Population woes
-
limlim:
They might employ an S Pass \"graduate\".. S Pass levy not that much.[/quote]The number of S Pass holders a company can employ is capped at a sub-total of 20% of its total workforce.pirate:
[quote=\"limlim\"]btw, EP got levy meh? since when?
EP is now $4,000 a month. Our local graduates still cannot compete? I think they need a wake-up call. -
If slow population growth results in low economic growth and low economic growth, in turn results in low tax income and thus budget deficit, like some of you suggested. then isn’t it true that sooner or later, we will be facing the problem similar as Greece? This is even worse, we are saying that we rely on a scarce resource that we have, and that is land, to power growth. is not logical. And when we have finally walk down this path of huge budget deficit, we will still be stucked with the problem of congested population that we created earlier on.
Moreover, lower tax income doesn’t necessarily equate budget deficit.On an individual level, we see very high income individuals who splurge themselves to blankruptcy. On the other hand, we have average income individuals who don’t make that much but still manage to save enough for rainy days. -
It’s not about unlimited population growth, it’s about foreign participation in local labour market. There will always need to be some, and depending what we want to do, it may need to be lots.
-
If I may, I’ll say that sustaining economic growth by increasing population is another form of kicking the can down the road. Just like how the present quantitative easings are kicking the can down the road for US (and European Union joining the party soon) financial problems. The only difference is that altering population density artificially creates a more permanent negative impact that may not be able to reverse at all.
-
WeiHan:
If I may, I'll say that sustaining economic growth by increasing population is another form of kicking the can down the road. Just like how the present quantitative easings are kicking the can down the road for US (and European Union joining the party soon) financial problems. The only difference is that altering population density artificially creates a more permanent negative impact that may not be able to reverse at all.
There is scale, and there is scale. What is the optimal size for a country? Is it 2 people? 2000? 2 million?
Up to a point, size doesn't matter. No country can grow its population infinitely, and you will see that I have not argued that population be the end all and be all of economic growth, but rather, that we ought to be at a certain scale.
The more pertinent point is the availability of talent (foreign, if you will) to drive growth. -
3Boys:
Haha. If we have not enough \"talents\" at 3 millions; we have not enough \"talents\" at 4 millions, and we still have not enough \"talents\" at 5 millions, what's the likelihood that we would have enough \"talents\" at 6.. or 6.5 millions?WeiHan:
If I may, I'll say that sustaining economic growth by increasing population is another form of kicking the can down the road. Just like how the present quantitative easings are kicking the can down the road for US (and European Union joining the party soon) financial problems. The only difference is that altering population density artificially creates a more permanent negative impact that may not be able to reverse at all.
There is scale, and there is scale. What is the optimal size for a country? Is it 2 people? 2000? 2 million?
Up to a point, size doesn't matter. No country can grow its population infinitely, and you will see that I have not argued that population be the end all and be all of economic growth, but rather, that we ought to be at a certain scale.
The more pertinent point is the availability of talent (foreign, if you will) to drive growth.
(When asked about the \"ideal\" population size, too bad that our PM had not said what you have said.. Instead, he said,\"We're gradually increasing our land area, and if we rebuild our older towns, then we can accommodate more people,\", \"Today our population is over five million. In the future, six million or so should not be a problem. Beyond that, we'll have to think more carefully\"..) -
mum_sugoku:
Haha. If we have not enough \"talents\" at 3 millions; we have not enough \"talents\" at 4 millions, and we still have not enough \"talents\" at 5 millions, what's the likelihood that we would have enough \"talents\" at 6.. or 6.5 millions?3Boys:
[quote=\"WeiHan\"]If I may, I'll say that sustaining economic growth by increasing population is another form of kicking the can down the road. Just like how the present quantitative easings are kicking the can down the road for US (and European Union joining the party soon) financial problems. The only difference is that altering population density artificially creates a more permanent negative impact that may not be able to reverse at all.
There is scale, and there is scale. What is the optimal size for a country? Is it 2 people? 2000? 2 million?
Up to a point, size doesn't matter. No country can grow its population infinitely, and you will see that I have not argued that population be the end all and be all of economic growth, but rather, that we ought to be at a certain scale.
The more pertinent point is the availability of talent (foreign, if you will) to drive growth.
(When asked about the \"ideal\" population size, too bad that our PM had not said what you have said.. Instead, he said,\"We're gradually increasing our land area, and if we rebuild our older towns, then we can accommodate more people,\", \"Today our population is over five million. In the future, six million or so should not be a problem. Beyond that, we'll have to think more carefully\"..)[/quote]He has said exactly what I said. We can increase the population to the point that we have some scale. When a city like Shanghai is 20 million, being a city of 3 million is a disadvantage. Being a city of 6 million is still a disadvantage, but less so. He says beyond 6.5 million we will have to think more carefully, which means we will need to grow much more slowly if at all. -
3Boys:
Aren't we trying to compete on a resource that we naturally has a disadvantage? If increasing population and scale is an advantage, then we are doomed, Taipei, Shanghai, Seoul etc...can all increase scale much more easily than Singapore since their city size can expand easily within a hinterland but we can't.
He has said exactly what I said. We can increase the population to the point that we have some scale. When a city like Shanghai is 20 million, being a city of 3 million is a disadvantage. Being a city of 6 million is still a disadvantage, but less so. He says beyond 6.5 million we will have to think more carefully, which means we will need to grow much more slowly if at all. -
3Boys:
\"scale\" = max. capacity????! (Why, do you think, that PM said \"we have to think carefully beyond 6.5million\"?)
He has said exactly what I said. We can increase the population to the point that we have some scale. When a city like Shanghai is 20 million, being a city of 3 million is a disadvantage. Being a city of 6 million is still a disadvantage, but less so. He says beyond 6.5 million we will have to think more carefully, which means we will need to grow much more slowly if at all.mum_sugoku:
Haha. If we have not enough \"talents\" at 3 millions; we have not enough \"talents\" at 4 millions, and we still have not enough \"talents\" at 5 millions, what's the likelihood that we would have enough \"talents\" at 6.. or 6.5 millions?
(When asked about the \"ideal\" population size, too bad that our PM had not said what you have said.. Instead, he said,\"We're gradually increasing our land area, and if we rebuild our older towns, then we can accommodate more people,\", \"Today our population is over five million. In the future, six million or so should not be a problem. Beyond that, we'll have to think more carefully\"..)
Anyway I share WeiHan's sentiment
.
-
WeiHan:
Chan Chun Sing, and others before him, have already said that not having a hinterland is a BIG disadvantage.
Aren't we trying to compete on a resource that we naturally has a disadvantage? If increasing population and scale is an advantage, then we are doomed, Taipei, Shanghai, Seoul etc...can all increase scale much more easily than Singapore since their city size can expand easily within a hinterland but we can't.3Boys:
He has said exactly what I said. We can increase the population to the point that we have some scale. When a city like Shanghai is 20 million, being a city of 3 million is a disadvantage. Being a city of 6 million is still a disadvantage, but less so. He says beyond 6.5 million we will have to think more carefully, which means we will need to grow much more slowly if at all.
So who's to say we are not doomed? But I'm not giving up without a fight
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 💗
Register Login