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
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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
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.

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]
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)
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.