‘Unless we have more babies, we need to accept immigrants’

[Daddy D]

Our higher population does not always guaranteed higher GDP, since we are still affected by global economy.


Our higher population does not always guaranteed higher productivity. With the recent calls for improving productivity, I think it is on the decline instead.

Most if not all employers are already used to the cheap SG labour costs. (hospitality, construction, etc)
Now employers are making noise over the FW measures.
Higher operating costs? Pls use the real SG labour cost as the benchmark lah.
If we continue to market SG as a cheap labour market, we will always lose out to some other countries.

Do you think our immigrants’ future generation will be cheap labour? I don’t think so.

[concern2]

3Boys:

My grandparents on both sides had a total of 15 children between them, with a much lower level of resources than we have now. And don't tell me that raising kids is more stressful these days than before, to me that is the biggest C*** of all.

Yes, 3Boys. But did your grandparents have 15 kids because they listened to the govt? My point was not to say raising kids is more stressful these days. Ksi is quite right to point out that it not about incentive or disincentives (remember I did also mention we need no perks or goodies for budget?)

Too much garmen intervention is not good for people. Not too precise in communicating my thoughts, but I guess that would be closer to my point.

[3Boys]

ksi:

I read that concern2 is saying the same thing as you. Having children is a personal matter, nothing to do with the govt, so she does not want to hear any more crap to urge citizens to do this and that. She is certainly not asking for incentives.

To your question, we had our child because we wanted to, nothing to do with incentives, in fact, we ignored the incentive and never even claimed baby bonus, that was how bo chap we were.

That's good insight. I also do not intend to imply that any of us here have children 'because of incentives'.

But why all the GRIPING then?

The corollary of NOT having children because the g'ment is not doing enough or that the environment is too stressful, is that we would have MORE children if the 'g'ment did more or the environment were less stressful', yes? It certainly comes through in the posts.

[3Boys]

concern2:

3Boys:

My grandparents on both sides had a total of 15 children between them, with a much lower level of resources than we have now. And don't tell me that raising kids is more stressful these days than before, to me that is the biggest C*** of all.

Yes, 3Boys. But did your grandparents have 15 kids because they listened to the govt? My point was not to say raising kids is more stressful these days. Ksi is quite right to point out that it not about incentive or disincentives (remember I did also mention we need no perks or goodies for budget?)

Too much garmen intervention is not good for people. Not too precise in communicating my thoughts, but I guess that would be closer to my point.

Ok, I get it. Thanks.

[Way2GO]

3Boys:

We talk a lot about the previous 2 child policy as a big excuse or disincentive to procreation. How many of us in this forum have children conceived under those conditions?


Its ancient history, we use as a stick to beat the g'ment to vent our frustrations, nothing more.

Having children is a personal choice, I don't hold it against anyone for choosing not to have children, whatever the reason. But to blame the g'ment or lack of incentives, to me, is pure BS.

Pardon the language, but this irritates me no end. I just can't see any of my kids as being the result of an 'incentive'.

Of coz d previous Stop at 2 policy has an impact on current pop.
Take a look at how d Fabonacci sequence tracks d pop growth of rabbits.
If d pop growth wasn't curtailed then, it can be argued dat d total local pop wld be greater now.
So there is some validity to ppl raising dat as a counterpoint.

However, I wld agree dat its unfair to pin it on d gahmen now
since there were good valid reasons to implement dat policy at dat point in history.
Circumstances change so policy must change with it.

[Way2GO]

d number of emigrants seemed to be missing in d equation.

how many leave SGP shores for d last 10 years or more?
Why is NPTD (national Population & Talent Div) silent on dis?
In tracking pop change, I think dis has to accounted for.

[buds]

janet_lee88:

buds:

Romances with own spouse orh..


Not romance outside. :politebleah:

Pro-creation with own spouse orh..

Not with ones outside. :torchme:

Procreation ? That is not the difficult thing..it's the bringing up that is TOUGH.
Romancing own spouse...I get the pic...I think many here also :rotflmao: With you-know-who expelled and those 2 men romancing SAME woman...better be specific now.

Specific oredi leh. Spouse means... A marriage partner; a husband or wife.
The 2 men oredi have spouses so the same woman they shared... emmm..
NOT! :rant:

[buds]

3Boys:

buds:

Romances with own spouse orh..


Not romance outside. :politebleah:

Pro-creation with own spouse orh..

Not with ones outside. :torchme:

O yeah, need to be specific eh? :evil:

In the light of things of late... guess one can never be too specific?
Aniwaes, i wanted to have only one. But i have three! The other two
were... ermm.. .. accidents .. so it means that i got accidental incentives.



That said, we still love them all the same.. yes.. incentives or not.. accidents
or not. :please:

Btw, when you mentioned in another post about \"if we're good at pro-creating..\" :romance:

...with three children now, i consider good already le ba.. :please: My hubs not FT
btw.. so i added three Singaporean children to the pool liao. :grphug:

[Daddy D]

Buds.... :udawoman:

Made in SG... By SG...
4th one on the way?
:razz:

[limlim]

3Boys:

I think if we were all better at procreation, we will have much lower dependence on FTs.

New slogan..

do NOT \"STOP AT TWO\"...... :evil: :evil:

and

\"TWO is NOT Enuff\"

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/73/Stop-at-Two.jpg