Post GE 2011 Discussion
-
verykiasu2010:
If our garmen can attract Foxconn-style companies to SG, I'm sure they will go ahead... but at what cost?
solid examples : Shanghai's minimum pay is higher than Shenzhen, Shenzhen's minimum is higher than Chengdu......result : people like Foxconn is setting up inland and uproot production from their old place
Companies can relocate to any countries with cheaper labour... there's no guarantee that they will stay put in one.
So in order to entice these companies from relocating to other countries... we bring in those cheaper labour.
Sure, it helps our GDP figures... shows our good employment rate... but at what cost? -
verykiasu2010:
OK. Now, I understand it is their fund management. Do they have initial intention to move to Singapore or it is just the Singapore government that want to persuade them to come? If they are just going to relocate a few experience managers here but will bring along 20 new jobs. That is a good deal for Singapore. But if we allow a factory to set which brings in only a few managerial jobs but have to let in a few hundreds foreign workers, then it wouldn't be a good deal. I guess there is a balance. the government should come out with a quantitative outline of which kind is allowed while others are not beneficial for singapore.
this is not speculative
they have been persuaded to move fund management to singapore
i was at their geneva office -
verykiasu2010:
this is not speculative
This scenario is speculative.If they already have their billion dollars clients, then why do they need to locate to Singapore? Shouldn't the motive be that they need to hire local talents (managers) so that they can get billion dollars clients in this region?WeiHan:
[quote=\"verykiasu2010\"]
Imagine i am a swiss bank
your government entice me to set up shop in SG and entice me to move my clients' fund to be managed out of SG and to invest in the region. For a start I may transfer 1 billion SFR to SG to manage.
look, I am going to relocate my Swiss managers from Geneva or Zurich to work in Singapore to continue to manage the client relationship while getting them to understand the region and make investment decision for their clients.
SG has no managers / prof equal to the job ? sure have, even cheaper, perhaps even more capable, but for the sake of my clients who have parked billions with my bank, I am not going to risk it. they can play the supporting role, gather market intelligence, do the credit analysis etc. make the investment decision ? No way, even when I know many SG citizens qualify for the job, because my bank's clients don't know them.
If the SG government does not allow my bank to relocate my experienced managers to work in SG, then I won't bring my bank to SG.
the same scenarios play out multiple times
they have been persuaded to move fund management to singapore
i was at their geneva office[/quote]How does Singapore benefit from this move, and what impact will it have for Singaporeans? Keen to learn something new here... :salute: -
limlim:
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: the one who created the table tennis storm :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
What is jamban?verykiasu2010:
and the jamban lady moved out from LHL's grc, or originally not there ?
If they really want to groom TPL, they can always keep her by PM's side, instead of pushing to SM.. -
limlim:
Noted...
S Pass is > $1800Daddy
Correct me if I'm wrong....
http://www.guidemesingapore.com/relocation/work-pass/singapore-work-permit-schemes
Quota System: There is no quota official system for Employment Pass. (> $2,500)
Quota System: Yes for S Pass (<$1800)... (25% of workforce)
There should be similar info in MOM website...
So a lot of competition from \"cheaper\" Employment Pass holders?
Work Permit < $1,800
So for \"Professionals\" >$2500
for \"mid-level skilled workers\" >$1800
for \"skilled & semi-skilled workers\" <$1800
If I based on that benchmark to employ my staffs... why should I pay anything more? -
concern2:
the spin off effect on the financial services sector: some jobs are directly created, more jobs are created indirectly, eg more biz for services of lawyers, accountants; other spin offs : more turnover for F&B, courier, travel, housing, transport, telecom, etc etc
How does Singapore benefit from this move, and what impact will it have for Singaporeans? Keen to learn something new here... :salute:
it also has the multiplier effect, and the reverse is true too! like what i quoted the Maersk - PSA saga, indirect job lost is a few times the direct job lost....so many ship-supplies biz close down etc etc -
Daddy
the same for singaporean companies to relocate out
If our garmen can attract Foxconn-style companies to SG, I'm sure they will go ahead... but at what cost?verykiasu2010:
solid examples : Shanghai's minimum pay is higher than Shenzhen, Shenzhen's minimum is higher than Chengdu......result : people like Foxconn is setting up inland and uproot production from their old place
Companies can relocate to any countries with cheaper labour... there's no guarantee that they will stay put in one.
So in order to entice these companies from relocating to other countries... we bring in those cheaper labour.
Sure, it helps our GDP figures... shows our good employment rate... but at what cost? -
pixiedust:
I draw a difference between FT and FW. I think you are referring to FW. FT is to solve the lack of talent issue and FW is to solve the lack of cheap labour issue. We need to be clear which is which. From my earlier questioning, Busymom replied she saw FW as the issue Singaporeans are griping about, now I read from insider's post, she thinks FT is what Singaporeans are griping about. So maybe both are issues.ksi:
... Only those employers who are getting the benefit for hiring fw should not be griping and making so much noise. Those who are ranting about fw creating competition must be mainly employees who are struggling to make ends meet with high cost living and yet face competition from the cheaper labour..
Agree. However, the noise is drowning the other side of the story.
Hence it is good to hear of real incidents as shared by Funz. I think in cyberworld, this is the 1st time I actually read about anyone speaking up for the FT issue. The noteable fact is also in Funz's quote, the Singapore restaurant manager's job was also lost. This is the side impact explained by our government and many do not believe or hear.
There are many voters not directly impacted by either camp so we need a balanced view to make a decision.
Funz' remarks are pointing mainly to FW. issues. With regards to FW issues, the reality is employers will favour the influx of FW due to better profit margin whereas the employees will not as it poses stiff competition. For me, I think Singaporeans other than ranting and griping about the competition, perhaps should also look to increase their value to the employer in order to gain the $500 premium starting pay against the FW. If just using the pink IC to fight the case of extra $500, both the government and the employers will not bite. We have been brought up in a meritocracy environment, citizens will not get perks directly in work competition but perhaps in other ways like in education, healthcare etc... Yes it is tough but this is the landscape in Singapore as an economic hub where everyone is pursuing results and profits. Having said this, there might be isolated cases where some people have experienced unfair treatment in education and healthcare...hence the pain of competition kicks in higher. On the whole, I find the problem definition is not very clear or supported by enough well-studied facts. All I know is when there is alot of noise coming from a group of people about FW, it pays to listen first, that is what the leadership has to do.
As for the FT issue, it's ironic to me that we have a widely-touted world-class education but we never produce enough talent and we are not talking about very specialised talent like building earthquake-proof architects or travel-to-the-moon astronauts etc.. we are talking about management staff, supposedly generalists. Most FTs mgt I know just so-called speak better and influence better but the locals mgt just work better.....thanks to our education? :laugh:
Finally if you ask me how a mini Singapore can compete in the global scene successfully...we need both types of giants in our people, both mental and physical. Size does matter, brain and body. Hopefully we can build a nation of people of average height 1.8m tall(for men) and 1.7m (for women) and a brain which can communicate and execute equally well.
And meanwhile to achieve that? It is burning a hole in the parents' pockets!!!!!
-
concern2:
Oh yes, and what about SAHM who decided to stay home and look after kids? Their decision means they are not actively seeking job, doesn't mean their standard of living has improved...Essentially, it means only husband bringing in income for the household, so standard of living actually drops, right?[/quote]I think the question asked was about unemployment rate not standard of living. So yes, self employed, tuition teachers, taxi drivers, all considered employed.
People who become taxi-drivers, insurance agents, real estate agents, self-employed, tuition teachers, etc., are also considered employed, right? (Correct me if I am wrong). But this doesn't mean their income has increased. They have merely found other ways of being employed, so personally, I don't really see that as a good gauge of one's standard of living.concern2:
[quote=\"Busymom\"]
Our unemployment rate is very low now, can't remember the exact figure but it is 1+%.
And to be SAHM that is a personal choice right? So what you driving at? -
Oppsgal:
On a seasonally adjusted basis, 57,100 locals were unemployed in Mar 2011. This corresponds to a resident unemployment rate of 2.7%, which is pretty much full-employment (full employment does not mean zero unemployment, as there will always be people in between jobs and looking for jobs). (Data from MOM, http://www.mom.gov.sg. It's actually the lowest since 2001.
But currently how many Singaporeans are jobless too :?
Of course, the unemployment rate doesn't tell us everything, but it is an important indicator to be taken together with a range of other indicators. OK some really basic economics (pl forgive me if I haven't gotten it all right, it's been awhile).
This figure alone tells us that the labour market is getting tight. This means that 1) employers can't get enough workers to expand their businesses, or in some cases, keep their business going; 2) in the absence of alternative sources of labour (read: foreign workers), wages will have to rise (because labour demand outstrips labour supply.
For (2) some people may cheer and say yay! higher wages! but what does this really translate to? (a) higher prices; (b) for those businesses who are unable to raise prices, it could mean smaller profit margins, or losses; (c) businesses who are unable to raise wages may not be able to sustain their businesses, and decide to close shop and shed labour. Theoretically, these workers who are made redundant can then go and work for those who are still willing and able to hire, until an equilibrium is reached. But there will be higher prices all around (note, wage inflation is not the only source of price rises). As workers we are happy, but as consumers, we may not be so happy...and not all of us are workers, but all of us are consumers.
Note too that in many cases, there is a skill shortage, so even if businesses increases wages, he will not be able to hire anyone to do the job. This also means that some of those who lose their jobs may not be able to find new jobs because their skills are obsolete.
Now, if businesses have access to foreign workers, the labour market becomes more flexible - labour supply can be augmented by foreign workers and wages will not have to rise to quickly; those facing skills shortages will be able to source internationally for those who posses the right skill-set. If you look at the data, you will see that during good times, there is a sharp rise in foreign labour, and during bad times, they are also the first jobs to be shed (of course anecdotally you will tell me that you have seen local workers being retrenched before foreign workers, or foreigners being hired before locals, but here i am talking about economy-wide effects).
OK, that is the economics. In reality, government doesn't wait until a full-employment situation before allowing foreign workers to come in. Just not possible. So, you may have a lower priced foreign worker competing with a local for the same job. To help balance things out, the government has put in barriers, such as levies, quotas and others so that it is not so easy for businesses to hire foreign workers, but it doesn't make sense to tilt the playing field so much that no-one will hire foreigners. (I am not an employer, but I have also heard anecdotally from many employers that they would much rather hire a local than a foreigner, though you will also tell me otherwise. That's why I don't like dealing with anecdotes..) The government also encourages workers to go for training so that they won't be obsolete and employers won't always complain about skills shortage.
I am not arguing for more foreigners. I am just laying out the economics of it and the implications of different policy responses.
If the government now decides to pull back on access to foreign workers, then we must accept that there may be lower, slower growth. This is the trade-off.
We can't have our cake and eat it. In fact, MOM did announce changes to the foreign worker levy earlier and businesses were very unhappy about it. I think some businesses would argue that our labour market has not been open enough. I hear complaints about how MOM won't allow them to hire enough foreigners and that they can't find workers in Singapore. But strangely, I did not hear them speak up for keeping our labour market relatively open when there were anti-foreign worker sentiments expressed during the elections. funz has shared her experience as an employer and I think such voices need to be heard too. Not because I think this view holds more water. But because for each policy issue, there are many different stakeholders and for each policy response, there will be different implications for different groups of stakeholders. The Government needs to decide on where to draw the line. Certainly, they do not (as some have suggested) want a situation where the economy is dominated by foreigners. If this were the case, there would be no quota, no levy, no controls at all. But there are controls in place. It's all about finding the right balance.
Is it the labour market policy we're unhappy with or the other effects, such as overcrowding etc. if it's the latter, then the solution is not to reduce our supply of foreigners, but to improve our infrastructure so that we can cope with it.
As citizens, we cannot only ask the government to do something for us. we should also ask them to explain - so what's the implication of this or that on me or my neighbour? or maybe point out these implications to them, in case they haven't thought about it. but we must understand that most of the time, even if a policy makes someone better off, someone will be worse off. There is always a trade-off. And we must understand what exactly we are unhappy with - is it the policy itself, or implications of the policy.
OK, enough of my verbal diarrhoea. Don't flame me ok? I think I've been dealing with too much kids stuff being stuck at home I feel I gotta exercise my rusty brain a bit...
Anyway, gotta get back to my kids now.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better š
Register Login
Online Users
Statistics
Popular Topics
