PUZZLE #2 : What is the Employment rate of CITIZENS?
-
Originally posted by charlize:
Exactly! Although in terms of employment in general,
If you are male, you get the privilege of serving NS.
If you are female, you get Baby bonus for having more kids.
Now who says, there aren't any benefits of being a Singapore citizen?
PRs sometimes advantage over citizens and sometimes the other way round,
the key thing that differentiates the two, based on my personal thinking, is
as citizen you are luckier. You get to serve NS while PRs continue to slog.
You get to get involved in field exercises and sometimes overseas exercises.
Challenging and some form of risk involved but you have insurance right? Every now and then get called up for duty. Not easy you know. PRs are unfortunate in this aspect. They cannot serve unless volunteer??? (i just guessing lah).
So, while you get the privilege to protect the Resident community, that means the PRs, the PRs do not get this Privilege and Honor and Opportunity to do so.
citizens are lucky. You get to slog in the commercial world only 2 years or more later than the PRs who jumps straight into slogdom.
citizens are privileged indeed.
btw, how the come i still do not see any of you know how many citizens are employed or unemployed and of all jobs created how many went to locals and what are these jobs?
you dunno oso ar?
you lousy lah. like this also dunno. I have asked a question no body is able to answer. ? maybe maybe not. its all up to you. -
reddressman, you are biased.
You did not point out the tax rebate and extra election time goodies for NSman.
Neither did you point out for the civil service, male citizens get a higher starting pay.
Furthermore do you know the privilege of serving the military? Even Britian's Prince Harry (or was it William or both?) volunteered and had no qualms about shedding blood for their military and with their subordinates.
If you just want to chao keng don't say lah. But NS gives you the chance to develop your leadership skill and to lead by example. How many 18 years old PRs can find a job, and get commissioned by the country's highest head to lead by example? Which MNC will even entrust the lives of their guys to an 18 years old? -
Britain is britain - that is the royal family's tradition of joining some military thing. After all they would want to justify the amount of money that the public taxpayers are giving them .They also have to prove some "loyalty" thing.Originally posted by Icemoon:reddressman, you are biased.
You did not point out the tax rebate and extra election time goodies for NSman.
Neither did you point out for the civil service, male citizens get a higher starting pay.
Furthermore do you know the privilege of serving the military? Even Britian's Prince Harry (or was it William or both?) volunteered and had no qualms about shedding blood for their military and with their subordinates.
If you just want to chao keng don't say lah. But NS gives you the chance to develop your leadership skill and to lead by example. How many 18 years old PRs can find a job, and get commissioned by the country's highest head to lead by example? Which MNC will even entrust the lives of their guys to an 18 years old?
They pulled Prince Henry out from serving in Iraq. Ok?
Different from Singapore . -
... duh... FAP -
Oh really? Maybe I should put in my resume that I have develop leadership skill during NS (hope the interviewer don't die from laughing).Originally posted by Icemoon:If you just want to chao keng don't say lah. But NS gives you the chance to develop your leadership skill and to lead by example. How many 18 years old PRs can find a job, and get commissioned by the country's highest head to lead by example? Which MNC will even entrust the lives of their guys to an 18 years old? -
wah, you talk even nicer than me ah. I thought I talk very good good already.Originally posted by Icemoon:reddressman, you are biased.
You did not point out the tax rebate and extra election time goodies for NSman.
Neither did you point out for the civil service, male citizens get a higher starting pay.
Furthermore do you know the privilege of serving the military? Even Britian's Prince Harry (or was it William or both?) volunteered and had no qualms about shedding blood for their military and with their subordinates.
If you just want to chao keng don't say lah. But NS gives you the chance to develop your leadership skill and to lead by example. How many 18 years old PRs can find a job, and get commissioned by the country's highest head to lead by example? Which MNC will even entrust the lives of their guys to an 18 years old?
kudos to you ah.
you have been drinking too much sugar haven't you ? -
why dont you sign up forever since so good as you said?Originally posted by Icemoon:...Furthermore do you know the privilege of serving the military? Even Britian's Prince Harry (or was it William or both?) volunteered and had no qualms about shedding blood for their military and with their subordinates.
If you just want to chao keng don't say lah. But NS gives you the chance to develop your leadership skill and to lead by example. How many 18 years old PRs can find a job, and get commissioned by the country's highest head to lead by example? Which MNC will even entrust the lives of their guys to an 18 years old?
dun talk like so bias.
acturely, if I am a prince, I would even volunteer for commando.
which trainer dare not to give me face? you have been soaking too much sugar leh. be careful. can get kidney malfunction.
ya lor, this I must agree that all MNCs entrust their lives to our 18 year olds.
You go and tell the public in a public open air place maybe in raffel plays in a weekday at lunch time and see how many applause you will get. many mnc there you know . -
I am confident now to say, based on the fact that no forummer has the answer, that like some threads here, this thread can go on forever until maybe EVIL kicks the bucket.
-
Lets give this thread 1 more week to see if suddenly a smart alek will advise the forum with the answer we waiting for so long with no answer.
-
Originally posted by Seven_Dragon:
how do you know for sure? guess guess? argar argar? assume? suspect? hunch? where is the black and white? are you holding the information ? how come you know? for sure?
...
so employment rate of citizens are not that low if you include government sector... if you exclude government sector, employment rate of citizens will be low in private sector...
ok lah, give u the benefit of a doubt.
so do you imply that
many would need to find other jobs in the private sector if they cannot secure the public sector job? So, they must preserve their ricebowl in order to feed themselves?
so, is it not nice? many are relying on the public sector ricebowl. Private sector so tough and now public sector pay so good and can even say better than private sector in some cases , if not many cases ?
like this can someone enlighten me what is the effect? what does this situation imply?
-
I am convinced no one has even a clue to the answer.
That means you included.
HK LIAO! -
ErrrOriginally posted by reddressman:I am convinced no one has even a clue to the answer.
That means you included.
HK LIAO!
Sometimes you need to do some research on values and calculate it yourself.
According to http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/12/19/is-the-singaporean-population-shrinking-part-2/
Singapore citizens now account for 70.2 percent of the population, down from 86 percent in 1990.
.
.
.
There are now more than 460,000 Permanent Residents living in Singapore, making up 10 percent of the population.
According to http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/latestdata.html#4, there are 2.6683 million employed workers in Singapore and with 1.7% of labour force unemployed.
Supposed ALL of the unemployed are citizens. This means there are 2.6683/0.983*0.017 = 0.046 million unemployed people
According to http://theonlinecitizen.wordpress.com/2007/12/14/is-the-singaporean-population-shrinking-part-one/#more-615
The ‘Future Resident Labour Force According to Medium Projection, 2005 – 2050’, is projected to increase from the current (2005) 1,747,806 to 1,764,527 in 2010, and then gradually decline to only 1,148,032 in 2050
Let's assume a Resident labour force of 1.75 mil (about 875k foreigners that are non-residents out of labour force of 2.7++ mil)
Assume also 0.5 mil of PRs
Which gives us 1.25 mil Citizen Labour Force
Hence, if ALL of the 0.046 mil unemployed workers are Singaporeans
That means an employment rate of about 96% for citizens.
I would say that it is reasonable to include PRs into Residents because there are many PRs who would apply for citizenship after working for a while. I have a few friends who are like this. -
Its not that someone is afraid of competition. Don't confuse people by pouring sotong ink .
To ask and question the job creation report is merely a commonsense , logical thinking way to understand the facts clearly. Its also a citizen's concern. I challenge anyone to tell me that this is illegal and wrong. come.
If what you say is true,
why no news ever report the exact number of citizens employed , unemployed and how many jobs created are occupied by PRs and FTs?
Why ?
What is the Rationale behind this ?
Why no sgrean demand the truth? Is being paymaster brings with it the power to put on a leash and muzzle? How united?
Why you quote the ONline citizen? Havent you heard?
What is the age of your stats?
What is the current stat?
How can you proof how accurate is the stat (altho I must say it is accurate for obvious reasons). This is talking from a technical perspective.
Again, WHY the news only say how many jobs created and missed out , time and time and time and time and time again,
of the jobs created:
1. How many occupied by non PR, non FT.
2. How many occupied by PR
3. How many occupied by your fellow sgreans? -
Eagle,Originally posted by eagle:Hence, if ALL of the 0.046 mil unemployed workers are Singaporeans
That means an employment rate of about 96% for citizens.
I would say that it is reasonable to include PRs into Residents because there are many PRs who would apply for citizenship after working for a while. I have a few friends who are like this.
Its also REASONABLE to include this breakdown of the job distribution in the news.
You say many PR later apply citizen. I can also say many PRs later nebber apply.
You can also choose to provide the figures later when they apply lah.
Now, provide the TRUTH , the whole TRUTH and nothing else but the TRUTH about how many jobs created went to PRs and how many actually went to sgreans.
YOU still FAIL to answer this fundamental question despite all your effort trying to show people you have some figures which may be bits and pieces here and there and not sure how current the info is and what is the clear basis for the stats calculated.
Who do you represent ? Can you handle the TRUTH ?
I even give the benefit of doubt that given that there is employment rate published for foreigners and locals collectively, that means there is proof and figures as answers to my questions already. But I now ask you again,
WHY not published?
What is the Logic and REASON behind this?
Tell me if you know. -
Online Citizen stats can be calculated from statistics Singapore. You want you can calculate. I've merely took other's calculations. If you really want to confirm whether it is correct, you can slowly take statistics from the Singapore Statistics website and calculate it yourself.. If you have bothered to check the dates, you would have realised that it is updated till Sept 07.Originally posted by reddressman:Its not that someone is afraid of competition. Don't confuse people by pouring sotong ink .
To ask and question the job creation report is merely a commonsense , logical thinking way to understand the facts clearly. Its also a citizen's concern. I challenge anyone to tell me that this is illegal and wrong. come.
If what you say is true,
why no news ever report the exact number of citizens employed , unemployed and how many jobs created are occupied by PRs and FTs?
Why ?
What is the Rationale behind this ?
Why no sgrean demand the truth? Is being paymaster brings with it the power to put on a leash and muzzle? How united?
Why you quote the ONline citizen? Havent you heard?
What is the age of your stats?
What is the current stat?
How can you proof how accurate is the stat (altho I must say it is accurate for obvious reasons). This is talking from a technical perspective.
Again, WHY the news only say how many jobs created and missed out , time and time and time and time and time again,
of the jobs created:
1. How many occupied by non PR, non FT.
2. How many occupied by PR
3. How many occupied by your fellow sgreans?
The rest of your questions does not follow the goal of this thread: What is the Employment rate of CITIZENS? And Not why the news only say how many jobs created and missed. I have merely answered with respect to your thread title. And the news is always fscrewed up, always leaning towards the government. However, the available data are always in public for you to do deeper analysis.
Suppose the Singapore Statistics website gives accurate value, does it matter if many jobs did not go to Singaporeans? More than 96% of the citizens are employed, with only <4% unemployed. => About 46k Singaporeans at the maximum who are unemployed. Bear in mind that in economics, workers still finding jobs are considered unemployed. There are always some workers finding jobs and some quitting their jobs, hence the unemployment rate will seldom be 0.
Again, with regards to statistics, supposed 100% of all PRs and foreigners are employed, then for the whole economy, we could break down as follows:
880k foreigners (non-residents) employed
500k PRs employed
1204k Singaporeans employed and 46k unemployed
If you truly want to find out how many Singaporeans are employed, you could always take the statistics at the end of 2006 and compare with 2007. The difference in the number of Singaporeans employed, difference in number of PRs and difference in number of foreigners could then show you how many of the 172400 jobs are taken up by Singaporeans.
Bear in mind the above calculations are taking into account 100% employment of non-residents and PRs. Do you seriously think there is 100% employment for them? -
Originally posted by reddressman:
The fundamental question is: What is the Employment rate of CITIZENS. Please show me how I have failed to answer this question.
Eagle,
Its also REASONABLE to include this breakdown of the job distribution in the news.
You say many PR later apply citizen. I can also say many PRs later nebber apply.
You can also choose to provide the figures later when they apply lah.
Now, provide [b]the TRUTH , the whole TRUTH and nothing else but the TRUTH about how many jobs created went to PRs and how many actually went to sgreans.
YOU still FAIL to answer this fundamental question despite all your effort trying to show people you have some figures which may be bits and pieces here and there and not sure how current the info is and what is the clear basis for the stats calculated.
Who do you represent ? Can you handle the TRUTH ?
I even give the benefit of doubt that given that there is employment rate published for foreigners and locals collectively, that means there is proof and figures as answers to my questions already. But I now ask you again,
WHY not published?
What is the Logic and REASON behind this?
Tell me if you know.
[/b]
I just want to show that for certain things, deeper research and analysis will give you results. There is no need to give me the benefit of doubt that there is employment rate published for foreigners and locals collectively, because the labour force includes everyone in the picture.
WHY not published?
What is the Logic and REASON behind this?
I've have a hunch, but this question is not with regards to the thread title. My hunch is, the news reporter is just plain lazy. The available information is publicised, just whether the reporter is hardworking enough to gather and publish his calculations.
For example, it was a minister who said in 2006, 90900 out of 176k jobs created went to Singaporeans (got include PRs a not I forgot). But this is not in the news, it is in the govt website (parlimentary talks I think), a short sentence part of a speech by some minister... The link is in another thread. -
Wow, you dare to suggest the mighty news' reporter is plain lazy ?Originally posted by eagle:WHY not published?
What is the Logic and REASON behind this?
I've have a hunch, but this question is not with regards to the thread title. My hunch is, the news reporter is just plain lazy. The available information is publicised, just whether the reporter is hardworking enough to gather and publish his calculations.
Dun forget the news was approved by the EDITOR.
Dun forget the news was in frontpage on national newspaper.
I wonder what forummers think of your suggestion that probably the news reporter was 'plain lazy'.
Time and time again?
What about the Editor? What is his responsibility?
Who does he report to?
I am sure you assume many here are primary school children is it?
Be careful what allegations you are making. -
Well, I do dare to suggest that it is the mistake of the news reporter AND the editor not to have know that there are people who want to know the breakdown of the statistics. In that sense, I would claim that they are just lazy to find out what the people want to read. I based my allegations on the news report.Originally posted by reddressman:Wow, you dare to suggest the mighty news' reporter is plain lazy ?
Dun forget the news was approved by the EDITOR.
Dun forget the news was in frontpage on national newspaper.
I wonder what forummers think of your suggestion that probably the news reporter was 'plain lazy'.
Time and time again?
What about the Editor? What is his responsibility?
Who does he report to?
I am sure you assume many here are primary school children is it?
Be careful what allegations you are making.
It is you who should take note of your allegations of the Opposition and the Government/ministers due to a mere news report that is not even written nor edited by any of them. -
You seem are a loose canon who put words into my mouth.Originally posted by eagle:Well, I do dare to suggest that it is the mistake of the news reporter AND the editor not to have know that there are people who want to know the breakdown of the statistics. In that sense, I would claim that they are just lazy to find out what the people want to read. I based my allegations on the news report.
It is you who should take note of your allegations of the Opposition and the Government/ministers due to a mere news report that is not even written nor edited by any of them.
This shows to me you are a dangerous person with some motives in this forum.
When I say you are allegating the news reporter, its very clear that you do.
But you seem to be so sure you will not get anything from the news editor.
I wonder why.
Who do you represent?
After the 1000's of words you said, you still FAIL to give a direct reply to the question of this thread. To the naive, You seem like knowing the answer. In fact, I can say you cannot prove what is the employment rate of citizens.
Send your better player from your team to reply to me. -
You seem to have poor comprehension. I have given the employment rate of citizens. It is a wonder why you could not read. In case you have missed the post, do you need me to quote my whole post to prove that I have answered your question directly? Another baseless allegation against me? I have given you the answer of at least 96% with figures from the singstats website. You will need to prove the statistics board wrong before being able to claim that I am wrong.Originally posted by reddressman:You seem are a loose canon who put words into my mouth.
This shows to me you are a dangerous person with some motives in this forum.
When I say you are allegating the news reporter, its very clear that you do.
But you seem to be so sure you will not get anything from the news editor.
I wonder why.
Who do you represent?
After the 1000's of words you said, you still FAIL to give a direct reply to the question of this thread. To the naive, You seem like knowing the answer. In fact, I can say you cannot prove what is the employment rate of citizens.
Send your better player from your team to reply to me.
And do you mean to say you need me to quote from you again that you have questioned the opposition and the ministers on a mere news report not written or edited by them? So that it is not putting words in your mouth? -
Let me point out the posts one by one
Are you sure the Opposition is powerless to ask? Are you sure the Opposition is unable to give this information? Are you sure they are not able to calculate the values from the singstats website if required to?Originally posted by reddressman:Why the Opposition is powerless to demand a clear answer as to who took up the jobs created?
Are the jobs taken up by :
1. Foreigners who are non-PRs?
- If so, what types of jobs are these? Factory labor? Construction labor?
- How many EPs , WPs, SPs?
2. How many singaporeans occupied the created jobs?
As far as I know, the Opposition is unable to even give this information to the People by simply a s k i n g. they are given the power to talk in parl.
If they are unable to do the job, let the next better more daring people have a go. Money should be spent on Opposition to help the people, not that they have not done anything. Just a reminder.
There are many who wants to support the Opposition. But they have yet to prove they are capable enough. Give us the figures. Why figures not available? What is there not to show???????????????????????
just my 2 cents.
Isn't this a charge on the opposition that they did not do anything on that news report on the number of sgreans employed? Question is, have you asked any of the opposition members whether they could get the answer before reaching your conclusion as far as I know? You mean you have asked them?
If not, this is called a baseless allegation.
Again, this is a senseless post. Why do they need to go to MOM if they could just go to the singstats website and make some calculations? Afterall, statistics are there for people to analyse, not information to spoon feed brainless peopleOriginally posted by qlqq9:To get the figures, they need to approach MOM, so do you think MOM the hen will be kind to release figures to the oppositions? Even if hen releases info, is the data/info accurate? Can we be sure hen does not manipulate with the data/figures?
Another charge again the statistics board without any proofOriginally posted by qlqq9:. . . . . . . . and you believe in the facts/figures they give. OMG. All PAP's members are tuned in to work for the leegime. -
Here, you are charging that the Opposition, MP and ministers for being inefficient in not putting effort to ask for you.Originally posted by reddressman:btw,
What effort have we seen our Opposition in asking this on our behalf?
What has the so-called Opposition done in this aspect?
You ask us to ask the MOM.
Why don't you 1st go ask your MOM?
Why don't Sylvia Lim go and ask the MOM?
Why don't Low Tia Kiang go and ask the MOM?
Why don't Chiam See Tong go and ask MOM?
How many decades does it take to get the figures?
What is the EFFICIENCY?
Why don't the MPs and Ministers go and ask the MOM?
Again, baseless and senseless allegation. Why?
1) Information can already be calculated from the singstats website
2) There are MP meet the people sessions all over Singapore for you to meet them and ask the questions directly. I have given you the website to check for the timings and location. Why is it that you have blatantly refused to accept it and continue to levy such charges without even meeting the MP?
Truth is, you want to know the figure. I have calculated for you.Originally posted by reddressman:I realised I am reading at a figure that does not tell me the details. Not even a simple percentage breakdown of x% of jobs were taken up by PRs, FTs and Foreign Laborers and Y% taken up by singaporeans.
What are the replies?
qlqq9:
1) I have more working experience
2) My eyes tell me I'm definitely correct
reddressman:
"the adult matured and unnaive forummers will forgive you" when you cannot point out any senseless post
You claimed you know the fundamentals of statistics, yet both you and qlqq9 would prefer to come to a conclusion with a sample size of <0.1%? With that in mind, isn't that another baseless allegation?Originally posted by reddressman:If you understand the most fundamental of statistics, you should know that it is important to know how the numbers are derived. For example, if I say People are living longer, what does it mean? How many are living longer? Majority of a few? A few can also mean people are living longer. Please go for a quick course on fundamental statistics to help yourself.
Finally, it is not that the statistics do not explain your observations; they only give averages, and with some analysis, your observations could be explained. I have no idea why both of you get so worked up over it. Do you mean to say that the value of at least 96% is too good a rate for you? A pap supporter would ask does the truth hurts, but I would say, how about the 4%?
My main concern is what is going to be done to help the remaining 4%, yet both you and qlqq9 rather focus on whether it is really 96%. Isn't that senseless?
In conclusion, I have answered the main question in this thread with my worst-case estimations and calculations. However, both reddressman and qlqq9 have continuously failed to answer my questions directed at them, but instead change their tactics to do verbal abuse in the forum. It is obvious they could not answer my questions and are trying means and ways not to answer it, a tactic similar to another certain forumer. -
all you do every time your gap opensOriginally posted by eagle:You claimed you know the fundamentals of statistics, yet both you and qlqq9 would prefer to come to a conclusion with a sample size of <0.1%? With that in mind, isn't that another baseless allegation?
Finally, it is not that the statistics do not explain your observations; they only give averages, and with some analysis, your observations could be explained. I have no idea why both of you get so worked up over it. Do you mean to say that the value of at least 96% is too good a rate for you? A pap supporter would ask does the truth hurts, but I would say, how about the 4%?
My main concern is what is going to be done to help the remaining 4%, yet both you and qlqq9 rather focus on whether it is really 96%. Isn't that senseless?
In conclusion, I have answered the main question in this thread with my worst-case estimations and calculations. However, both reddressman and qlqq9 have continuously failed to answer my questions directed at them, but instead change their tactics to do verbal abuse in the forum. It is obvious they could not answer my questions and are trying means and ways not to answer it, a tactic similar to another certain forumer.
is to put words in my mouth.
If you use your eyes, and read my words clearly,
those are questions.
And you should also note that
there is no reason for me to believe in your words, especially from some one who goes by the name of EAGLE. How can that be credible? -
Please point out how I have put words in your mouth or it would be baseless allegations again. When I point out something from you, I have a quote ready from your posts. Do you?Originally posted by reddressman:all you do every time your gap opens
is to put words in my mouth.
If you use your eyes, and read my words clearly,
those are questions.
And you should also note that
there is no reason for me to believe in your words, especially from some one who goes by the name of EAGLE. How can that be credible?
There is of course no reason for you to believe in my words, but how can I expect someone like you who likes to make baseless allegations to understand the word 'credibility'? -
Perhaps you would also like this puzzle:
Are ministers already being paid more than their private sector salary benchmark?
go read it at: http://theonlinecitizen.com/