Are you ready for 7 million people on tiny Singapore?

[3Boys]

I would like to highlight a section of Sylvia Lim's speech in parliament about the population white paper;


\"We believe that Singapore should instead work towards a more modest GDP growth of 2.5 to 3.5% per year up to 2020, and from 2020 to 2030, 1.5 to 2.5% per year. We believe this rate can be achieved with productivity improvements at the same rate as that proposed in the White Paper, but with less population injections, if we can utilise more of our existing population. We could target to grow our resident workforce by 1% per year, by getting more foreign spouses, home-makers and seniors back to work. Second, our senior citizens may not be as much of a burden as the government makes out. Using the old-age support ratio to justify the need for higher GDP growth ignores the fact that, increasingly over time, many of our seniors would have their own economic resources to live on, reducing their need to be supported. Many seniors are also retiring later. Indeed, there is potential to tap our seniors further as a resource, rather than view them as a burden. Third, the more modest growth rate would consume less resources and be in line with sustainable development, preserving our precious land reserves for future generations.\"

......just so you know, be prepared to work longer, even WP says so.

Full speech here --> http://wp.sg/2013/02/a-dynamic-population-for-a-sustainable-singapore-reclaiming-back-singapore-mp-sylvia-lim/

[daddy2007]

toddles:

Went something like that... replacing the words \"We can achieve, we can achieve\" with
\"We can be squeezed, we can be squeezed\"... :faint:

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

[daddy2007]

crony.in.ksp:

and many of you would be secretly heaving a sigh of relief for more younger people to shoulder the economic responsibility of looking after the aged and paying the cost of it

Shouldn't the current & subsequent generations of the aged have substantial CPF savings by that time and can self support and government don't need to pay so much. Why need younger people to pay the cost? We are not a pension state. Unless the amount in CPF is not enough actually or the medical cost will be sky high by then.

[daddy2007]

3Boys:

I would like to highlight a section of Sylvia Lim's speech in parliament about the population white paper;


\"We believe that Singapore should instead work towards a more modest GDP growth of 2.5 to 3.5% per year up to 2020, and from 2020 to 2030, 1.5 to 2.5% per year. We believe this rate can be achieved with productivity improvements at the same rate as that proposed in the White Paper, but with less population injections, if we can utilise more of our existing population. We could target to grow our resident workforce by 1% per year, by getting more foreign spouses, home-makers and seniors back to work. Second, our senior citizens may not be as much of a burden as the government makes out. Using the old-age support ratio to justify the need for higher GDP growth ignores the fact that, increasingly over time, many of our seniors would have their own economic resources to live on, reducing their need to be supported. Many seniors are also retiring later. Indeed, there is potential to tap our seniors further as a resource, rather than view them as a burden. Third, the more modest growth rate would consume less resources and be in line with sustainable development, preserving our precious land reserves for future generations.\"

:goodpost:

[3Boys]

daddy2007:

crony.in.ksp:

and many of you would be secretly heaving a sigh of relief for more younger people to shoulder the economic responsibility of looking after the aged and paying the cost of it

Shouldn't the current & subsequent generations of the aged have substantial CPF savings by that time and can self support and government don't need to pay so much. Why need younger people to pay the cost? We are not a pension state. Unless the amount in CPF is not enough actually or the medical cost will be sky high by then.

CPF won't be enough.

And it'd be even worse if people keep asking for early withdrawal, lowering contribution rates, and being a real pain about it in general.

[3Boys]

daddy2007:

3Boys:

I would like to highlight a section of Sylvia Lim's speech in parliament about the population white paper;


\"We believe that Singapore should instead work towards a more modest GDP growth of 2.5 to 3.5% per year up to 2020, and from 2020 to 2030, 1.5 to 2.5% per year. We believe this rate can be achieved with productivity improvements at the same rate as that proposed in the White Paper, but with less population injections, if we can utilise more of our existing population. We could target to grow our resident workforce by 1% per year, by getting more foreign spouses, home-makers and seniors back to work. Second, our senior citizens may not be as much of a burden as the government makes out. Using the old-age support ratio to justify the need for higher GDP growth ignores the fact that, increasingly over time, many of our seniors would have their own economic resources to live on, reducing their need to be supported. Many seniors are also retiring later. Indeed, there is potential to tap our seniors further as a resource, rather than view them as a burden. Third, the more modest growth rate would consume less resources and be in line with sustainable development, preserving our precious land reserves for future generations.\"

:goodpost:

You omitted my last sentence; \"......just so you know, be prepared to work longer, even WP says so.\"

...which is the critical component of what I'm trying to put across.

[sleepy]

What's wrong with working longer :scratchhead:

Better than forced retirement just because a person hit a certain age, even though his/her mind & body is willing & capable of working for many more years

[3Boys]

sleepy:

What's wrong with working longer :scratchhead:

Better than forced retirement just because a person hit a certain age, even though his/her mind & body is willing & capable of working for many more years

I am completely in favour of working longer. But just wander onto the fora of PAP-haters and you get all the rubbish about how EVIL the g'ment is in extending the CPF withdrawal age and making our old folks work till they die.

As long as people understand the trade-offs, its fine. It's when people stick their heads in the sand, then we have a problem.

PAP-haters, just so you know, WP is also advocating longer work-life.

[ruohoo97]

Heard on 93.8 radio "get you talking" this morning, one caller Mr Lim suggested we should have minimum wage for locals, especially blue collars. But when asked whether he would like to take up cleaning job if he is offered the same pay as he has now, he shied off.


that is the root of problem!

We think we are highly educated so we are not "capable" to take on the lowly jobs, which are "rightfully" left for FWs. The only jobs are fit into locals, are PMEs. So we reap what we sow. So in that way, I agree with some ksps, why complain …

[mum_sugoku]

3Boys:

I would like to highlight a section of Sylvia Lim's speech in parliament about the population white paper;


\"We believe that Singapore should instead work towards a more modest GDP growth of 2.5 to 3.5% per year up to 2020, and from 2020 to 2030, 1.5 to 2.5% per year. We believe this rate can be achieved with productivity improvements at the same rate as that proposed in the White Paper, but with less population injections, if we can utilise more of our existing population. We could target to grow our resident workforce by 1% per year, by getting more foreign spouses, home-makers and seniors back to work. Second, our senior citizens may not be as much of a burden as the government makes out. Using the old-age support ratio to justify the need for higher GDP growth ignores the fact that, increasingly over time, many of our seniors would have their own economic resources to live on, reducing their need to be supported. Many seniors are also retiring later. Indeed, there is potential to tap our seniors further as a resource, rather than view them as a burden. Third, the more modest growth rate would consume less resources and be in line with sustainable development, preserving our precious land reserves for future generations.\"

......just so you know, be prepared to work longer, even WP says so.

Full speech here --> http://wp.sg/2013/02/a-dynamic-population-for-a-sustainable-singapore-reclaiming-back-singapore-mp-sylvia-lim/

Alas perhaps it's not a matter of whether seniors are willing to work longer.. but a matter of whether employers are willing to continue hiring them-- Especially if the employers have the luxury of choosing younger.. and cheaper workers from elsewhere..