The winners win faster, the losers benfits slower.
-
i have an observation, but i am not sure they are factual, or i could not explain clearly in factual ways yet. Pls enlighten, or rebut if my writing i not right.
Winners in singapore gets monetary benefits faster than the losers.
[observation_1]
when economy became more optimistic in yr2006, but it's benefits has not yet trickled down to the bottom, the winners already know the economy forecast better, and GST was increased, corporate tax decreased, and the GST amount is realized immediately on 1July2007. Also, the salaries of top-mgmt increased.
[observation_2]
Property and rental prices were increasing in yr2006, many losers like small businesses were forced to move or closed, but the winners already benefited from the it, e.g. properties sold, or higher rental rates collected.
[observation_3]
By the time property prices come to too high, the government comes in to moderate, but the winners already benefited and the losers already burnt, while the survivors still managing.
[observation_4]
When economy becomes good, in yr2007, but not all benefits have trickled down to the bottom. In yr2007-07, ST reports of cleaners taking basic pay $500 per month is reported, showing their lower salary. Maybe or maybe not, help will come to provide minimum wage soon, but the losers will benefit later or slower.
[Summary/Deduction]
There is usually a delay or a time-gap, e.g. when economy is going up, with everyone doing nothing. When not doing anything, the winners reaps the benefits, and the losers get burnt. When something needs to be done, the losers benefits a bit, but later, and the winners already benefited.
[Conclustion]
This is still a top-down approach in reaping benefits, when economy is good. -
if not train so hard for muscles for wad? ... I mean financial muscles...
it's a game... those who knows how to play the game are winners... in this world... winners are rewarded in monetary terms... -
Its a sad but true fact of life...... someone will gain more than others. Just hope you are the one on the gaining side.
-
So is it not realistic to advocate for the bottom-up approach ?
The winners will still win as much, the losers will still meet failures. But at least, the survivors get the smaller benefts as timely as the winners ?
For e.g., i know the economy may become better, so when the top mgmt salaries increases, but why cannot GST not increased ? Becos the survivors may not get the benefits as fast as the winners, so an increase in GST is a cost-incurrence to the survivors. And what about the cleaners, are they survivors still ?
Just an example for thoughts. -
if u wanna win... u must believe tat this world is unfair... if not, everyone else wins and nobody would wanna do work... we need to hv poor pple who are willing to struggle to drive the economy...
me is the poor pple lo.... but me dun believe i'll b poor my whole life... -
Thanks. That's a good line, really.Originally posted by sunny6110:if u wanna win... u must believe tat this world is unfair... if not, everyone else wins and nobody would wanna do work... we need to hv poor pple who are willing to struggle to drive the economy...
me is the poor pple lo.... but me dun believe i'll b poor my whole life...
So, it is a for-oneself meritocracy society, not the whole survivors benefits, or the whole party benefits, but just an individual will benefit. Not comrades, but self-driven.
On the contrary, what is the meaning of asking 50-70s yrs old struggle to drive the economy, when life is fading away. And what is the meaning of asking a 50-70yrs old poor person self-drive himself/herself to success, if not, just to drive the economy ? -
Blessed are the losers... for they determine the winners.
-
well.. tt's a sad fact... if a 50 yr old still nid to struggle... tat means he hasn't found the way to win despite living on earth for 50 yrs oreadi... it is only fair tat he spend the rest of his life searching...Originally posted by lotiman:Thanks. That's a good line, really.
So, it is a for-oneself meritocracy society, not the whole survivors benefits, or the whole party benefits, but just an individual will benefit. Not comrades, but self-driven.
On the contrary, what is the meaning of asking 50-70s yrs old struggle to drive the economy, when life is fading away. And what is the meaning of asking a 50-70yrs old poor person self-drive himself/herself to success, if not, just to drive the economy ?
in sg... the population for the aged is getting larger... if too many aged laze around on the street, the city would look lifeless... if they still can contribute, y not? -
The meaning of 'Meritocracy', is where you are judge by how well you do on your own..... who your father, mother is.... on count.Originally posted by lotiman:Thanks. That's a good line, really.
So, it is a for-oneself meritocracy society, not the whole survivors benefits, or the whole party benefits, but just an individual will benefit. Not comrades, but self-driven.
On the contrary, what is the meaning of asking 50-70s yrs old struggle to drive the economy, when life is fading away. And what is the meaning of asking a 50-70yrs old poor person self-drive himself/herself to success, if not, just to drive the economy ?
And since non of us is 'Born equal'...... of course there will always be some who benefit more while other less......
Again, like it or not..... it is a fact of life.
PS.... if you ever find a Society that will take care of the less well off 'FULLY' - give money, housing, medical... etc - please tell me..... I will die de buy a air-ticket there asap.....
-
Next time, there will be a term called Elitocracy.
No points for guessing what it means.
-
I think if all the wealth in this world is divided and distributed equally to the 6 billion or so of people of this planet, it will only be a matter of time, that things will return to the situation as they are now. Some people will accumulate wealth more than others, and many will lose all their wealth in no time.
The winners will win, the losers will lose. The prudent will be in the middle. -
If there is sufficient technology to distribute the world's resources in such an egalitarian manner, it should be possible to cognitively engineer away such human traits as greed, that are the products of a darker evolutionary past.Originally posted by mancha:I think if all the wealth in this world is divided and distributed equally to the 6 billion or so of people of this planet, it will only be a matter of time, that things will return to the situation as they are now. Some people will accumulate wealth more than others, and many will lose all their wealth in no time.
The winners will win, the losers will lose. The prudent will be in the middle.
The only "progress" one can hope to achieve is that of the greatest happiness for the most people. With that in mind, the taking away of the trait of greed will benefit the ENTIRE humankind by making sure that comparisons between such trivial terms as "winners" and "losers" are rendered moot. -
only hope of "progress" - to see human trait of greed removed - in Sg ?Originally posted by rooki:If there is sufficient technology to distribute the world's resources in such an egalitarian manner, it should be possible to cognitively engineer away such human traits as greed, that are the products of a darker evolutionary past.
The only "progress" one can hope to achieve is that of the greatest happiness for the most people. With that in mind, the taking away of the trait of greed will benefit the ENTIRE humankind by making sure that comparisons between such trivial terms as "winners" and "losers" are rendered moot.
If i ignore the individual leaders, and just look at the governing entity,
...the faster gain of benefits in salaries, before the benefits of good-economy trickled down to the bottom
...the doing nothing approach, when the property prices go up, enables the property giants (linked to Country Inc.) to benefits first, while small businesses got burnt
...the coming in to moderate the property prices, seemed as a intentional delay but an inevitable delay in free economics
...the increase in GST first, while reports of workers still earning $500 basic per month later.
...the increase in GST of 2%, with multiplier effects, and then the illiogical increase in essential things of more than 2%
...the annual increasing nett profits necessary, to run a bus monopoly company
This is still a top-down approach in reaping benefits from economy. The winners are who, the losers are who, - it's obvious.
The present technique (pay more, transparency, quality control) and technology (IT) may remove human trait of greed, but does not remove the obvious conflicts between people and government, and thus, the word "winners" and "losers" become existent.
Therefore, greatest happiness to mankind is not brought about yet. But i only ask for a humane approach, to feel really human, in this short life, starting from the bottom reaching up. But how ? What technique and technology ? -
Meritocracy? like hell... its what they say to justify themselves to those who don't succeed or do well.
If Singapore is built on Meritocracy? Then what's with the Amakudari style of office appointments at the top of GLCs?Amakudari is the institutionalised practice where Japanese senior bureaucrats retire to high-profile positions in the private and public sectors. The practice is increasingly viewed as corrupt and a drag on unfastening the ties between private sector and state which prevent economic and political reforms.