Mar 3, 2007)
2.do i consider u love sg,hate sg or dunt know????
When i fully quote aussie reports from aussie main stream newspaper,
u label me anti--aussie.
Can i label u ''netural but with tendancy hate sg''? -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Please note that the quality of life is much higher in Copenhagen than in Singapore.
[b]Whereas countries such as Denmark and Singapore score highly for their "generally co-operative" relations, France is seen by the WEF as having the most confrontational workplace environment in the world..."[/i]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6582707.stm
[/b] -
How about having a national unity cabinet? There are MPs from WP who have ministerial qualities. LTK could take the Education portfolio with ease, for starters.Originally posted by soul_rage:hello, friend
Why are you so extreme in the way you think, something like how MM Lee likes to talk.
"If we lose the cabinet, women will become maids in other country"
"If you have dud ministers, the money we save will be lost"
No one said we want to replace the entire cabinet. No one told you we want a country where we can riot. This is so extreme a thinking (Just becoz we don't want an extreme, means we want another extreme???)
The issues at hand are simple:
Globalisation results in Singaporeans getting a lower std of living becoz they are told to accept lower pay to be more competitive, whilst those in the cabinet enjoy a kind of pay invulnerable to market conditions.
It's THAT simple. They don't practise what they preach. They don't walk the talk. They just talk the talk. They enjoy what globalization brings to Singapore, whilst the avg Singaporean has to suffer?
We are not talking about those that fall thru the gaps here. We are talking about Singaporeans in general. And it is a FACT that the avg Singaporean earns only 1.5k to 4k, which is extremely disproportionate to what the minister earns.
US has already put up a protectionism law to protect their workers. Its not an extreme law, just a partial protection, so I think its inappropriate for you to draw comparisons to full-welfare or full-protectionism countries. Once again, pls talk moderate, don't be an extremist.