LHL's Logic of Economic Growth to deal with Rising Costs
-
Income statistics?
Posted by theonlinecitizen on February 13, 2008
By Leong Sze Hian
I refer to the article “Economic growth key to dealing with rising costs: PM: He says incomes must rise more than inflation, and growth means more income” (ST, Feb 9).
It states that “Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong reiterated that while measures can be taken to deal with rising living costs, the way to deal with the issue was by growing the economy so that real incomes rise more than inflation.
He said on Thursday that when the economy grew by 7.5 per cent last year, incomes did not just rise at the top end, but across the board. ‘Even (at) the bottom, the middle, everybody’s real income went up’”.
In this connection, I would like to refer to various statistics available, for various available time periods, in respect of median monthly incomes (full-time and part-time), median monthly incomes (full-time), median monthly incomes for part-timers, household income, average incomes, private homes versus public flats incomes, etc.
Although the median gross monthly income of full-time employed residents has grown 2.9 per cent a year in the past decade to $2,040 as of June 2006, the number of part-timers has more than doubled over the decade from 51,400 to 112,300, expanding their share of employment from 3.5 per cent to 6.3 per cent.
The median monthly income for all employed residents (full-time and part-time) stagnated at $2,000 for the years 2001 to 2004.
Income grew by only $40 to $2,040, from 2001 to 2006, or 0.4 per cent per annum. Income growth may have been negative, after adjusting for inflation for the last five years.
In January 2008, the Minister of Health, in moving for the implementation of means testing starting at the median income cited the figure of $2,170 for full-time employed residents.
However, the median income for full-time employed residents may not be the same as that for employed residents (full-time and part-time) cited in previous statistics.
Even if we discount any such differences, does this means that the median wage growth from 2001 to 2007, was only 1.4 per cent per annum?
Also, the incomes of about 30 per cent of households at the bottom have not caught up with inflation, and have declined in inflation-adjusted terms from 2000 to 2005.
According to the Minister of State for Trade and Industry’s (Mr Lee Yi Shyan) maiden speech in Parliament in November 2006, “the monthly income of the lowest paid group declined between 2000 and 2005. At the household level, between 1990 and 2005, households in the lowest 20% actually saw their household income decline over the same period between 2000 and 2005”.
The median monthly income for part-timers is still the same at $500 compared to 10 years ago.
In view of the 118 per cent increase in part-timers for the last decade, more residents are working for an income of $500 that has not changed for 10 years.
Although ‘average incomes rose overall by 1.1 per cent a year’ (from 1998 to 2003), perhaps a more significant statistic is the median income, as this, at the 50th percentile, would reflect whether the bottom 50 per cent of the population are better or worse off.
The ‘% Change Per Annum - Average Monthly Household Income By Quintile, 1998 and 2003′, was -0.6 per cent and zero per cent respectively for the second and third quintile.
Does this mean that incomes did not increase for about 50 per cent of households? In this connection, the percentage share of households with no working persons increased from 4.5 per cent in 1998 to 7.4 per cent in 2003.
While the household income of those living in private homes grew, those in public flats fell by 0.4 per cent per annum, from $3,860 in 1998 to $3,790 in 2003. Since about 88 per cent of the population live in public flats, does this mean that the majority of Singaporeans were worse off?
In contrast, according to the HDB Household Survey, ‘average household income of HDB flat dwellers rose from $3,719 to $4,238 a month’.
How is it possible that the Department of Statistics Household Survey differs so markedly from the HDB Household Survey for apparently the same period, for such a crucial statistic?
I would like to point out that when different data for different time periods are made available, it may make any income data analysis, extremely difficult, and thus, harder to draw conclusions on whether and to what extent, what groups of Singaporeans are better or worse of, as a reflection of economic growth, wage growth and inflation.
Perhaps the increase in the number of pawnshops by almost 40 per cent over the last 5 years, and the increase in pawnshop loans from $1.26 billion in 2003, to $1.57 billion in 2006, may provide an alternative indication of how Singaporeans may be coping with the rising cost of living, vis-à-vis their income.
-
I guess this article has a very small chance of making it to the ST forums page?
-
Originally posted by charlize:
I guess this article has a very small chance of making it to the ST forums page?
... of course it won't make it into ST... this deals with FACTS, they only deal out FABRICATIONS... -
so, does that mean another pay increase for the ministars? raising cost meant they had to lower their standard of living
-
Hello, isn't this the same as what I posted earlier on? Why you do double post?
-
... where the hell did they get their stats from?
=================================================
S'poreans' 2007 household income rose 9.6% - fastest in a decade
Wed, Feb 13, 2008
The Straits Times
THE average monthly household income of Singaporeans rose by 9.6 per cent to $6,280 in 2007 - the fast growth over the last decade, spurred by better wages on the back of a robust economy and a tight labour market.But reflecting the widening income gap, higher-income households continued to take home more pay, with higher wage increases for skilled and knowledge workers, according to a paper on key household income trends in 2007 released by the Singapore Department of Statistics on Wednesday.
Among employed households - those with at least one working person - average monthly household income from work grew by 9.1 per cent to reach $6,830.
After adjusing for inflation, these households enjoyed real income growth of 6.9 per cent last year.Half of the employed households had monthly income of at least $4,870, compared to the median household income of $4,500 in 2006.
DOS said every household member from all income groups experienced increases income from work 'in real terms' in 2007.
On the widening income distribution between the higher and lower-income households, DOS said the Gini coefficient, which measures income inequality, went up from 0.472 in 2006 to 0.485 in 2007.
But the Government's GST (goods and services tax) offset package, which was weighted in favour of the lower-income groups, has helped mitigate the effects of widening household income disparity, it noted.
After adjusting for Government benefits and taxes, DOS said the Gini coefficient among employed households was lower at 0.460 in 2007, compared with 0.485 before adjustment.
More details on the household income trends in 2007 can be found on http://www.singstat.gov.sg.
-
with a foothold on the dept with Birth & Death Registry, they couldn't be honest with the stat. Ppl will live past 85. thus the earlier annuity scheme. where did they get those figures? forecast?
Even now, they had to admit that most will not be able to receive the annnity scheme where it will be confiscated and pool into the scam
-
@_@
Give it up. If ST says ur income rose, ur income rose. If ST says you're gonna live past 85, you're gonna live past 85. You know they have divine ways of figuring these stuff up thats beyond our puny mortal mental capacities to understand.
-
This is an example of why I say figure may be true; it is the analysis that twists them. The author of the article has presented a valid and good argument.