Are you ready for 7 million people on tiny Singapore?
-
Nebbermind:
I believe most white collars will have no problem working beyond retirement. But what kind of jobs do we have here for the aged blue collar workforce? Surely many of them can't be doing the things they did in their 40s/50s?
Eg. movers. I've often wondered what job they will switch to when they grow old. Can't say that the govt isn't doing anything for them. WDA have courses to help these individuals to upgrade or acquire new skills. Not sure how popular/useful/successful the programmes are though. -
3Boys:
My point isn't saying that the job is demeaning. My point is can older people who wish to continue to work still find economically viable jobs. Already, even PMETs who got retrenched in their 40s are finding it hard to get back a job. The old lady said that she can make $2-$8 per day scavenging at those cans and cardboards.
Oh Yah! How can I forget that fave pic of that old lady with a push cart and cardboard boxes.
What did you do today, WeiHan, to talk to that lady and see if you could help her? Do you know her circumstances, whether she has family that are financially stable and refuses to help her? Whether she has turned down MCYS assistance, or she has already taken MCYS assistance and wishes to continue with her sideline?
We can't get into a mature discussion about ageing workforce without that old cardboard box lady, yah?
Pray tell, what value added job can you find her? Just because you find that job demeaning, does not mean she feels the same way. -
S'pore is 6th most expensive city
http://business.asiaone.com/A1Business/News/Story/A1Story20130205-400064/2.html -
WeiHan:
But can someone else receiving $8 a day expect to:
My point isn't saying that the job is demeaning. My point is can older people who wish to continue to work still find economically viable jobs. Already, even PMETs who got retrenched in their 40s are finding it hard to get back a job. The old lady said that she can make $2-$8 per day scavenging at those cans and cardboards.3Boys:
Oh Yah! How can I forget that fave pic of that old lady with a push cart and cardboard boxes.
What did you do today, WeiHan, to talk to that lady and see if you could help her? Do you know her circumstances, whether she has family that are financially stable and refuses to help her? Whether she has turned down MCYS assistance, or she has already taken MCYS assistance and wishes to continue with her sideline?
We can't get into a mature discussion about ageing workforce without that old cardboard box lady, yah?
Pray tell, what value added job can you find her? Just because you find that job demeaning, does not mean she feels the same way.
- pay off casino debts
- pay off credit card or big ear loans
- pay off 40 years mortgage loan tenor
- pay daily rountrip $3 MRT or bus fare
- pay utility bills
- pay minor ailment GP fees
And still pay 2 meals of $2 each? :scratchhead: -
ruohoo97:
Indeed. The problem is manpower shortage, not pay, that's why we need FWs.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!
However, FT is different. We have skilled workers who are willing to take up PMET jobs, why import excessive FTs to fight for the limited jobs.. -
WeiHan:
Sigh... so who can make working environment less hostile for both white & blue collars older workers?
My point isn't saying that the job is demeaning. My point is can older people who wish to continue to work still find economically viable jobs. Already, even PMETs who got retrenched in their 40s are finding it hard to get back a job. The old lady said that she can make $2-$8 per day scavenging at those cans and cardboards.
I think gahmen is probably the only one who can influence the employers and slowly change the current mindset of employing younger (& cheaper) workers. This will of course takes time to see results and definitely required lots of persuasion because business cost will increase.
We're an ageing population & yet older workers are being penalised.
With less hostile environment, older Singaporeans can still find jobs & thus less reliance on FTs or FWs. -
limlim:
I don't understand either :scratchhead:Indeed. The problem is manpower shortage, not pay, that's why we need FWs.
However, FT is different. We have skilled workers who are willing to take up PMET jobs, why import excessive FTs to fight for the limited jobs.. -
sleepy:
Because they are cheaper, more hardworking, can communicate better, more pleasant personalities, no reservist, no maternity leave and no AWS.
I don't understand either :scratchhead:limlim:
Indeed. The problem is manpower shortage, not pay, that's why we need FWs.
However, FT is different. We have skilled workers who are willing to take up PMET jobs, why import excessive FTs to fight for the limited jobs..
-
This is an excerpt of what Sylvia Lim said. Beyond the numbers and the rhetoric, it is important to understand what it really means.
[quote]Madam, on our part, the Workers’ Party would like to suggest an alternative approach to address the demographic challenge. Instead of the trade-off proposed by the government to achieve its GDP growth targets, we propose a trade-off of having a more moderate GDP growth, lower by 0.5% to 1% below what the government is proposing.[In other words, compared to the White Paper, there will be lower levels of economic activity and hence, fewer PME jobs (especially in MNCs) that we want for our children will be available. It also means that our investments set aside for retirement will be generating a lower return.] This approach will reduce the population injections required to churn the economy. Let me sketch this out and let my colleagues expand further in the coming days.
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.[But always remember that our immediate neighbours will be working towards a 5%-6% GDP growth 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. [This means that fewer of our children will have the option of having a stay-at-home parent. It will also mean that more of us will have to work beyond the current retirement age.]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. [Under a lower growth scenario, one must remember that these economic resources will however be generating a lower return than under the white paper scenario] 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.[Thus, fewer will be available to look after grandchildren] 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.
This more modest GDP growth rate from now to 2030 would require a lower population to sustain it. We have done some estimates and believe that this is achievable with a population at 2030 of 5.9 million or less. My colleagues will elaborate on these projections later in the debate.
Our proposed trade-off is having 1 million less people than the government’s projections, in exchange for a reduction of GDP growth of 0.5% to 1%. This trade-off will mean less overcrowding, better integration of newcomers, a stronger Singapore identity, and less stressful labour market competition. This, in turn, is likely to have knock-on effects on TFR recovery. It will also not be at the expense of market competitiveness, as our economy continues to restructure to push the proportion of Singaporeans in PMET jobs from half to two-thirds.[ie. the Workers' Party is taking the same position as the White Paper that somehow it is possible for the majority of Singaporeans to be PMET, without explaining who they will be 'PMET' over, if not foreignerss? What is the worker to PMET ratio? How is it an improvement in productivity to have more and more PMETs to manage/supervise/support fewer and fewer workers?][/quote]Which trade-off is optimal? I have no idea. So long as people understand what the trade-offs are. Whether we take the white paper trade-offs or the WP's propsed trade-offs, it is not going to be a bed of roses. -
Ok so one of the suggestion is more FWs, less FTs.....
:please:
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 đź’—
Register Login