All out to defame our governement
-
Not necessary. If you put in a minimum wage that is too high, the workers will be happy and you will cut the number of low-skilled foreign workers; but employers will move their factories to cheaper economies in Indonesia, Thailand and China. If you set the minimum wage low, that employers will use that as the maximum wage.Originally posted by Jontst78:Part of the problem is the lack of the safety net, or a reliable one. Like a minimum wage law. At least it encourages employment.
Artificially setting a wage distorts the market. Let the market decide the right wage. -
Based on the above in relativity to China and India, please educate me on how Japan, South Korea and even EU countries can keep their income disparity lower than us?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:With globalisation we will see a greater income gap. The market will always go for the lowest priced good or services of similar quality. That brings down the inflation rate too.
If the skills of our workers lag behind those of cheaper economies, their salaries will drop. At the moment, our workers are still paid much higher salaries than their counterparts in China/India but our productivity is not rising fast enough to justify the salary differential. In contrast, the skills of our top earners, the professionals and high level managers are in demand because their salaries, though high, are not as high as their competitors in the MNCs and foreign firms. Therefore the salaries of our top earners will only rise. If a local investment banker does better than one in London but draws half the pay, he can expect his salary to rise even further even though he already earns 100k a month. -
I don't know how a minimum wage law will help. As Miss Fu has said before in the talk in RP, what actually defines luxurious goods?Originally posted by Jontst78:Part of the problem is the lack of the safety net, or a reliable one. Like a minimum wage law. At least it encourages employment.
The same thing will apply here. How minimum is minimum before it's considered that we will be able to survive with that amount?
A nice suggestion, but I don't want an abuse. I rather that we are able to take up part time jobs to fill the gap, than to have a minimum wage law that declares something unreasonable and making people more unhappy. -
And that justifies paying and employee 400-600 a mth? Do you know what the lowest 10% or 20% of households are taking home? Only when a person has enough to get by, then and only then we can talk about living within means.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Not necessary. If you put in a minimum wage that is too high, the workers will be happy and you will cut the number of low-skilled foreign workers; but employers will move their factories to cheaper economies in Indonesia, Thailand and China. If you set the minimum wage low, that employers will use that as the maximum wage.
Artificially setting a wage distorts the market. Let the market decide the right wage.
Having a minimum wage law will ensure whoever is willing to work or seek employment, lives above the poverty line. Over and above the the minimum wage where the market will still decide. Yes, its true that operating costs will go up. But using FTs like steriods to pump up the GDP will cause the economy to implode or civil unrest, whichever will come first. -
We would have been able to absorb lower wages better if our public housing is not so expensive.Originally posted by Rock^Star:Based on the above in relativity to China and India, please educate me on how Japan, South Korea and even EU countries can keep their income disparity lower than us? -
Why wouldn't there be public interest in income disparity? It concerns all Singaporeans, right?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Because ST does not think there is public interest? You direct the question to ST instead of making baseless allegations. You are trying to hint at a government cover-up. Prove it. NPNT!
Once again, intelligent replies are appreciated. -
In Depth studies need to be done, but I am speculating like somewhere in neighbourhood of $5-6 an hour.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:I don't know how a minimum wage law will help. As Miss Fu has said before in the talk in RP, what actually defines luxurious goods?
The same thing will apply here. How minimum is minimum before it's considered that we will be able to survive with that amount?
A nice suggestion, but I don't want an abuse. I rather that we are able to take up part time jobs to fill the gap, than to have a minimum wage law that declares something unreasonable and making people more unhappy. -
It not only distorts a market, but will ultimately make people more angry.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Not necessary. If you put in a minimum wage that is too high, the workers will be happy and you will cut the number of low-skilled foreign workers; but employers will move their factories to cheaper economies in Indonesia, Thailand and China. If you set the minimum wage low, that employers will use that as the maximum wage.
Artificially setting a wage distorts the market. Let the market decide the right wage.
Enough is never enough. We have to keep this in mind.
But by letting market decides the wage, we will also find ourselves getting discounted. More knowledge, more responsibility, same wage.
We need more than a balance to balance this. Guess it's an inevitable effect of globalization. -
If the government wants to try, or if some company wants to be a guinea pig.Originally posted by Jontst78:In Depth studies need to be done, but I am speculating like somewhere in neighbourhood of $5-6 an hour.
-
I think Singaporeans have the tools to be more socially mobile but many are not prepared to put up with the sacrifices required. As reported in the ST recently, there are better paid jobs in the shipbuilding industries and wafer fabs, but people shun them and prepare to work in white collar jobs for lower pay.Originally posted by Rock^Star:Of course the market is fair and pays accordingly. My point is not everyone can hop onto this "social mobility" as you call it, despite our education system.
Anyway, how does the GST increase help the poor? Has the govt outlined any plans yet? Any idea on your end?
Education is the best tool for upward mobility and it is available to all in Singapore. Of course not every has the same talents and not everyone will do as well, but they will be worse off without it. The pay gap will continue to increase. The effect of globalisation means there is greater mobility of both capital and labour. Talented workers from China are now able to compete directly with our own. If we do not upgrade the skills of our workers, they may even lose their low-paying jobs.
The GST increase will go mainly into funding the workfare programme, from what I have ben hearing through the press. Singapore will not just give money to the poor. The generous unemployment benefits in Europe have failed to encourage hard work and is self-defeating. Instead, we reward low paid workers for staying in employment but topping up their income. In a sense, that is distorting the market too. We are giving our low-paid workers an advantage over foreign workers. We do not force employers to pay our workers more or make them only hire Singaporeans. They have to compete with cheap foreign workers to get the job, but since their pay would be low in this competition, the government (and not the employer) tops up their pay. The funding will come from GST increase. -
That programme, if properly and fully implemented, is a step in the right direction.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:The GST increase will go mainly into funding the workfare programme, from what I have ben hearing through the press. Singapore will not just give money to the poor. The generous unemployment benefits in Europe have failed to encourage hard work and is self-defeating. Instead, we reward low paid workers for staying in employment but topping up their income. In a sense, that is distorting the market too. We are giving our low-paid workers an advantage over foreign workers. We do not force employers to pay our workers more or make them only hire Singaporeans. They have to compete with cheap foreign workers to get the job, but since their pay would be low in this competition, the government (and not the employer) tops up their pay. The funding will come from GST increase. -
Because that is already well publicized. Just like there is no point telling Singaporeans that we are a nanny state. LKY has admitted proudly that he was the engineer of the nanny state in Singapore. So what's new?Originally posted by Rock^Star:Why wouldn't there be public interest in income disparity? It concerns all Singaporeans, right?
Once again, intelligent replies are appreciated.
Dog bites man is not news. Man bites dog is news. -
Any exact idea how the GST funds the workfare programme and what it does?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:I think Singaporeans have the tools to be more socially mobile but many are not prepared to put up with the sacrifices required. As reported in the ST recently, there are better paid jobs in the shipbuilding industries and wafer fabs, but people shun them and prepare to work in white collar jobs for lower pay.
Education is the best tool for upward mobility and it is available to all in Singapore. Of course not every has the same talents and not everyone will do as well, but they will be worse off without it. The pay gap will continue to increase. The effect of globalisation means there is greater mobility of both capital and labour. Talented workers from China are now able to compete directly with our own. If we do not upgrade the skills of our workers, they may even lose their low-paying jobs.
The GST increase will go mainly into funding the workfare programme, from what I have ben hearing through the press. Singapore will not just give money to the poor. The generous unemployment benefits in Europe have failed to encourage hard work and is self-defeating. Instead, we reward low paid workers for staying in employment but topping up their income. In a sense, that is distorting the market too. We are giving our low-paid workers an advantage over foreign workers. We do not force employers to pay our workers more or make them only hire Singaporeans. They have to compete with cheap foreign workers to get the job, but since their pay would be low in this competition, the government (and not the employer) tops up their pay. The funding will come from GST increase.
Pls reply me here. http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=259617 Thanks. -
Look, if I employ a worker $600 a month to make plastic moulds in Singapore, I can just about keep the factory going and earn just about enough profits to make it worth my while. If you force me to pay the worker $800 a month, I will have to close my factory and bring it to China, where I can pay my staff $300 a month.Originally posted by Jontst78:And that justifies paying and employee 400-600 a mth? Do you know what the lowest 10% or 20% of households are taking home? Only when a person has enough to get by, then and only then we can talk about living within means.
Having a minimum wage law will ensure whoever is willing to work or seek employment, lives above the poverty line. Over and above the the minimum wage where the market will still decide. Yes, its true that operating costs will go up. But using FTs like steriods to pump up the GDP will cause the economy to implode or civil unrest, whichever will come first.
Who loses more? The Singaporean worker or the Chinese worker? Which is worse? To earn $600 a month or be unemployed? -
Question 1) So do you concur that a nanny state, restricting outflow of info through the media is detrimental?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Because that is already well publicized. Just like there is no point telling Singaporeans that we are a nanny state. LKY has admitted proudly that he was the engineer of the nanny state in Singapore. So what's new?
Dog bites man is not news. Man bites dog is news.
Why were reports of Shin Corp so limited and so different from Thai papers and AFP? Is that justifiable towards Singaporeans' tax money? We are not saying that a loss is inexcusable but why the limited coverage?
Does it help Temasek to progress?
Question 2) If SPH and Mediacorp have withheld the news on income disparity by World Bank and CIA, how is that "already well publicised"? -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:I think Singaporeans have the tools to be more socially mobile.
Don't mean to split hairs with you, but the above 2 assumptions are incorrect. You seem to forget the poorest of the poor, not really a fault of yours, but a common trait among middle income earners and above. Why? Because the govt deserve credit for scattering them apart, to prevent slums, but thats just on the surface. Not highly visible as they are scattered.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Education is the best tool for upward mobility and it is available to all in Singapore. -
The topic on hand should not be wages.
We are now touching upon transparency. Government reveals certain figures that looks acceptable, but looking at the real picture:
Rosy picture painted by government:
http://www.mom.gov.sg/publish/momportal/en/communities/others/mrsd/statistics/Earnings_and_Wages.html
What's really happening:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Singapore#Growth_in_household_income_by_decile
Do the government take great pride in the continual hoodwinking of those ignorant citizens? -
It's due to speculation, mainly by Singaporeans incidentally. The ST recently reported about even undergrads who pool their resources to speculate in property. We have 35 year-olds who borrow 1.5 million from the banks and own three properties. This is not sustainable and I expect the property bubble to burst. But if prices drop, Singaporeans will also complain and blame the government because their main asset, their properties, have tumbled in value.Originally posted by sourketchup:We would have been able to absorb lower wages better if our public housing is not so expensive.
The government has a tough time trying to keep prices low enough for people like me who want to buy and property owners who want the prices to stay high.
The private property market has an impact on publich housing as well because they compete for the same pool of buyers. Now if the government no longer allows HDB flats to be sold freely in the open market , say set a price cap on the resale value of HDB flats, the cost of public housing will drop.
But will Singaporeans be happy? With the majority of Singaporeans owning a HDB flat, you will have a revolt. -
What are you saying?Originally posted by Jontst78:Don't mean to split hairs with you, but the above 2 assumptions are incorrect. You seem to forget the poorest of the poor, not really a fault of yours, but a common trait among middle income earners and above. Why? Because the govt deserve credit for scattering them apart, to prevent slums, but thats just on the surface. Not highly visible as they are scattered.
-
But what if you have a china worker here also earning $300 a month? Would the Singaporean be unemployed too? We can have many senarios, but the truth is that production and manufacturing factories are moving out and cheaper labours are coming in.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Look, if I employ a worker $600 a month to make plastic moulds in Singapore, I can just about keep the factory going and earn just about enough profits to make it worth my while. If you force me to pay the worker $800 a month, I will have to close my factory and bring it to China, where I can pay my staff $300 a month.
Who loses more? The Singaporean worker or the Chinese worker? Which is worse? To earn $600 a month or be unemployed? -
I think the HDB flats being sold by HDB, not the resale flats PLUS those private apartments being sold in the CDB and Marina Bay are the ones setting the trend.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:The private property market has an impact on publich housing as well because they compete for the same pool of buyers. Now if the government no longer allows HDB flats to be sold freely in the open market , say set a price cap on the resale value of HDB flats, the cost of public housing will drop.
But will Singaporeans be happy? With the majority of Singaporeans owning a HDB flat, you will have a revolt.
The private ones pull up the market, while the HDB flats prop up the rest. It doesn't matter if the prices of the private apartments shoot up to stratospheric levels, they are catering to the foreign talents (the real ones, anyway) and the ultra-rich of Singapore.
What really matters is that even the "low-end" flats sold by HDB are expensive and take years to pay and wipe out the CPF of our lower-income workers.
And you are absolutely right on one point. If the government let the prices of the low end flats drop now, there will be an economic catastrophe as so many people have already paid or have paid for most of their flats. They will see their money go up in paperless smoke. -
This move by the govt is the right one: not setting a cap on HDB prices.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:It's due to speculation, mainly by Singaporeans incidentally. The ST recently reported about even undergrads who pool their resources to speculate in property. We have 35 year-olds who borrow 1.5 million from the banks and own three properties. This is not sustainable and I expect the property bubble to burst. But if prices drop, Singaporeans will also complain and blame the government because their main asset, their properties, have tumbled in value.
The government has a tough time trying to keep prices low enough for people like me who want to buy and property owners who want the prices to stay high.
The private property market has an impact on publich housing as well because they compete for the same pool of buyers. Now if the government no longer allows HDB flats to be sold freely in the open market , say set a price cap on the resale value of HDB flats, the cost of public housing will drop.
But will Singaporeans be happy? With the majority of Singaporeans owning a HDB flat, you will have a revolt.
But then again, what caused prices to spiral till today's astronomical level? Market forces? Partially yes. But what catalysed these market forces? -
I believe the implemented workfar is good cause it will encourage people to work better than doing nothing cause it will create social problem for people
not working. -
Japanese and Korean workers are on average, better educated and more productive. One must not forget that these countries are also more expensive...there is a general correlation between cost of living and salaries.Originally posted by Rock^Star:Based on the above in relativity to China and India, please educate me on how Japan, South Korea and even EU countries can keep their income disparity lower than us?
Think of Sweden, it has a very narrow wage gap. They have high taxes and a generous welfare scheme. But the richest man in the world, the Ikea boss, is from Sweden. Many of the high net-worth individuals escape the taxes by financial arrangements that on paper, shows them as earning very little:
" In total, these two groups suffered tax bills of a mere €19m in 2004 on their combined profits of €553m. Clearly, the Kamprad family pays the same meticulous attention to tax avoidance as IKEA does to low prices in its stores."
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=6919139
It is the richest people that can hire the top lawyers and accountants to avoid taxes legally through every loophole possible. There was even recent news about a member of the House of Lords in UK who is non-resident in Britain...a tax exile.
You can keep the salary gap small by protectionism against the forces of globalisation. But Singapore is a small economy. We have come so far through globalisation. Protectionism will be work for us. -
There is a link between the private property market and the HDB re-sale market. With private property prices skyrocketing, the FTs cannot afford to rent them as well. (There was a recent ST report about an Indian engineer whose condo rental has shot up to $1,800 a month....many properties cost even more). Many have turned to HDB flat rentals or purchase instead....thereby pushing up the prices in HDB flats tooOriginally posted by sourketchup:I think the HDB flats being sold by HDB, not the resale flats PLUS those private apartments being sold in the CDB and Marina Bay are the ones setting the trend.
The private ones pull up the market, while the HDB flats prop up the rest. It doesn't matter if the prices of the private apartments shoot up to stratospheric levels, they are catering to the foreign talents (the real ones, anyway) and the ultra-rich of Singapore.
What really matters is that even the "low-end" flats sold by HDB are expensive and take years to pay and wipe out the CPF of our lower-income workers.
And you are absolutely right on one point. If the government let the prices of the low end flats drop now, there will be an economic catastrophe as so many people have already paid or have paid for most of their flats. They will see their money go up in paperless smoke.