Population woes

[mamago]

pirate:

This is a very beguiling question. But I would like to phrase it more pragmatically.

On a micro-economic level, what are the people advocating this themselves prepared to give up for a lower level of economic activity and a lower population density?

Are they willing to:

(1) Eat less outside and cook more at home so that there will be less reliance on foreign service workers;
(2) Do more things DIY so that there will less reliance on foreign plumbers, electricians, carpenters etc;
(3) Pay more when they do eat outside so that more locals can be employed in the service line;
(4) Pay more for public transport or wait longer for the next bus/train so we can cut down on foreign drivers;
(5) Wait longer for HDB BTOs as we allow in fewer construction workers;
(6) Pay more for FDWs so that there is less demand for domestic workers;
(7) Wait longer and pay more for medical care so that we can reduce the number of foreign nurses and doctors; or
(8) Accept a lower pay as more companies relocate out of Singapore while at the same time pay more for basic services (which is likely unless they happen to be blue collar workers providing these services)?

Even if money grows on trees, you still have to climb up the tree to pluck it.

:goodpost:

[limlim]

http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20121009-376388.html

[quote]Minister for Foreign Affairs and Law K. Shanmugam called Ms Cheong's comments \"shameful\". He said the incident confirmed what he had long suspected and had said before, that there are \"deep fault lines in our society\" based on race and religion.[/quote]

[mamago]

limlim:

http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20121009-376388.html

[quote]Minister for Foreign Affairs and Law K. Shanmugam called Ms Cheong's comments \"shameful\". He said the incident confirmed what he had long suspected and had said before, that there are \"deep fault lines in our society\" based on race and religion.

[/quote]
There is no Shangri-La...... as it is now, it's as good as we could get...

[mamago]

No fault lines? That would never happened in mankind society… since the beginning of civilization…

[limlim]

pirate:

limlim:

share some good letters in ST Forum

[quote]Instead of presuming that the population must increase to sustain the economy, can we also consider alternative economic models that suit a lower, more comfortable population density?

Osman Sidek

This is a very beguiling question. But I would like to phrase it more pragmatically.

On a micro-economic level, what are the people advocating this themselves prepared to give up for a lower level of economic activity and a lower population density?

Are they willing to:

(1) Eat less outside and cook more at home so that there will be less reliance on foreign service workers;
(2) Do more things DIY so that there will less reliance on foreign plumbers, electricians, carpenters etc;
(3) Pay more when they do eat outside so that more locals can be employed in the service line;
(4) Pay more for public transport or wait longer for the next bus/train so we can cut down on foreign drivers;
(5) Wait longer for HDB BTOs as we allow in fewer construction workers;
(6) Pay more for FDWs so that there is less demand for domestic workers;
(7) Wait longer and pay more for medical care so that we can reduce the number of foreign nurses and doctors; or
(8) Accept a lower pay as more companies relocate out of Singapore while at the same time pay more for basic services (which is likely unless they happen to be blue collar workers providing these services)?

Even if money grows on trees, you still have to climb up the tree to pluck it.[/quote]You totally missed the BIG picture..

Why do we need some many providers? Because of the increase in demand. Why the increase in demand? becasue of the influx of FTs!

Anyway, for many years Singapore have been relying on FW.. I feel there is no issue with FW.. we need them to fill the void that locals doesn't want to do.

The problem is the recent influx of FTs, PMETs, competing with locals for many things.

FTs contribute to demand for service at restaurants, transport, HDB flats, queue at clinics, handyman services, FDW etc.. NOT the FWs.

With less \"FT\", there will be less competitions.. And less overcrowding.

Don't mixed up the two. One is a necessity.. The other? creating business for rich businessman and lower operating cost for rich bosses.

It's the peasants who will suffer.

[limlim]

I am not prepared to dismiss the need for foreign workers… (service, construction etc…)


But I believe we can do away with majority of the EP and FTs.

[limlim]

pirate:

(5) Wait longer for HDB BTOs as we allow in fewer construction workers;

http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/eat-drink-man-woman-16/%5Bbreaking-news%5D-construction-industry-not-labour-intensive-u-think-3929395.html

I feel that SMEs who cannot be efficient should be allowed to perish instead of supplying them cheap labour to keep them afloat. After all, they are not creating value jobs for locals.

[mamago]

What drives the economy? Spending. Period. Jobs, more jobs, more spending, leads to more jobs being created...


Protectionism doesn't work anymore. That's regression.

Do you know it takes how many FT, FW, FDW to maintain a one long and sustainable career of a local?

[mamago]

limlim:

http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/eat-drink-man-woman-16/%5Bbreaking-news%5D-construction-industry-not-labour-intensive-u-think-3929395.html

I feel that SMEs who cannot be efficient should be allowed to perish instead of supplying them cheap labour to keep them afloat. After all, they are not creating value jobs for locals.

That'll be a black day...

[Dora1]

limlim:

pirate:

[quote=\"limlim\"]share some good letters in ST Forum


Osman Sidek

This is a very beguiling question. But I would like to phrase it more pragmatically.

On a micro-economic level, what are the people advocating this themselves prepared to give up for a lower level of economic activity and a lower population density?

Are they willing to:

(1) Eat less outside and cook more at home so that there will be less reliance on foreign service workers;
(2) Do more things DIY so that there will less reliance on foreign plumbers, electricians, carpenters etc;
(3) Pay more when they do eat outside so that more locals can be employed in the service line;
(4) Pay more for public transport or wait longer for the next bus/train so we can cut down on foreign drivers;
(5) Wait longer for HDB BTOs as we allow in fewer construction workers;
(6) Pay more for FDWs so that there is less demand for domestic workers;
(7) Wait longer and pay more for medical care so that we can reduce the number of foreign nurses and doctors; or
(8) Accept a lower pay as more companies relocate out of Singapore while at the same time pay more for basic services (which is likely unless they happen to be blue collar workers providing these services)?

Even if money grows on trees, you still have to climb up the tree to pluck it.[/quote]You totally missed the BIG picture..

Why do we need some many providers? Because of the increase in demand. Why the increase in demand? becasue of the influx of FTs!

Anyway, for many years Singapore have been relying on FW.. I feel there is no issue with FW.. we need them to fill the void that locals doesn't want to do.

The problem is the recent influx of FTs, PMETs, competing with locals for many things.

FTs contribute to demand for service at restaurants, transport, HDB flats, queue at clinics, handyman services, FDW etc.. NOT the FWs.

With less \"FT\", there will be less competitions.. And less overcrowding.

Don't mixed up the two. One is a necessity.. The other? creating business for rich businessman and lower operating cost for rich bosses.

It's the peasants who will suffer.[/quote]
:goodpost: Totally agreed! I have nothing against the FW. I have issues with some of the S passes, EP or even PR. If they have talents that SC lack, no problem, welcome with open arms. But for a lot of positions (e.g. that Amy Cheong position - she's a PR right?), don't tell me there are no qualified SC that want that job at that pay?
Also, I feel we should implement a minimal wage system. So that the FW and our lower income SC can have a decent standard of living. Just look at the experience of HK recently reported in ST. There was a quote that I totally remembered. It says something like the overheads from the ever increasing rental far exceeds that little bit of increment the wages for the lower income workers. We should seriously look at the HK experience.