it's progress
heck care about elites, please, i don't think it's fair to say that NOTHING is being done. =/
@static: HUH?! :bigeyes:
:bsmilie:
U dun understand geeks lingo. :sweatsm: my bad
it's progress
heck care about elites, please, i don't think it's fair to say that NOTHING is being done. =/
@static: HUH?! :bigeyes:
i know what owned means, i play dota:bsmilie:
U dun understand geeks lingo. :sweatsm: my bad
i know what owned means, i play dota
but er
once again, HUH? =D
I oso sianz, but how to be a leaver if kena owned in real life :bheart:
it's not maths
a country's economy has got nothing to do with what an individual (who is living in THAT country) is getting for his pay!
tsk
it's nothing to do with maths.. =(
big picture versus small picture, definitely i'm not denying the fact that some people face problems, but complaining that their pay is not rising despite economy improving is in short, ludicrous!
looking at those CNY sign they put at those lamp post.
国富民强
why not 国泰民安 all they give a shi* is $.
To hell with the positive economic, the only different i see is paying more.
...And how qualified are you?...May I ask how qualified you are to make such a statement? I don't think that it is right to say it is ludicrous either. There is a relationship between how well the economy in Singapore performs and what kind of pay you get. It's just not at all direct because the pay that you get really depends on a large part what your profession is, what sector of the economy you are situated in, who you work for and how hard you work.
...
So the economy has EVERYTHING to do with how much you get, it's just that it's indirect. What is direct i.e. how much you CAN earn boils down to the personalchoices that you make to make that difference.
...And how qualified are you?...
I refuse to put down any qualifications of mine on the table, because they will never be validated, and it's frankly pointless. Unless you want me to what, meet you and show you this cert or that cert? A bit boh liao right? So let's not drag qualifications into the story.
Note that I said personal wage. I admit it is not entirely ludicrous, perhaps it was merely a desire to drive home the point after no one acknowledged it. In any case, many jobs (I cannot give you solid figures since this is really based on quite a number of premises) would not have the renumeration based on how well the economy does. And even if a job's wage is adjusted up because of the economy, it isn't some "I peg your wage to economy" thing, i.e. the upwards translation would take some time to be reflected while the economic situation stabilises. Get what I mean?
A point to add, the civil servants bonuses are directly linked to the state of the economy.
It's simple. On the overall scale if a company is doing well, the economy need not be doing well. If a company is doing badly, the economy might be doing well. So it is ludicrous. Simple, clean logic and I don't have to inject any bizarre sounding economic theories to prove it.I did not ask what paper qualifications you have, I asked how qualified are you to say this? e.g. do you work as some analyst that looks at economies vs compensation, do you make salary decisions and what are your considerations made on or do you work in a human resources department that deals with renumeration? If you are involved in any of these activities, you would not be saying that it to be ludicrous.
A point to add, the civil servants bonuses are directly linked to the state of the economy.
0.o Last I knew there was a grading system for civil servants, and depending on how well they did on the scorecard, they got variable bonus.Strong valid point.
Regardless how well or poor their performance are, they still getting their 3mth bonuses.
Regulars in the armed forces are a good example.
Strong valid point.
Regardless how well or poor their performance are, they still getting their 3mth bonuses.
Regulars in the armed forces are a good example.
It's simple. On the overall scale if a company is doing well, the economy need not be doing well. If a company is doing badly, the economy might be doing well. So it is ludicrous. Simple, clean logic and I don't have to inject any bizarre sounding economic theories to prove it.
Secondly, civil servants' bonus, yes, roughly linked. But once again, the time lag still exists, shrug.
This is typical behaviour - switching to doomsday prophecies for all alike when logic does not lie on your side and you have nothing else to say.The next economic downturn is probably around the corner, it could happen this year or within the next few years. You will like everybody else be caught in it, and when it happens, you will know it not to be ludicrous, but it will be too late by then. The rest of us who recognise it not to be ludicrous early will be better prepared to protect ourselves to ride out the downturn, leaving you way behind. :bsmilie:
Basically, yes, that'd be it.If our economy consists of 10 people, we created and add $1000 to our GDP. If we divided it equally among the 10 people, each of us will collect $100. In this case, everyone feel that we have a fair share in the rising economy.
But in reality, wealth is never distributed equally and it never will.
2 people will share $800 and the other 8 people share the remaining $200.
Although the economy is good but the level of satisfaction among the 10 people is different. That is why, we have this problem here.