My company is full of F.T! Common jobs also need F.T???
-
Protectionism like in Switzerland? Here's what the IMF said of Europe in Switzerland incidentally:
"Stubborn restrictions on the free movement of labor is another example. Indeed, despite recent progress, the free movement of labor is not yet present throughout the European Community itself. This is clearly evident in the very difficult and protracted special arrangements remaining for workers from the new Eastern European member states. The fact, however, is that protectionism eventually is a self-defeating policy. In the case of labor protection, the more Europe is successful at preventing competitive labor from coming in, the more successful it will also be in motivating expensive capital to move out. Capital is increasingly mobile and will go where markets are most dynamic and where labor is relatively inexpensive. By erecting barriers in various ways (this could be for labor, goods, or services), domestic investment will remain weak and output growth will remain low."
Is the Glass Half-Full or Half-Empty: An Outsider's Assessment of Europe's Socio-Economic Capacities
Remarks by Takatoshi Kato
Deputy Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund
At the 36th St. Gallen Symposium: Inspiring Europe
University of St. Gallen, Switzerland
May 20, 2006
http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2006/052006.htm -
Yes, indeed... our vision of Singapore, is one of a country whose lowly unskilled workers are foreign, and all locals will be in holding of high calibre positions; CEOs, Political Scientists, Scientists & Medical Scientists, Surgeons, Doctors, All Manner of Engineers, Philosophers, University Lecturers/Professors, etc..
There will be no place for unskilled local workers..
Thta's right, we are cultivating a Nation of Top-notch Elites...run by the Elites of Elites...
Muuaahahahahahahaaaaaa....
-
- wrong posting - -
I doubt that the employers will be fair, as nothing is fair in this world.Originally posted by rane:Hey, such is the cruelty of the employment market. There is no doubt that things are getting worse for the employees as the employers are getting more and more harsh in the way they treat employees especially for those who are seeking employment.
Yes, I do understand companies are careful to get the right people to work for them, but do they need to treat candidates and job seekers like criminals? Let's face it, companies and employers - not all people are lucky to work for many years in the companies. So why don't you companies and employers be human enough to be understanding while you exercise your wisdom to identify who are the real job hoppers. Be fair to us who are not job hoppers who are looking for employment.
As employees, we are just poor souls helping the employers to build their dreams.
Why it's not fair, mostly due to many levels of supervisors, backstapping those hard-working staffs to prevent themselves from losing job.
That's what I see personally when I was in F&B line.
And sad to say, I've being back-stabbed before, and to make things worse, the supervisor knowing my mistake, don't want to correct me on the spot, than wait only after the mistake is being done, than find a chance to come in and lecture me.
Oh god, such is the cruetly of the audlt working society.
In the passed, those unemployed people lands themselves a job fast, now it's the other way round. Those having a job, and looking for jobs behind their employers' back are deem more valuable in the eyes of the employers..
So cruel, I've seen sacks of resumes throughout my 2 months work, and employed employees do have such advantages.
It's a bias working society which practised favouritism.
Sigh. -
The truth of the matter is - and that's easily attested to by the numerous threads going on around this place about the in influx of unskilled FT - what you see here is hardly the exclusive result of globalisation. If anything, the silly policies put in place by the fascists are every bit as culpabale (if not more so, which is more likely the case) as globalisation.Originally posted by lordofdarkness:Dude, I see your point. But don't you think that any change required to achieve something remotely close to what Switzerland or other more developed Western countries have achieved is going to require painful measures in the short- to medium-term? Which could indeed make life more difficult for those already in a tough situation. What would you do if you were in the situation of the government? Do you think the unskilled would be willing to suck up more pain for longer-term benefits? What would be the reaction from businesses set up in Singapore because of the abundance of overly cheap labour? I don't think I have the stomach to endure the (potential) onslaught of criticisms from both the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. But that's just me.
Just look around you - there aren't too many countries on the planet who depsite having 42.6% immigrants, expressed as a proportion of state population, are still going out with foolish policies to woo more foreigners, are there? It's not rocket science an average Joe will have little trouble convincing himself that, by the law of probability, there can't possibly be that many "talents" going around, is it? Contrast that with Switzerland's tough immigration policies (ie.minimum wage, stringent requirements on immigrants to acquire Swiss citizenship) which are obviously in place to protect the interests of its nationals. In spite of them having just 20% of its population being immigrants, the Swiss still boasts of a GDP per capita that's almost twice that of Singapore's. That should, at the very least, dispel the notion that having a high proportion of immigrants is an inevitable result of globalisation, not to mention economic development need not necessarily be bolstered by putting silly policies in place to woo foreigners who are hardly talented and in truth, merely doing jobs most locals are capable of doing.
As I'd already mentioned in an earlier post (and it's hardly a secret to begin with), why wouldn't any commercial entity gladly abet this regime in exploiting the source of cheap labour (both skilled and unskilled) available? Without legislation to protect the interests of unskilled locals, you can't fault investors for plunging for cheaper foreign sources of unskilled labour, can you? Afterall, it'd only be in their business interests to do so. When you further consider the fact there're few countries on the planet (especially in this region) which offer a wide pool of skilled labour at such low wages (just look around other first world countries and see how many of them actually pay their doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants and other skilled professionals the sort of wage you get in Singapore for the similar profession), it just makes Singapore that much more attractive to investors.
It's no secret the whole scheme makes this an economically viable proposition for foreign investors and the fascists, even if that comes at the expense of the locals' interests, is it? -
Agree with you. Sigh! Now they treat job seekers as criminals, interrogating them. I was played out a couple of times. We are just looking for a decent job with decent pay and why these people are so inhuman.Originally posted by the_fallen:I doubt that the employers will be fair, as nothing is fair in this world.
As employees, we are just poor souls helping the employers to build their dreams.
Why it's not fair, mostly due to many levels of supervisors, backstapping those hard-working staffs to prevent themselves from losing job.
That's what I see personally when I was in F&B line.
And sad to say, I've being back-stabbed before, and to make things worse, the supervisor knowing my mistake, don't want to correct me on the spot, than wait only after the mistake is being done, than find a chance to come in and lecture me.
Oh god, such is the cruetly of the audlt working society.
In the passed, those unemployed people lands themselves a job fast, now it's the other way round. Those having a job, and looking for jobs behind their employers' back are deem more valuable in the eyes of the employers..
So cruel, I've seen sacks of resumes throughout my 2 months work, and employed employees do have such advantages.
It's a bias working society which practised favouritism.
Sigh.
Hate to answer those crap questions, why did you leave and so on. It is a stupid question - for those who just started work yes they may not wanna stay long in a job. In general, for those who have few years of experience and above will want to stay long in the job. But bear in mind, not everyone is lucky to stay in the job for many years. Sometimes it is due to unforeseen circumstances that people leave. Or it could be the case that when they go for interview, the company is not honest to tell the candidates about the job. When the employee starts work, discovers that the job is not what really he or she is told during interview. Other times, people leave the job when the dirty politics affect their rice bowls. Politics is everywhere but if it gets to the point that it affects or break rice bowl, then the only thing one can do is leave. So all these points that I just stated are not any crime, but when job seekers go look for jobs they are treated like criminals.
Come on, HR personnel and employers, will you people put yourselves in the shoes of the job seekers and be human enough not to humiliate job seekers. Job seekers are already stressed!!! Remember, not everyone is lucky and may be one day you people will end up like the job seekers looking for jobs. Feng shui lun liu zhuan!!! OK, be kind!! -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
And how does that excuse the senseless policies pursued by the fascists of moving heaven and earth to woo foreigners (both talented and otherwise), despite its disproportionately large foreign population already present?
Protectionism like in Switzerland? Here's what the IMF said of Europe in Switzerland incidentally:
"Stubborn restrictions on the free movement of labor is another example. Indeed, despite recent progress, the free movement of labor is not yet present throughout the European Community itself. This is clearly evident in the very difficult and protracted special arrangements remaining for workers from the new Eastern European member states. The fact, however, is that [b]protectionism eventually is a self-defeating policy. In the case of labor protection, the more Europe is successful at preventing competitive labor from coming in, the more successful it will also be in motivating expensive capital to move out. Capital is increasingly mobile and will go where markets are most dynamic and where labor is relatively inexpensive. By erecting barriers in various ways (this could be for labor, goods, or services), domestic investment will remain weak and output growth will remain low."
Is the Glass Half-Full or Half-Empty: An Outsider's Assessment of Europe's Socio-Economic Capacities
Remarks by Takatoshi Kato
Deputy Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund
At the 36th St. Gallen Symposium: Inspiring Europe
University of St. Gallen, Switzerland
May 20, 2006
http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2006/052006.htm[/b]
For a start, there's absolutely no indication to suggest the policies of the fascists are working any better than the Swiss'. Despite having 42.6% immigrants' in its state population and still going out of its way to woo more with daft immigrant-friendly policies, this regime's GDP per capita stands at USD29917,200. The Swiss, on the other hand, despite adopting tough immigration policies to protect the interests of its nationals and having just 20% of its population being immigrants, still churns out a GDP per capita of USD 51770, 607.
As born out by those figures, there's little to suggest pursuing silly policies through the excessive courting of foreigners (especially unskilled ones) - at the expense of safeguarding interests of nationals - actually helps the economy more than if it were to adopt a more protectionist approach. -
Obviously you cannot understand the simple English of the IMF expert:Originally posted by walesa:And how does that excuse the senseless policies pursued by the fascists of moving heaven and earth to woo foreigners (both talented and otherwise), despite its disproportionately large foreign population already present?
For a start, there's absolutely no indication to suggest the policies of the fascists are working any better than the Swiss'. Despite having 42.6% immigrants' in its state population and still going out of its way to woo more with daft immigrant-friendly policies, this regime's GDP per capita stands at USD29917,200. The Swiss, on the other hand, despite adopting tough immigration policies to protect the interests of its nationals and having just 20% of its population being immigrants, still churns out a GDP per capita of USD 51770, 607.
As born out by those figures, there's little to suggest pursuing silly policies through the excessive courting of foreigners (especially unskilled ones) - at the expense of safeguarding interests of nationals - actually helps the economy more than if it were to adopt a more protectionist approach.
"..protectionism eventually is a self-defeating policy. In the case of labor protection, the more Europe is successful at preventing competitive labor from coming in, the more successful it will also be in motivating expensive capital to move out."
As the PM has said, he can stop businesses from employing foreigners. He can stop foreigners from competing for lower level jobs that Singaporeans can do at higher wages. BUT he cannot stop businesses from closing their factories and moving their businesses elsewhere. That is EXACTLY what the IMF is saying. It is self-defeating eventually. -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
OM, I can understand the logic behind your explanation and arguments with regards the issue of Labor Protectionism, and Foreign Labor in Singapore; YES, businesses needs to strive on with competitive labor supply, but this is only taking care of the businesses and investments here, what about the people's livelihood and their ability to cope with current costs of living based on the challenge of accepting similar jobs and similarly low wages??
Obviously you cannot understand the simple English of the IMF expert:
[b]"..protectionism eventually is a self-defeating policy. In the case of labor protection, the more Europe is successful at preventing competitive labor from coming in, the more successful it will also be in motivating expensive capital to move out."
As the PM has said, he can stop businesses from employing foreigners. He can stop foreigners from competing for lower level jobs that Singaporeans can do at higher wages. BUT he cannot stop businesses from closing their factories and moving their businesses elsewhere. That is EXACTLY what the IMF is saying. It is self-defeating eventually.[/b]
Because at the end of the day, locals who accepted low wages would doubtlessly have VERY LITTLE in their CPF to survive on in old age. No?
If our gov wants the people to adapte, they SHOULD make adaptation to compete in this capacity, ADAPTABLE. By asking this, it is not deemed a request for Welfare, but a plea to be FAIR.
I run a small medium business myself, and I purposefully turn away foreigners. Now I decide to move out of SG, and have also helped several employees who wishes to move along with me.
They are very happy, and they swore they will NEVER return... is this what our gov wants?
Because in the end, a country comprising of 70% to 80% of Foreigners (be they PR holders or New Citizens) can mean instant desertion in times of economic downfall or in the event of war... what's worse, our region's Earthquak Epicenter has been noted to be creeping closer - dare we imagine the consequence when Earthquakes becomes a reality here in Singapore?? Will foreigners then stay? Will the local ELITES stay even?? A good 90% of them will fly home.
It is impossible for Human to change the ways of another Human, only God or Nature can do that very effectively...
Selfishness and Greed, will only breed more of the same...
-
Well put.Originally posted by ShutterBug:Because at the end of the day, locals who accepted low wages would doubtlessly have VERY LITTLE in their CPF to survive on in old age. No?
If our gov wants the people to adapte, they SHOULD make adaptation to compete in this capacity, ADAPTABLE. By asking this, it is not deemed a request for Welfare, but a plea to be FAIR.
We DO want to compete, but how do we do so in such unfair circumstances?
NS--2 years, plus liabilities as a reservist that many employers are increasingly loathed to endure from their employees
Accomodation--takes decades to pay off, leaving very little for retirement
Education--NOT cheap at all
Retirement--Increasing transport, GST, etc. How much is enough?
Yes, having foreigners, talented or just plain cheap is unavoidable. Only the most obstinate ostrich would deny that, but the policy REALLY have to be fine-tuned. -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
What you obviously cannot understand is the demographics of the EU and Europe at large - and the thrash you espoused is hardly an adequate response to the protectionism practised in Switzerland to begin with.
Obviously you cannot understand the simple English of the IMF expert:
[b]"..protectionism eventually is a self-defeating policy. In the case of labor protection, the more Europe is successful at preventing competitive labor from coming in, the more successful it will also be in motivating expensive capital to move out."
As the PM has said, he can stop businesses from employing foreigners. He can stop foreigners from competing for lower level jobs that Singaporeans can do at higher wages. BUT he cannot stop businesses from closing their factories and moving their businesses elsewhere. That is EXACTLY what the IMF is saying. It is self-defeating eventually.[/b]
Switzerland was just one example I used to address lordofdarkness's initial post. They are not the only living proof bearing testament to the fact practising a limited brand of protectionism actually enhances their economic productivity. Just go over a list of those cities with a higher wage index than Singapore's and it wouldn't be hard to find at least a third of those countries would, despite having a smaller proportion of immigrants (especially unskilled ones) than Singapore, actually have more protectionism in place than what you find in this regime. And we're talking about nations with a higher GDP per capita (in fact, they'd just about beat this regime on most standards of economic productivity) than what this fascist regime churns out...
While I see you've adequately quoted your master's take that it'd be impossible to "stop businesses from closing their factories and moving their businesses elsewhere", I've yet to see the case being made for the need to be wooing foreigners - despite already having a larger proportion of immigrants than most nations on this planet - for economic development to be completely indispensable. Suffice to say, countries engaging in some form of protectionism - from Canada to the United States, the EU to Switzerland - or other (and doing so without going out of the way to resorting to woo foreigners to an extreme) with a better economic pedigree than this regime's are aplenty and on the basis of that, there's little to suggest you need a substantially large base of immigrants to thrive. So much for the fascist rhetoric then. -
All over the world, economists point out to the failure of labour protectionism:
"..Countries with more left-leaning governments tend to enact stricter labor regulations, which yield adverse efficiency results. The main reason behind most of the interventions, however, is a perception of reality: the fear of a "race to the bottom." In other words, preventing "social dumping" motivates intervention. Skeptics have long warned that wages and other working conditions will decline in a pure free market. This skepticism has roots in the Marxist notion of capitalism, which retains its appeal even though economic history has hardly been kind to the theory in practice.
In Western Europe, on average, wages are roughly 10 times higher today than they were a hundred years ago because our productivity today is that much higher. We produce, per person, 10 times more value, which is why we get more pay. If we had not increased productivity, no regulations or trade unions in the world could have created such tenfold wage increases. Moreover, if wages in a free market are set below productivity, a competitor will benefit from offering the employees a higher wage. Thus, "social dumping" is largely a myth. Those who argue that labor protections are essential for a higher quality of life should ponder this point, as well as the material misery of countries that embrace such policies.
Why else would the world's highest wages be found in the United States, where the labor market is relatively free and only some 10 percent of the labor force are members of trade unions?4 Why else would multi-national companies voluntarily pay workers in, for example, China 30 percent higher wages on average than old, state-owned, industries do? And why did the average wages rise by three times in foreign-owned companies during the past 10 years?5 The desire to make a profit in a free market benefits not only consumers, but also workers.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels pointed out that capitalism—in 1848—had created more wealth than had been experienced by all previous human generations combined,6 but they thought that an elite group of capitalists would eventually capture all the wealth and leave workers poor. They were proven totally wrong. The global explosion of living standards—for all people, not just the rich—since that time is breath-taking, and it has happened to the largest extent in countries that followed Marx's and Engels' recommendations the least."
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap2.cfm
The only way for poor Singaporeans to become richer is to increase productivity. No point competing with the Bangladeshi road sweeper because with a plentiful supply of cheap labour in this region (we are not in Europe), we cannot afford to price our labour above productivity. If a local sweeper can operate a machine that the Bangladeshi cannot and so able to do the job of 10 bangladeshi sweepers, then yes, he deserve to have a higher salary. Or he can leave his job and work in a wafer fab instead. The market value of a computer chip is much higher than a clean road, so he deserves a higher salary.
Labour protection will not work. The way forward is increasing productivity. -
Here's another:
"The Summer 1997 issue of the Journal of Economic Perspectives published two articles discussing labor rigidity in Europe. Horst Siebert emphasized that the concert of rigid labor institutions in Europe was clearly driving higher unemployment rates there, emphasizing the tightening of policies during 1960s and 1970s. While he observed differences among European states, he concluded by focusing on one common feature: “Job protection rules can be considered to be at the core of continental Europe’s policy toward the unemployment problem: protecting those who have a job is reducing the incentives to create new jobs.” A contrasting opinion was provided in Stephen Nickell’s econometric overview, which reported, “there is no evidence in our data that high labor standards overall have any impact on unemployment whatever.
To summarize, the old caricature that “America is richer but less humane to its lower classes” can be squared with some data up to 1980, when per capita GDP was higher in America but unemployment was too. However, post-1980 it is clear that America has continued its productivity leadership (with higher income distribution generally), while European countries suffer high unemployment rates. The “humane” policies of labor protectionism appear to have backfired, creating a less humane social arrangement.
Nickell (1997) emphasized the diversity of European unemployment rate experiences (“from 1.8 percent in Switzerland to 19.7 percent in Spain”) and policies. Nickell’s approach is a good one—he assembles macroeconomic performance data for 20 OECD countries, measured over two periods (1983–88 and 1989–94), and assembles an impressive array of labor policy measures, which he uses as explanatory variables. Nickell says at one point that “roughly speaking, labor market institutions were the same” in the 1960s and 1990s. He concludes that unemployment rates are dependent on some policies (e.g., generous unemployment benefits, high taxes, high minimum wages, and weak universal education), but not the conventional culprit: labor market rigidity.
Nickell’s assessment has changed in less than ten years, however, as expressed in his recent paper with Luca Nonziata and Wolfgang Ochel (2005). The authors find that “changes in labor market institutions” and rigidities since 1960 have indeed occurred, and these are the root causes, with employment protection accounting for 19 percent of the rise of unemployment. I think it is fair to say that the consensus view of economists today has evolved along the same lines.
A deep new data set published by the World Bank in 2003 and published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics (Djankov et al. 2004) makes a definitive case that the “Regulation of Labor” (the title of the paper) can be harmful to macroeconomic outcomes...."
(http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=4923) -
As for Switzerland, here are the facts. Switzerland has one of most liberal immigration policies until recently, which has contributed to its economic growth:
"Switzerland has one of the highest immigration rates on the continent. According to the 2000 census, 22.4 percent of the total population of 7.4 million is foreign born, and 20.5 percent, or nearly 1.5 million, are foreigners, defined as persons with a foreign nationality. While Switzerland used to be a destination for employment-seeking French, Germans, and Italians, in the latter half of the 20th century it became home to Eastern European dissidents, Yugoslavian refugees, and asylum seekers from the Middle East, Asia, and Africa.....
The proportion of foreigners in the population has steadily risen since 1950, when 5.9 percent of the people did not have Swiss nationality. By 1970, that number was 15.9 percent, and by the end of 2002, this figure stood at 21.6 percent. Within Europe, only Luxembourg, at 37 percent, has a higher percentage of foreigners....."
Incidentally, both Switzerland and Luxembourg count as among the wealthiest nations in the world.
"Once home to thousands of guest workers from nearby countries in Europe, Switzerland has seen its foreigner population increase and become more diverse in the last 15 years. But that increase, along with rising number of asylum applications through the 1990s, has heightened the country's interest in migration control and migration's costs.
So far, Switzerland has demonstrated its allegiance to Europe by making it easier for EU nationals to live and work in Switzerland while making it difficult for all but the most skilled third-country nationals to enter.
Ideally, new immigration policy would allow the government to respond to the country's long-term economic and demographic needs for high- and low-skilled workers.
But given the political sensitivity of immigration, the influence of the Swiss People's Party, and the power of the Swiss people to vote on migration policy via referendums, Switzerland looks likely to maintain its emphasis on control and costs. Indeed, current parliamentary discussions about revising the Aliens Law from 1931 and the Asylum Law from 1999 will likely lead to new laws focused on these criteria rather than on demographics or economics."
( http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?id=284)
So far, the Swiss have benefited from a stream of cheap labour from Europe, particularly with the expansion of the EU to former soviet bloc nations. The labour protectionism they adopt are directed against non-EU nationals but there is no restriction on cheap Polish workers, for example.
The politics of the nation may change that and if they should go with rigid employment policies advocated by some in this forum, the Swiss may lose their prosperity as well. -
Like i always tell people...
Slavery has not been eradicated...but still alive and well in another form -
As a matter of fact and has been well-documented, the Swiss aren't the only ones out to woo the skilled foreign workers. In fact, that's pretty commonplace in many parts of the developed world. In truth, such skilled professionals are the biggest beneficiaries of globalization and what it entails.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:As for Switzerland, here are the facts. Switzerland has one of most liberal immigration policies until recently, which has contributed to its economic growth:
"[b]Switzerland has one of the highest immigration rates on the continent. According to the 2000 census, 22.4 percent of the total population of 7.4 million is foreign born, and 20.5 percent, or nearly 1.5 million, are foreigners, defined as persons with a foreign nationality. While Switzerland used to be a destination for employment-seeking French, Germans, and Italians, in the latter half of the 20th century it became home to Eastern European dissidents, Yugoslavian refugees, and asylum seekers from the Middle East, Asia, and Africa.....
The proportion of foreigners in the population has steadily risen since 1950, when 5.9 percent of the people did not have Swiss nationality. By 1970, that number was 15.9 percent, and by the end of 2002, this figure stood at 21.6 percent. Within Europe, only Luxembourg, at 37 percent, has a higher percentage of foreigners....."
Incidentally, both Switzerland and Luxembourg count as among the wealthiest nations in the world.
[/b][/quote]
Now, that's really news to me. I never knew a 12-year residency being a pre-requisite to being eligible for consideration for the Swiss citizenship is actually liberal (compare that with what this regime offers). Neither did I know there are actually that many countries out there that actually have more stringent immigration requirements in that respect.
While there's no national pre-determined minimum wage in Switzerland, there's absolutely nothing to suggest minimum wage rates set in collective agreements for a particular sector/industry or interest group reflective of one's particular labour interests has actually impeded economic growth. If anything, the flexibility adopted in the Swiss minimum wage model should actually - and is widely consulted by quite a number of Western nations adopting minimum wage policies through legislation - serve as an example of how a flexible minimum wage system actually sustains economic growth without compromising the interests of those responsible for its robust economy.
You must be living on Utopia if you believed the Swiss have actually got some of the most generous immigration laws on the planet. Contrast the Swiss labour model in place and its economic output with that of this regime's and you hardly need to be a rocket scientist to figure the fascists' ailing attempt to woo foreigners (both skilled and otherwise), on top of having 42.6% of its population as immigrants, has not quite yielded the results the policy was meant to produce. That's before you consider the fact the Swiss' immigrant population stands at half that of the fascists'.
Through it all (whether the policies of Luxembourg or Switzerland form the basis of this regime's policies), there's absolutely no indication to suggest the need - and more importantly, the definite translation of economic growth and the cost-effectiveness of the social and economic implications of importing such foreigners - for an explicit policy to be wooing more foreigners when those present already form 42.6% of the population. As UNESCO's figures would reveal, there's hardly anything that suggests this regime's immigration policies - with an immigration population at 2.9% in 1970 to 10.3% in 1990 and now, in excess of 40% - have actually yielded the sort of economic growth the Swiss have enjoyed.
If anything, taking into account the period (ie.between 1990 and 2006) of this regime's greatest growth in immigrant population, the Swiss' economic productivity - despite its marginal immigrant population growth compared with this regime's - has actually outperformed this regime's by a mile.
[quote]Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
"Once home to thousands of guest workers from nearby countries in Europe, Switzerland has seen its foreigner population increase and become more diverse in the last 15 years. But that increase, along with rising number of asylum applications through the 1990s, has heightened the country's interest in migration control and migration's costs.
So far, Switzerland has demonstrated its allegiance to Europe by making it easier for EU nationals to live and work in Switzerland while making it difficult for all but the most skilled third-country nationals to enter.
Ideally, new immigration policy would allow the government to respond to the country's long-term economic and demographic needs for high- and low-skilled workers.
But given the political sensitivity of immigration, the influence of the Swiss People's Party, and the power of the Swiss people to vote on migration policy via referendums, Switzerland looks likely to maintain its emphasis on control and costs. Indeed, current parliamentary discussions about revising the Aliens Law from 1931 and the Asylum Law from 1999 will likely lead to new laws focused on these criteria rather than on demographics or economics."
( http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?id=284)
So far, the Swiss have benefited from a stream of cheap labour from Europe, particularly with the expansion of the EU to former soviet bloc nations. The labour protectionism they adopt are directed against non-EU nationals but there is no restriction on cheap Polish workers, for example.
The politics of the nation may change that and if they should go with rigid employment policies advocated by some in this forum, the Swiss may lose their prosperity as well.
I suppose, in the immediate euphoria of absorbing your fascists' brand of hiring unskilled foreigners as a source of cheap labour, it's easy to overlook the fact that the Swiss (despite curtailing the number of foreign unskilled workers on its shores) protectionist labour laws are not only in place to protect its nationals, but also those unskilled immigrants who are legitimately employed on its shores. And we're talking about a country whose economic growth is in no way impeded through it not actually engaging in exploiting unskilled immigrants as a form of cheap labour. As a matter of fact, the hiring of unskilled foreigners is a measure meant to address its manpower shortages more than it being an avenue for cheap labour.
That said, there's just nothing to suggest there's actually a need to be excessively wooing unskilled foreign labour in the manner this regime has embarked on. More pertinently, there's nothing to suggest engaging in some form of protectionism in favour of locals for such positions actually jeopardise economic interests. If anything, through the limited hire of unskilled foreigners to safeguard the interests of its nationals, the Swiss have actually optimised an economic model whose productivity has actually been enhanced.
Through its brand of limited protectionism, the Swiss have not only managed to sustain a globalization-embracing economy that's the envy of the world (it's easy to forget some gnome heading this regime once aspired this regime to reach the heights of the "Swiss standard of living", although we're probably closer to Malaysia's standard a decade on...
), but have managed to attain and structure a model whose foundations are self-sufficient and effective without the need to woo an excessive number of unskilled foreigners - which is the main issue addressed by the threadstarter anyway since "common jobs" hardly require a substantial amount of skilled labour - at the expense of compromising its nationals' interests. -
The only way for poor Singaporeans to become richer is to increase productivity. No point competing with the Bangladeshi road sweeper because with a plentiful supply of cheap labour in this region (we are not in Europe), we cannot afford to price our labour above productivity. [/b]
ah yes, if we prevent foreigners from being employed as road sweepers, and demanded a minimum wage for local sweepers, all cleaning companies would close up shop and move to JB because it is cheaper to hire sweepers there. such would be the same for all other unskilled jobs, they would up and move out of singapore, and we would all be left buried deep in thrash, no one to clean our hawker centres, empty the rubbish bins or sweep the roads. oh, what shall we do?
indeed, your logic is astounding. -
Originally posted by nismoS132:ah yes, if we prevent foreigners from being employed as road sweepers, and demanded a minimum wage for local sweepers, all cleaning companies would close up shop and move to JB because it is cheaper to hire sweepers there. such would be the same for all other unskilled jobs, they would up and move out of singapore, and we would all be left buried deep in thrash, no one to clean our hawker centres, empty the rubbish bins or sweep the roads. oh, what shall we do?
indeed, your logic is astounding. -
Your reasoning skills are limited indeed. If we block cheap foreign sweepers, cleaners, waiters, bus drivers, nurses, hospital attendants, construction workers...the list goes on, it means:Originally posted by nismoS132:ah yes, if we prevent foreigners from being employed as road sweepers, and demanded a minimum wage for local sweepers, all cleaning companies would close up shop and move to JB because it is cheaper to hire sweepers there. such would be the same for all other unskilled jobs, they would up and move out of singapore, and we would all be left buried deep in thrash, no one to clean our hawker centres, empty the rubbish bins or sweep the roads. oh, what shall we do?
indeed, your logic is astounding.
you have to pay more for local cleaners in your office, you have to pay more conservancy charges to your town council, you will have to pay more for your restaurant meals, you have to pay more for your bus fares, you have to pay more for your hospital charges, you have to pay more for your HDB flat...the list goes on...
The consequence: businesses find Singapore too expensive and move to cheaper economies. -
A quarter of Switzerland's citizens are foreigners...we still have some way to go..
As IMF and the World bank has pointed out time and again, freedom of labour correlates with economic progress whilst rigid employment policies like those in France eventually leads to economic stagnation and greater unemployment -
In your warped mind, maybe.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:A quarter of Switzerland's citizens are foreigners...we still have some way to go..
As IMF and the World bank has pointed out time and again, freedom of labour correlates with economic progress whilst rigid employment policies like those in France eventually leads to economic stagnation and greater unemployment
There's nothing to suggest the economic progress attained by this regime, with twice the immigrant population of Switzerland's, has come anywhere close to usurping the Swiss' for a start... -
Despite losers like you around, Singapore has done remarkably well indeedOriginally posted by walesa:In your warped mind, maybe.
There's nothing to suggest the economic progress attained by this regime, with twice the immigrant population of Switzerland's, has come anywhere close to usurping the Swiss' for a start... -
I'm amazed globalization has thrived despite the existence of sycophantic morons like you.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Despite losers like you around, Singapore has done remarkably well indeed
Continue espousing senseless drivel this regime would be proud of - afterall, what else can you reasonably do besides being an able crony/lackey? -
If a company offers you a salary of S$1200 (before CPF deduction), will u accept? Most Singaporeans will reject for the following reasons:-
1) take home less than 1 k;
2) company too far from home;
3) cleaners get paid higher
Malaysians, especially those staying in JB will GRAB the job! S$1200 is agak agak RM2000+ wor.... same job in Malaysia pays only RM900, the most.
For the company, the main concern is making money. Would you as a Singaporean give 100% if your pay is low? The foreigners will work their hearts out ah.
That's the difference.... -
I don't really mind if these people are really talents. However, what I discovered is that there are more "Foreign Terrors" than Foreign Talents!!!!Originally posted by oxford mushroom:A quarter of Switzerland's citizens are foreigners...we still have some way to go..
As IMF and the World bank has pointed out time and again, freedom of labour correlates with economic progress whilst rigid employment policies like those in France eventually leads to economic stagnation and greater unemployment
Observing the postings by oxford mushroom sounded like one of these Foreign Terrors.