Are you ready for 7 million people on tiny Singapore?
-
daddy2007:
You omitted my last sentence; \"......just so you know, be prepared to work longer, even WP says so.\"
:goodpost: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.\"
...which is the critical component of what I'm trying to put across. -
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 -
sleepy:
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.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
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. -
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 ā¦ -
3Boys:
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..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/ -
mum_sugoku:
If we are willing to work longer, it'll be easier for the g'ment to slow the inflow. And as we work older, we need to adjust to new realities and maybe swallow a bit of pride and take on less demanding roles for lower pay.
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..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/
Just wait and see the howls of protests when the g'ment next increases retirement age to 67. -
3Boys:
That is the point that I have been wondering about. Wouldn't decades of high economic growth allows most of our elders to have accumulate sufficient saving for their retirement? Why is there a need to say that 2 working adults are required to support 1 retired elders?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/
Adding to that, i believe nature goes through natural cycles. Economy will go through natural cycle of expansion and recession. Human artificial interventions to short circuit these natural cycles only kick the can further down the road and when the reckoning arrives, the backlash will be many times worse. This is best illustrated by the present money printing to kick the can down the road-an attempt to delay the unavoidable.
The same goes with population. I believe there is natural cycle. It goes through natural cycle of expansion, stagnation and even contraction base on complex response to macro environmental, economic and natural conditions. any attempt to short circuit this natural cycles only bring about greater backlash at a later date. By increasing population artificially, we are merely kicking the can down the road and someday down the road, the repercussion will show its ugly face. -
3Boys:
I'm not suggesting the existing retirement age to be increased further in the pretext of holding on to our cpf.
If we are willing to work longer, it'll be easier for the g'ment to slow the inflow. And as we work older, we need to adjust to new realities and maybe swallow a bit of pride and take on less demanding roles for lower pay.
Just wait and see the howls of protests when the g'ment next increases retirement age to 67.
What I'm trying to say is if a person is willing & capable, he or she can continue working beyond recommended retirement age. And neither employer nor gahmen should force a person to retire just because he or she hits retirement age.
Promotion & annual increment should be as per usual ie. based on performance. A person doesn't suddenly become less capable 1 day after his or her retirement age. Thus he or she should not be penalised & forced to settle for a lower pay or a lower level job. -
ruohoo97:
I think it is unfair to say that. We don't just work for the money, there's such a thing as job satisfaction, personal growth and interest. A lot of people like challenges too and derive a lot of satisfaction from problem solving and project delivery. In Maslow's hierarchy of needs, money probably ranks at the lower 3 tiers.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 .... -
keroppi:
Precisely. With such a person (as described above) I seriously doubt he or she would take on for example a postman role even if he or she is being offered 30% more than his or her existing pay.
I think it is unfair to say that. We don't just work for the money, there's such a thing as job satisfaction, personal growth and interest. A lot of people like challenges too and derive a lot of satisfaction from problem solving and project delivery. In Maslow's hierarchy of needs, money probably ranks at the lower 3 tiers.
I'm not saying a postman job is less desirable but rather it's a different sort of challenge & job satisfaction to that person (as described above)
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