Singapore's jobless rate at 10-year low
-
Originally posted by (human):There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. -Benjamin Disraeli (British prime minister 1804-1881)
-
Labour Force and Unemployment Statistics
Source
Labour Force Survey
Coverage
..........................................
..........................................
Concepts and Definitions
Labour Force
....................................
.................................
Educational Attainment
........................................
..........................................
Reference Period
................................
...............................
Employed Persons
This refers to persons aged 15 years and over who, during the reference period:
-Worked for one hour or more either for pay, profit or family gains; or
-Had a job or business to return to but were temporarily absent because of illness or injury, vacation, bad weather, mechanical breakdown, labour management dispute, temporarily laid off with salary or other reasons during the reference period.
Source: http://www.mom.gov.sg/publish/momportal/en/communities/others/mrsd/statistics/Explanatory_Notes.html
The definition of employed means if you are 15 years and over and have worked for 1 hour for pay, profit or family gains.
So during the 3 months if you have worked only 1 hour, you are considered employed. -
It seems that the MIW Clowns will believe that it is important for their performance records to have the jobless rate at all time lows - regardless of the quality of employment that Singaporeans are getting.
Are we being misled by numbers ?
During the last recession, the Government and the NTUC encouraged Singaporeans to change our mindset from an iron rice bowl to one that will allow Employers more flexibility to make adjustments without hurting everyone all around.
The solution was for Singaporeans to be employed on short term contracts - from six months to 3 year renewable contracts.
How has this worked out for Singaporeans ?
Employed but exposed to being short-changed in times of retrenchments.
With the Singapore Government Linked Companies being the biggest employer of Singaporeans, this policy has surely helped the Government to short change Singaporeans.
With employment contracts based on short terms contracts of between 6 months to 3 years, any Singaporean who will be retrenched will get peanuts retrenchment payout if working compared to earlier arrangements.
With employment contracts based on short terms contracts of between 6 months to 3 years, can Singaporeans make any long term financial plans for long term mortgages to pay for home purchases - even HDB units ?
Many young entrants into the job market are employed on short term contracts that continuously keep them in limbo - unable to get out of the present short term contracts, when some new and more permanent opportunities come up before the expiry of the present contract.
The jobless rate maybe at 10-year low, except that Singaporeans are mostly employed on the short term contracts, that will even out the spikes in employment rates.
Statistics are no better than window dressing to achieve some intended goals. -
Singaporeans around me all get good pay hikes. -
damand for factory space across the island has been up, and there have been so many big investment coming to singapore which will create tons of jobs, not just for cheap foreign labours as the sheep claimed, but for skilled and educated workers.
I wonder why some sheep in this forum just could accept it.....maybe they are born to take pocket money from daddy all their life (I dont mean you Daddy!!) so employment rate to them means nothing and all they are capable is to sh.it their way through in this forum.. -
When i retire, I am going to east coast park or pasir ris park every sunny day and enjoy the sun and the breeze. cheap and nice. -
and stop by the eastcoast hawker center for a plate of nice and cheap satay beehoon.Originally posted by Daddy!!:When i retire, I am going to east coast park or pasir ris park every sunny day and enjoy the sun and the breeze. cheap and nice. -
thats exactly what i would do! ha ha!Originally posted by Gazelle:and stop by the eastcoast hawker center for a plate of nice and cheap satay beehoon.
sun, sea breeze, cheap and nice food and drinks for my retirement. I am going to wear only t-shirt, short and sandals.
Oh yes, I would also bring my laptop and surf the net, trade stocks for fun (small risks). Play chess with kakis, read my favorite novels. etc. what a luxury at cheap cheap $. -
I shall not say who but this is what is happening in Sg:
Employers are required to employ a certain percentage of Singaporeans in their companies. In these industries, employing foreign workers is way cheaper. Hence, what some do is to pretend to employ Singaporeans by claiming to employ them, and giving them CPF. However, they keep the salary in their own pocket. The Singaporeans in this scheme do not need to work at all, other than just providing their name as being employed, and enjoying CPF top-ups.
Are they considered employed in the statistics? Of course!
Are they really employed by the company to do work? Of course not! -
got such lobang how come you dont recommend..tell me which company leh...I also want to give free money by staying at home..Originally posted by eagle:I shall not say who but this is what is happening in Sg:
Employers are required to employ a certain percentage of Singaporeans in their companies. In these industries, employing foreign workers is way cheaper. Hence, what some do is to pretend to employ Singaporeans by claiming to employ them, and giving them CPF. However, they keep the salary in their own pocket. The Singaporeans in this scheme do not need to work at all, other than just providing their name as being employed, and enjoying CPF top-ups.
Are they considered employed in the statistics? Of course!
Are they really employed by the company to do work? Of course not!
-
I agree with you. Rules will always be bended by creative humans.Originally posted by eagle:I shall not say who but this is what is happening in Sg:
Employers are required to employ a certain percentage of Singaporeans in their companies. In these industries, employing foreign workers is way cheaper. Hence, what some do is to pretend to employ Singaporeans by claiming to employ them, and giving them CPF. However, they keep the salary in their own pocket. The Singaporeans in this scheme do not need to work at all, other than just providing their name as being employed, and enjoying CPF top-ups.
Are they considered employed in the statistics? Of course!
Are they really employed by the company to do work? Of course not!
A news report which says 1.7% low employment rate, but does not explain the exact way of gathering its data, is questionable, both in its accuracy, and its motive.
As I said, why don't they return us the CPF contribution rate if we are doing so well? -
does GDP growth has direct relationship with salary increment?
Does company doing well meaning passdown profits down to employee?
Do we have to take into consideration the impact on foreign workers?
what i can see, the cream of the workforce claim most credit for company profits and pay themselves fat bonuses. the middle and lower management will be salary hike against foreigners.
certainly i bet most singaporeans salary increment is lagging behind singapore GDP growth rates. -
1.7% is singaporeans or PR?
PR is not singaporeans. we should not include them into our statistics. -
By including PR in the figures for unemployment the results would look more rosy, because the PRs have a higher percentage of employment as compared to citizens.Originally posted by reyes:1.7% is singaporeans or PR?
PR is not singaporeans. we should not include them into our statistics.
But the shocking fact is, if you are employed for one hour during the quarter for reporting employment, you are considered employed.
I guess everybody lives of 1 hour pay for 3 months. -
if you remove PRs from the equation, then unemployment rate would be negative. -
Didn't know your maths is so good.Originally posted by Daddy!!:if you remove PRs from the equation, then unemployment rate would be negative.
What you remove from one side of the equation, you remove from the other side of the equation. -
Originally posted by maurizio13:Didn't know your maths is so good.
What you remove from one side of the equation, you remove from the other side of the equation.
he shld start planning for "cheap" retirement -
bear in mind that the number of jobs generated by the economy is constant. if the PRs are removed from the equation ie kicked out of the country, then the number of jobs will exceed the workforce, hence unemployment rate is negative.Originally posted by maurizio13:Didn't know your maths is so good.
What you remove from one side of the equation, you remove from the other side of the equation. -
absolutely.Originally posted by de_middle:
he shld start planning for "cheap" retirement
i already have. dont know why you guys are so desperate. -
Maybe you can show me how you obtain a negative figure for unemployment rate.Originally posted by Daddy!!:bear in mind that the number of jobs generated by the economy is constant. if the PRs are removed from the equation ie kicked out of the country, then the number of jobs will exceed the workforce, hence unemployment rate is negative.
The equation is expressed as:
Unemployment Rate = (Unemployed Workers / Total Labour Force) X 100%
To get a negative Unemployment Rate, either the Unemployed Workers has to be negative of Total Labour Force has to be negative. Both of which is impossible.
Maybe you should read more books, gain more knowledge and intelligence before posting your views. -
thats why you should learn how to think outside the box instead of just applying the equation.Originally posted by maurizio13:Maybe you can show me how you obtain a negative figure for unemployment rate.
The equation is expressed as:
Unemployment Rate = (Unemployed Workers / Total Labour Force) X 100%
To get a negative Unemployment Rate, either the Unemployed Workers has to be negative of Total Labour Force has to be negative. Both of which is impossible.
Maybe you should read more books, gain more knowledge and intelligence before posting your views.
here it is. what happens when there are more jobs than the workforce? The equation which you present is not applicable. -
New economic theory from you???Originally posted by Daddy!!:thats why you should learn how to think outside the box instead of just applying the equation.
here it is. what happens when there are more jobs than the workforce? The equation which you present is not applicable.
Maybe you can explain how you purport to call this equation?
You can write an economic thesis on this an get Harvard to confer you a doctorate. But you need to go get a proper University education first.
Hehehe..........
If there are more jobs than total workforce, then the economy is at full employment with zero unemployment, which is quite contentious because some rich folks might choose to remain unemployed. There is no such thing as negative unemployment, just like there is no such thing as negative nominal interest rate.
The definition is such:
Unemployment Rate = (Unemployed Workers / Total Labour Force) X 100%
Maybe you can write to the Singapore Department of Statistics to correct them on their definition. -
A job vacancy doesn't necessary translate to an employment of one employee. Singapore would have hit an unemployment rate of 0% if every currently unemployed Singaporean aged 15 and above takes up whatever "low-end" jobs that are available. But even if that happens, it doesn't mean the government is super-efficient, but rather that Singaporeans have become so desperate to feed themselves but didn't know how to rob a bank, protest or fight for their own rights.Originally posted by Daddy!!:bear in mind that the number of jobs generated by the economy is constant. if the PRs are removed from the equation ie kicked out of the country, then the number of jobs will exceed the workforce, hence unemployment rate is negative.