Population woes
-
WeiHan:
These kind of projects that you gave as examples require many engineers to work on - a few hundreds to a few thousands working as a team. Singapore isn't ready to pour in this size of resource for these kind of projects.[/quote]Perhaps. But that does not detract from the point that they have knowhow that our local universities may not have. I will therefore be slow to make the assumption that they cannot be good merely because they are from universities in China, which is implicit in the bolded part. There is no reason to assume that the top universities in a country with the capability to send up manned rockets is not at least comparable to our local ones. That is the hubris I was referring to. Universities like Beijing and Qinghua are considered world class. Even graduates from universities there that are not as well-known here such as Xiamen and Jiaotong are able to stand their own against our local graduates at any time.pirate:
[quote=\"lim72\"]That is exactly what I'm trying to point out. The employer who was interviewed by bbc didn't mention quality but emphasized on the 'cheapness'of these foreign graduates. He assumed these graduates were good based on the assumption that they were from one of the 'top' universities. So are you prepared to tell your kids that based on same qualification, if you are not cheap enough, you can't compete with these foreigners. I really hope that I don't have to tell my ds this cruel truth.
Do I detect some hubris here? Are employers supposed to assume that someone is good merely because he is from a local university? I know that engineers from the top universities in China can build a nuclear power plant and send a manned rocket into space. I am not so sure that our engineers can.
I may sound harsh, but I am particularly unhappy with this kind of hubris circulating amongst our local graduates. A variant of which I have encountered is that an upper second from our local U is comparable to a first from universities in the UK. Go and ask any employer anywhere in the world whether an upper second from our local universities is comparable to a first from the likes of Oxford, Cambridge, London or Bristol and they will laugh. -
pirate:
They might employ an S Pass \"graduate\".. S Pass levy not that much.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. -
pirate:
There is no doubt that there are real talents out there.
Perhaps. But that does not detract from the point that they have knowhow that our local universities may not have.
But either these pple are probably working in top agencies in other countries or their own country.. and not come to SG to work in some MNCs or SMEs.
The talents likely end up at NASA or Google or some top notch companies and not come here. and they do not appear in big numbers.
Those who came, are probably not the best in their own country.
So, having top talents in a country doesn't that most of those FT that came from that country are talents too. -
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.
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