What should be the minimum annual wages for Singaporeans?
-
And so it becomes an atrocious act when the gahmen pays themselves so much money.. and compare SG to first worlds.. trust me.... we are still FAR FROM IT.
Aiyah this statement everyone also know. I never disagree with it also. Even the self-acclaimed public transport sector is also far from those in Germany or Paris.
Btw, which part of USA do you stay? Do you live near any wal-mart of costco? My company might be sending start sending people over for training at the US facility when the US economy recovers a bit I think...
Originally posted by jojobeach:What. you cannot take a joke ? Here have a nice cuppa ice cold beer.
I don't like beer. I prefer green tea or oolong tea
-
Originally posted by eagle:
Aiyah this statement everyone also know. I never disagree with it also. Even the self-acclaimed public transport sector is also far from those in Germany or Paris.
Btw, which part of USA do you stay? Do you live near any wal-mart of costco? My company might be sending start sending people over for training at the US facility when the US economy recovers a bit I think...
I don't like beer. I prefer green tea or oolong tea
Walmart and Costco is all over the place lah. I live in Texas.
They starting a branch in SG ah ?
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Walmart and Costco is all over the place lah. I live in Texas.
They starting a branch in SG ah ?
no la... I take fish oil supplements mah, and I heard it sells damn cheap there. Found that after ordering plus delivery from the costco website, it still costs 30 sgd for a 400 caps bottle... But the cheapest in Sg is from an online shop, around 20 bucks for 200 caps...
was thinking next time if I ever go US, will go and buy some back home
There are many things that are rather cheap there... -
Originally posted by eagle:
no la... I take fish oil supplements mah, and I heard it sells damn cheap there. Found that after ordering plus delivery from the costco website, it still costs 30 sgd for a 400 caps bottle... But the cheapest in Sg is from an online shop, around 20 bucks for 200 caps...
was thinking next time if I ever go US, will go and buy some back home
There are many things that are rather cheap
there...Yah.. Costco sells mostly in bulk that's why it's cheap. But you must purchase membership to shop there.There quality is actually not too bad, but ofcors not as good as the regular retail lah.
Cheap is cheap.. but mostly are imports from CHINA and South America.
And please hor, when you are here.. and please inform your other colleague.
when you dine in restaurants.. remember to tip. It is not to reward the server.. but you are actually paying their wages.
Tip is 15% of the bill.
For a bigger group is 18%.
They may initially not like to serve Asian tourist.. because they always never tip o or just tip 1-2 lollar. But after you tip them the first time.. and you go back again. they will be more than happy to serve you properly.
And after you finish your meal.. please don't sit around and chit chat ESPECIALLY if the restaurant is crowded. It's bad manners, and they need to clear the tables for next customer so they get more tips. OK ?
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Why not ?
Havn't try alrady say cannot.. .
This kind of defeatist attitude... how to survive in the global economy ?
Why shouldn't the middle income group be protected from wage depression too ?
Let say you set the minimum wage at $5/hr.
Say, the middle income group's range has always been $15/hr-$20/hr. Will a $5 minimum wage has any effect on this group ? ZILCH !
And there you have , another middle income squeeze.
With a multi-tierd system.. it protects minimum wage across the board, with some exemptions ofcors !
Like I said, this idea is new.. but it doesn't means it is not feasible.
What bollocks are you on about? That's "creativity" for you? Why not try jumping from 10 stories and see if you'll emerge unscathed since you too have not tried that? If anything, I'd be amazed your intellect would permit you to thrive in a global economy.
What exactly is minimum wage to begin with? FYI, contrary to your hapless interpretation, minimum wage is in place to protect everyone - that includes your professionals whom you regard as needing no protection - from exploitation, instead of ensuring the middle class get their worth. If your logic is anything to go by, why don't you advocate a minimum age for athletes and entertainers too?
As a matter of fact, I'm still waiting for you to expound on the feasibility of your idea and for all your resourcefulness in proving me right through your adrenaline rush, surely you can find something to expand on the viability of what is a completely ludicrous idea?
-
Originally posted by eagle:
Let's just say I do donate a dollar a month to the community chest by GIRO. Comparing to a poor student like me, what have you done?
She has expounded on the ideas fit for adoption in an asylum to mainstream society for the sane. How does that sound?
-
Originally posted by walesa:
What bollocks are you on about? That's "creativity" for you? Why not try jumping from 10 stories and see if you'll emerge unscathed since you too have not tried that? If anything, I'd be amazed your intellect would permit you to thrive in a global economy.
What exactly is minimum wage to begin with? FYI, contrary to your hapless interpretation, minimum wage is in place to protect everyone - that includes your professionals whom you regard as needing no protection - from exploitation, instead of ensuring the middle class get their worth. If your logic is anything to go by, why don't you advocate a minimum age for athletes and entertainers too?
As a matter of fact, I'm still waiting for you to expound on the feasibility of your idea and for all your resourcefulness in proving me right through your adrenaline rush, surely you can find something to expand on the viability of what is a completely ludicrous idea?
You know what the heck you talking about anot har ?
You got read the links I gave you anot ?
Want to jump can lor.. you jump I jump.
Your mother never teach you manners ah ? You don't know then ask.. no need to insult. OK ? Good.
What do YOU know about minimum wage.. ? And how is it suppose to protect a middle income worker ????
My per hourly rate is $50 , how can a $6.55 lollar minimum wage protect me ??????
Since you so expert... you tell me.Dunno maths isit ? Please get yourself a shrink.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
You know what the heck you talking about anot har ?
You got read the links I gave you anot ?
Want to jump can lor.. you jump I jump.
Your mother never teach you manners ah ? You don't know then ask.. no need to insult. OK ? Good.
What do YOU know about minimum wage.. ? And how is it suppose to protect a middle income worker ????
My per hourly rate is $50 , how can a $6.55 lollar minimum wage protect me ??????
Since you so expert... you tell me.Dunno maths isit ? Please get yourself a shrink.
You can still be 'exploited'. If that's even the correct word to use.
In the 1st place, a minimum wage is not supposed to protect people like you.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
You can still be 'exploited'. If that's even the correct word to use.
In the 1st place, a minimum wage is not supposed to protect people like you.
Correct !
Currently.. minimum wage protects the lowest non-exempt income group.
But in SG , the middle income group is also experiencing wage depression due to the influx of FTs.
So, why not protect this sandwiched group against further wage depression too?
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Correct !
Currently.. minimum wage protects the lowest non-exempt income group.
But in SG , the middle income group is also experiencing wage depression due to the influx of FTs.
So, why not protect this sandwiched group against further wage depression too?
The best way to hedge yourself against FTs is to make yourself productive. This way, even if FTs undercut you, you'll still be employed.We cannot have a protectionist outlook, we'll end up like our neighbours.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
The best way to hedge yourself against FTs is to make yourself productive. This way, even if FTs undercut you, you'll still be employed.
We cannot have a protectionist outlook, we'll end up like our neighbours.
Yah lah.. that one who dunno ? Must keep upgrading .. gahmen nag until sian lor.
Actually , minimum wage also good for FT wat. If they can manage to get themself a job in SG.. they also don't have to worry about being exploited by unscrupulous employers who just want to hire cheap deals.
You know.. I have a Indonesian friend got degree, but during the time when they had the riots.. she had work for a company and they only pay her peanuts to take advantage of her situation.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Yah lah.. that one who dunno ? Must keep upgrading .. gahmen nag until sian lor.
Actually , minimum wage also good for FT wat. If they can manage to get themself a job in SG.. they also don't have to worry about being exploited by unscrupulous employers who just want to hire cheap deals.
You know.. I have a Indonesian friend got degree, but during the time when they had the riots.. she had work for a company and they only pay her peanuts to take advantage of her situation.
It's a good thing the gahment keeps nagging. If listen to you all implement min wages I think we all die liao. -
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
It's a good thing the gahment keeps nagging. If listen to you all implement min wages I think we all die liao.Yah lah.. you go to that treasury plaza and go pray pray lor. Your god father there mah.LOL
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
The best way to hedge yourself against FTs is to make yourself productive. This way, even if FTs undercut you, you'll still be employed.We cannot have a protectionist outlook, we'll end up like our neighbours.
You will make a good employee
-
Originally posted by eagle:
You will make a good employee
Thank you thank you.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
You know what the heck you talking about anot har ?
You got read the links I gave you anot ?
Want to jump can lor.. you jump I jump.
Your mother never teach you manners ah ? You don't know then ask.. no need to insult. OK ? Good.
What do YOU know about minimum wage.. ? And how is it suppose to protect a middle income worker ????
My per hourly rate is $50 , how can a $6.55 lollar minimum wage protect me ??????
Since you so expert... you tell me.Dunno maths isit ? Please get yourself a shrink.
You might need more than just a shrink given your challenged intellect though. What are your links supposed to prove? That minimum wage segregated on the basis of professions exist?
So much for a "creative" novel untested idea that's as feasible as a lunatic's ramblings.
And what's the fuss with the multi-tiered middle income you're advocating? Just because you fall in that tier, this lot deserves additional protection? If this group needs protection in view of the income squeeze, why not go one better and ensure even the richest of the rich are entitled to a safety net that ensures their income gap to those below them also stays intact?
More importantly, who determines which profession should fall into each tier (I presume there're actually "superior" professions, eh?) - you? Why not go further and advocate further "protection" with a more concise minumum wage policies on the basis of gender, nationality, ethnicity, religious persuasion or political affiliation? Maybe you'd like to shed some light on how such a ridiculous idea could be implemented - for all you know, that might just nail you the Nobel Prize if you could put that idea of yours to work and elevate you from your "middle" class status to one that would require no protection.
So what garb are you trying to espouse?
-
Originally posted by eagle:
You will make a good employee
I believe what most people don't realize is that while a minimum wage is aimed to help the poorest and easiest to 'exploit', in actual, it is usually this group that eats the dust when a minimum wage is implemented.By distorting the market, you get job shortages and of course the ones to be laid off, are the least productive, who by no coincidence are usually this group of people.
In other words, what you get is a unfavourable distribution of wealth that ultimately results ina deadweight loss, that results in society's loss.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
I believe what most people don't realize is that while a minimum wage is aimed to help the poorest and easiest to 'exploit', in actual, it is usually this group that eats the dust when a minimum wage is implemented.By distorting the market, you get job shortages and of course the ones to be laid off, are the least productive, who by no coincidence are usually this group of people.
In other words, what you get is a unfavourable distribution of wealth that ultimately results ina deadweight loss, that results in society's loss.
can u please enlighten this redDUST dumbhead
1. how are the poor being exploited with minimum wage? and that the current situation where wages are being depressed by cheaper FTs are not?
2. you get job shortages.
thank you.
-
Originally posted by redDUST:
can u please enlighten this redDUST dumbhead
1. how are the poor being exploited with minimum wage? and that the current situation where wages are being depressed by cheaper FTs are not?
2. you get job shortages.
thank you.
No problem, but please don't make me sound like some smartass. These are my opinions with what I know.1) The exploited part is not what I said. In fact, there's hardly such a thing as exploited because even in the case of sweatshops, it is ultimately the worker's choice to work there. The word 'exploit' must be the most overused word I've heard from the opposition. Unfortunately, there are indeed such cases, where children are actually abducted or lured to work. But this is not the norm.
I don't quite get the 2nd part.
2) You get job shortages because employers will lower their quantity demanded of workers and not the demand itself. If quantity demanded falls, and yet at the same time, quantity of workers rise, you get a job shortage in that particular job market.
This phenomenon is different from say.....demand for workers rising from firms because when demand itself rises, the quantity of workers demanded would rise per unit wage. This translates to firms themselves offering higher wages to get the required number of workers. But when wage alone increases and this is the only factor, the demand itself does not increase. QUANTITY demanded falls. Firms will not willingly increase their wages because they have no reason to. To offset this, they will lay-off workers. Yet at the other side, QUANTITY supplied by workers will rise, and this will lead to a shortage of jobs to go around.
-
in short, for part 2, the minimum wage acts like a price floor in a demand supply curve.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
in short, for part 2, the minimum wage acts like a price floor in a demand supply curve.
That's correct.So instead of proposing min wages, alternatives can include subsidising SMEs which I believe the govt is already doing so that they can offer higher wages and more workers.
Of course, the $$ will still come from our pockets, so there's really no forseeable solution besides the good old reformative training, much as we (and I) hate.
If oversupply is the cause of low wages in certain job markets, training would cause supply of labour in these markets to shrink and force wages up. Of course, this is where the problem of FTs come in.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
No problem, but please don't make me sound like some smartass. These are my opinions with what I know.1) The exploited part is not what I said. In fact, there's hardly such a thing as exploited because even in the case of sweatshops, it is ultimately the worker's choice to work there. The word 'exploit' must be the most overused word I've heard from the opposition. Unfortunately, there are indeed such cases, where children are actually abducted or lured to work. But this is not the norm.
I don't quite get the 2nd part.
2) You get job shortages because employers will lower their quantity demanded of workers and not the demand itself. If quantity demanded falls, and yet at the same time, quantity of workers rise, you get a job shortage in that particular job market.
This phenomenon is different from say.....demand for workers rising from firms because when demand itself rises, the quantity of workers demanded would rise per unit wage. This translates to firms themselves offering higher wages to get the required number of workers. But when wage alone increases and this is the only factor, the demand itself does not increase. QUANTITY demanded falls. Firms will not willingly increase their wages because they have no reason to. To offset this, they will lay-off workers. Yet at the other side, QUANTITY supplied by workers will rise, and this will lead to a shortage of jobs to go around.
1. i still don't get you. in the singapore context of this discussion, where singaporean today compete with cheaper FTs who has almost an easy access to singapore; you claimed these menial workers are worse off with minimum wages. you specifically arrowed the singaporeans as receiving the short end of the stick. i just need a simple explanation from you to back up what you said. personally, i cannot comprehend that, hence your clarity in this is appreciated.
2. whether a company hire more or less, pay more or less for a worker, is not a factor of wage alone. the operating expenses consists of many, many elements, one of which is the wage of the worker. if a company produce a goods or services that is in demand, and has good operating profit, wage of the workers itself will not make or break the company. it will be simplistic to blame the wages of the workers as the cause of competitive capitulation of a company or economy. costs can be reduced/improved through other areas, by having a different cost structure through improved efficiency, or having a different go-to-market strategy. perhaps the product/services in question is not relevant to the market anymore. what i am trying to get at is if a company do not just equate singapore's favourable workforce environment with wage alone, why are we shooting ourselves in the foot by doing so? often times, the government positioned singapore as a preferred business destination because of an educated workforce, smart, hardworking and perhaps obliging. we never mentioned that we are cheap. now, all of a sudden, not only do we have to be all of the above, we need to be `cheap' as well. and then again, there's a double standard to this. `cheap' if you have a menial job but folks like us who's white collars and professionals needs to be highly paid because we need the brightest.
do we not need hardworking and honest road sweepers, nurses, etc?
-
Originally posted by redDUST:
1. i still don't get you. in the singapore context of this discussion, where singaporean today compete with cheaper FTs who has almost an easy access to singapore; you claimed these menial workers are worse off with minimum wages. you specifically arrowed the singaporeans as receiving the short end of the stick. i just need a simple explanation from you to back up what you said. personally, i cannot comprehend that, hence your clarity in this is appreciated.
2. whether a company hire more or less, pay more or less for a worker, is not a factor of wage alone. the operating expenses consists of many, many elements, one of which is the wage of the worker. if a company produce a goods or services that is in demand, and has good operating profit, wage of the workers itself will not make or break the company. it will be simplistic to blame the wages of the workers as the cause of competitive capitulation of a company or economy. costs can be reduced/improved through other areas, by having a different cost structure through improved efficiency, or having a different go-to-market strategy. perhaps the product/services in question is not relevant to the market anymore. what i am trying to get at is if a company do not just equate singapore's favourable workforce environment with wage alone, why are we shooting ourselves in the foot by doing so? often times, the government positioned singapore as a preferred business destination because of an educated workforce, smart, hardworking and perhaps obliging. we never mentioned that we are cheap. now, all of a sudden, not only do we have to be all of the above, we need to be `cheap' as well. and then again, there's a double standard to this. `cheap' if you have a menial job but folks like us who's white collars and professionals needs to be highly paid because we need the brightest.
do we not need hardworking and honest road sweepers, nurses, etc?
It's really hard to explain....really.2) Ok, you are right that there are other factors. But, put it this way. A wage factor affects the market different from the other factors. A wage increase/decrease that comes about for reasons other than changes in the market will cause a shortage/surplus accordingly. A wage increase/decrease that comes about because of changes in the market will not cause this. This is because a direct wage change is not the result of changes in the demand and supply of labour. Because demand and supply of labour remains the same, quantity demanded and quantity supplied will adjust instead. Because both quantities expressed are now different, firms expressing less demand for workers, while more workers are now willing to work for the firms, you get a shortage.
1) I claim the lowest of the lowest will be worse off, because of part 2. It makes sense that firms will lay-off the least productive, who are usually this group of people.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
It's really hard to explain....really.2) Ok, you are right that there are other factors. But, put it this way. A wage factor affects the market different from the other factors. A wage increase/decrease that comes about for reasons other than changes in the market will cause a shortage/surplus accordingly. A wage increase/decrease that comes about because of changes in the market will not cause this. This is because a direct wage change is not the result of changes in the demand and supply of labour. Because demand and supply of labour remains the same, quantity demanded and quantity supplied will adjust instead. Because both quantities expressed are now different, firms expressing less demand for workers, while more workers are now willing to work for the firms, you get a shortage.
1) I claim the lowest of the lowest will be worse off, because of part 2. It makes sense that firms will lay-off the least productive, who are usually this group of people.
either you are meandering or i need to go back to school. i (really) have a tough time understanding.
gotta be the latter.
-
Originally posted by redDUST:
either you are meandering or i need to go back to school. i (really) have a tough time understanding.
gotta be the latter.
Don't worry.....took me a long time to figure out all these.But I'll be needing all these arguments next time!
So please poke holes where you see fit in my arguments.