S'pore needs immigrants to survive: MM
-
Originally posted by speakup-:
For those who claim that there is an overdosage of immigrants perhaps you can enlighten me on the various sources that gave you that idea. I particularly like charlize's analogy as i think it brings across the potential problem quite succinctly. However to a certain extent the problem has been oversimplified. Unlike a boat, countries can be grown and developed to accomodate a growing population. Its productive capacity can be expanded, housing and amenities be developed and in the long run to achieve greater economic growth. By saying that too much immigrants may overload the boat is akin to saying we should reproduce less beccause our population is inflating beyond what our infrastructure can take. It is not true on 2 counts and firstly is what most of us today has recognized as an ageing population phenomena that probably requires us to bring in more foreigners to bridge the shortfall between birth and death rates. Secondly as Prof. Edward Glazer an economist in Harvard pointed out in a recent ST article the country is more than capable of housing a 6.5m population.
I reckoned someone will say that.
Yes, you can continue to increase the size of the boat but as with everything there is an optimal size you can grow until. Singapore is a small country without much land, unlike countries like Australia or Canada. You can grow up till a certain point whereby the law of diminishing returns kicks in.
If you say you want to increase the population to 6 million to make up for the aging population, what happens when these 6 million starts aging? You import another few million and increase the population to 10 milllion? And when these 10 million gets old, you increase the population to 20 million? Get my drift here?
There is an optimum size for everything.
Like the boat, you can build and improve it until it becomes the size of an ocean liner.
Very impressive right?
But even the Titanic sank.
Yeah, not enough life boats for everybody.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
I reckoned someone will say that.
Yes, you can continue to increase the size of the boat but as with everything there is an optimal size you can grow until. Singapore is a small country without much land, unlike countries like Australia or Canada. You can grow up till a certain point whereby the law of diminishing returns kicks in.
If you say you want to increase the population to 6 million to make up for the aging population, what happens when these 6 million starts aging? You import another few million and increase the population to 10 milllion? And when these 10 million gets old, you increase the population to 20 million? Get my drift here?
There is an optimum size for everything.
Like the boat, you can build and improve it until it becomes the size of an ocean liner.
Very impressive right?
But even the Titanic sank.
Yeah, not enough life boats for everybody.
Now try to translate that in terms of world population and i think the problem is far more serious in that perspective.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Now try to translate that in terms of world population and i think the problem is far more serious in that perspective.
Singapore already has huge problems in her own backyard.
Where got time to worry about over population in the whole world?
-
Who give a shit about babies?
-
To charlize, i applaud your intellect for actually bringing up the issue of diminishing marginal returns, something i definitely agree with. The problem of an overly large population and landmass etc is especially pertinent in China today showing regions of uneven growth and uneven income distribution. Nonetheless i believe that bringing in foreigners in the long run is to supplement our workforce rather than aimlessly increasing the population. At least in the short run the influx of immigrants would help to make the numbers in terms of achieving a healthy replacement rate i.e. birth to death ratios in our population. I definitely share the same view that every city and especially Singapore has an optimal size and population density. However if future progress demands, perhaps our leaders and people would be innovative enough to accomodate the future challenges of a population even greater than 6.5m. As man has always shown in history, we are highly adaptable haha.
-
speakup do you agree with my proposal for allowing foreign talents to join politics in Singapore?
-
Originally posted by charlize:
I reckoned someone will say that.
Yes, you can continue to increase the size of the boat but as with everything there is an optimal size you can grow until. Singapore is a small country without much land, unlike countries like Australia or Canada. You can grow up till a certain point whereby the law of diminishing returns kicks in.
If you say you want to increase the population to 6 million to make up for the aging population, what happens when these 6 million starts aging? You import another few million and increase the population to 10 milllion? And when these 10 million gets old, you increase the population to 20 million? Get my drift here?
There is an optimum size for everything.
Like the boat, you can build and improve it until it becomes the size of an ocean liner.
Very impressive right?
But even the Titanic sank.
Yeah, not enough life boats for everybody.
Dun worry, the last few days, i was given a tour of far end changi, OMG!!! the reclaimed land was so huge that it can anytime take over 4 big towns in the inland. So most probably, some of our older folks may move there when it is fully developed.
Talking about diminishing, the govt too calculated to factor it in their plans, the targeted population was pre planned to increase to 6.5 millions in about one generation time, as some will be migrating out and some who take here as stepping stone only, the calculate population by 2030 will be around 5.5 to 6 millions which can last for another generation of about 50 years before another generation come into place,..and that will last for another 50 years to and so on. The govt also noted the replacement of old ages and the longervility of life here, but then who cares what happen in 100 years time. That is a century from now we are talking about, whether there will be diminishing or progressing thru some technology or increasing of land, no much of us give a damn, cos by then, we long long become dust already. And the LEE or PAP may not be in power liao.
-
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
speakup do you agree with my proposal for allowing foreign talents to join politics in Singapore?
us ask who to speak up, me??Oh, of course i allow them, but currently, there is enough singaporeans to fill up the post, when no Singaporeans wanted to take on the post, then foreign talents will take over.
Actually foreign talents joining the politics is a win win situation for opposition, cos currently, opposition has only one or the most 2 talents peoples, it will be a bonus for them to join the opposition and increase their credibility and intellectual decision.
-
ya, we need those prcs to keep our rape ratings in check
-
yeah yeah by the time Singapore is taken over by the foreigner, then he got nothing to say liao
-
but then, in the begining, wasn't singapore make up of immigrant? No big deal, LKY was a decendant from the Hakka tribe, and he still rule singapore till today without much problems, despite some small flies swapping around, he stands strong and steady.
-
U all dont realise one thing : competitive wage will not work without a minimum wage system because of the availability of cheap workers who will drive down wages further!! it will only go lower as seen all along in from the past decade.Instead of becoming a competitive wage, it will become a low wage!
Whether there are foreign workers or not, the wages will still go down
It will result in some undesirable consequences like eg domestic spending will decrease and will lead to inflation in prices.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
but then, in the begining, wasn't singapore make up of immigrant? No big deal, LKY was a decendant from the Hakka tribe, and he still rule singapore till today without much problems, despite some small flies swapping around, he stands strong and steady.
STFUK . thank you
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
Dun worry, the last few days, i was given a tour of far end changi, OMG!!! the reclaimed land was so huge that it can anytime take over 4 big towns in the inland. So most probably, some of our older folks may move there when it is fully developed.
Talking about diminishing, the govt too calculated to factor it in their plans, the targeted population was pre planned to increase to 6.5 millions in about one generation time, as some will be migrating out and some who take here as stepping stone only, the calculate population by 2030 will be around 5.5 to 6 millions which can last for another generation of about 50 years before another generation come into place,..and that will last for another 50 years to and so on. The govt also noted the replacement of old ages and the longervility of life here, but then who cares what happen in 100 years time. That is a century from now we are talking about, whether there will be diminishing or progressing thru some technology or increasing of land, no much of us give a damn, cos by then, we long long become dust already. And the LEE or PAP may not be in power liao.
It is called the placebo effect. When stone steppers arrive, the population numbers will look good on paper and attractive to businesses for labour. But real population growth as in birthrate will not occur.
Whether anyone is in power or not, when real population growth becomes non existent, the security of the country is at stake.
-
Originally posted by Worldlybusinessman:
It is called the placebo effect. When stone steppers arrive, the population numbers will look good on paper and attractive to businesses for labour. But real population growth as in birthrate will not occur.
Whether anyone is in power or not, when real population growth becomes non existent, the security of the country is at stake.
Our country in the early stages is also very much at stake in term of security. But then, nobody can predict that it can what it is now today, the world being globlised is changing at a faster pace than we knew, peoples are good in evolution and adaption, they will find a way out in the future, in the meantime we will do all our best to bring a better tomorrow if situation allow us, but then the current situation is without foreigners, we simply cannot function. So, instead of going back to farm land and rice snatching, we put in the foreign talents to help us continue our prosperity.We are tacked to the global economy, of course when the global goes into a spiral downturn, we are the first to hit, but when the global economy pick up, most likely we will be the first one there to grab the opportunities, the most important is to prepare ourselve now, learn new skill and knowledge, wait for the time to come.
-
You can learn all the new sklls you want.
But there will still be a foreigner equally skilled and willing to work for a lower wage than you.
Really.
-
Originally posted by speakup-:
To charlize, i applaud your intellect for actually bringing up the issue of diminishing marginal returns, something i definitely agree with. The problem of an overly large population and landmass etc is especially pertinent in China today showing regions of uneven growth and uneven income distribution. Nonetheless i believe that bringing in foreigners in the long run is to supplement our workforce rather than aimlessly increasing the population. At least in the short run the influx of immigrants would help to make the numbers in terms of achieving a healthy replacement rate i.e. birth to death ratios in our population. I definitely share the same view that every city and especially Singapore has an optimal size and population density. However if future progress demands, perhaps our leaders and people would be innovative enough to accomodate the future challenges of a population even greater than 6.5m. As man has always shown in history, we are highly adaptable haha.
i would like to hear from you again on this topic AFTER you have been replaced by an FT.
this is somewhat similar to pmonkey10 of the old sammyboymod forum, he used to side the PAP all the way in his postings until he got sacked from his govt job. Then he spoke with a different view that is 180degree from his original stand.
-
....
-
similar to pmonkey10 of the old sammyboymod forum, he used to side the PAP all the way in his postings until he got sacked from his govt job.
He is quite naive and gullible to go and follow PAP propaganda.
He did not use his own brain to think, but chose to accept PAP propaganda.
Only brainwashed fools will go and blindly follow PAP propaganda.
Learn dialect will weaken mandarin indeed.
Go and tell that to the taiwanese, old dog.
Only a moron will go and follow your rubbish.
-
There are still some areas where locals are preferred, and have a distinct advantage, over foreigners
E.g. Tuition
-
S'pore needs immigrants to survive: MM
Sorry, but I don't take advice from dogs.
Especially anglo dogs.
Dogs should give advice to fellow dogs.
I am not your dog.
-
In the aspect of politics, Ah Chia, i believe that is one avenue which we would be more sensitive towards the recruitment of foreigners. I wouldnt say it is impossible that we have foreigners in our cabinet but the problem being that it is still best for a country's own people to run their own country as it would be more logical for their policies to stem from their own concern to their nation's well-being than treating the appointment as a mere job.
And no Charlize, if that were really the case Singapore would have died long ago. Its about creating a value-added workforce, working towards being multi-talented and well-versed into multiple disciplines. What you are trying to say is that to a certain extend each tier of employees throughout the world is homogenous which is not actually true. By value-adding your skills, you may be able to perform jobs across many disciplines which is an asset to any organisation in difficult times as you are helping them cut costs. For now the main low wage competition exists at the very end of the job spectrum i.e. unskilled labour. By upgrading and retraining you alienate yourself from that job sector and can command better jobs further up the ladder.
U all dont realise one thing : competitive wage will not work without a minimum wage system because of the availability of cheap workers who will drive down wages further!! it will only go lower as seen all along in from the past decade.Instead of becoming a competitive wage, it will become a low wage!
Whether there are foreign workers or not, the wages will still go down
It will result in some undesirable consequences like eg domestic spending will decrease and will lead to inflation in prices.
If you arent aware a minimum wage system is not really prevalent in our world today mainly in the EU such as France whereby bolshy trade unions often pressure the president to maintain minimum wage standards for the people. The most efficient solution towards the wage issue is sadly to abolish such a system while simultaneously upgrading your workforce to ensure your own people are not those trap in the lower end of the job spectrum. Yes in the short run it may look like the minimum wage system protects the jobs and livelihood of people. However this leads to great economic efficiency which is why progress in the EU this few years are not quite significant. Besides, by setting a minimum wage, it is akin to rising the costs of productions in less rosy times such as today and further contribute to rising inflation. The advantage of a competitive wage system is such that firms are fighting to trim costs and maintaining competitiveness and wages are paid out in line with worker productivity which gives them a further incentive to work and upgrade themself to command higher wages. The inefficiencies brought about by the minimum wage system can be written into an essay but for simplification thats all i can mention for now.
To fishbuff, im not government worker lol. Im not even working yet and maybe thats why there are sentiments that I am unsympathetic to the plight of the common man based on my posts. My perspectives are not based on what the government says and come on how often do you see in the ST that which minister is saying this and that. I read relatively widely with my weekly issues of The Economist and Newsweek. As an economics student i staunchly believe in the value of globalisation and free labour and factor flows throughout the world. My opinions stem from my studies and also my exposure to articles by various writers in these magazines and not of PAP propaganda. The advantages of foreign labour flow is not only a policy promoted and embraced by our government but many governments around the world. The rejection of foreigners is a rejection of globalisation, akin to protectionism, which is something that the last G20 meeting is trying to address and avoid in light of our economic crisis.
-
I read relatively widely with my weekly issues of The Economist and Newsweek.
You call that reading widely?
Oh dear.
I am beginning to feel that you are new bird in world of politics.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
There are still some areas where locals are preferred, and have a distinct advantage, over foreigners
E.g. Tuition
Mark my words, soon there will be a depression of wages in this sector too.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
Mark my words, soon there will be a depression of wages in this sector too.
Wouldn't bother. Those who want to cheapen themselves, go ahead.
Not going to explain why because I want to keep what I know secret in this case. But mark my words, in the not so far horizon, there will be an increase in total expenditure for this country in this sector. It's just whether you know how to ride on the wave.
Depression of fees, not sure. But if you understand how, even with depressing of fees, you can still increase your own wages in this industry.