Singapore Population 4.84 Million. Singaporean will become Minority at 6.5 Million.

[chisiang]

the sad reality is that certain infrastructure has not kept up with the increase in population. the larger scale of economy did little to slow down cost of living. they're mostly playing catch-up.... as of today, a certain NEL station still waiting for enough people to justify operating (will leave it at that).

transport fares continue to increase for few good reason, they need to offset higher operating cost. can any staff say & expect the same from boss? how about the 'fight' to get a child into a school?

higher GDP but stagnant salary for the masses, a benefit?



is it in S'pore's best interest to compare with a situation worse off? cherry picking an isolated issue is unfair.

the world is that big, how many countries should we bring into the picture? that would be rahther off-topic btw.

I'm sorry that you failed to see the greater picture. If you ask most PMEBs in Singapore, they will tell you that our population is too small to sustain our current lifestyle.

Our domestic market is saturated. It is harder and harder to get sales and competition within our country is getting tougher.

As for certain subway station being under utilised, well, you cannot wait until there's sufficient demand then you start to build the station. People will condemn it! You anticipate the growth and build it. But then again, there will still be people complaining. That's what Singaporean do the best. Under utilised station> complain. Cannot build in time> Complain.

As for hike in transportation, inflation, that's a global threats. We are not alone. The forces behind it is beyond our control. And if the authority is to subsidise heavily, then that is even more grave considering that we will be heading towards a nanny state, and what's next? Welfare state?

As for not enough good schools and staffs having low salary... that's the point I'm trying to make you understand.

Building more schools is easy. Staffing the school with good teachers is the problem because most of our qualified people are venturing out for business as our market is too small and saturated. Therefore we need to attract the so call foreign teachers but our peasants are complaining. So help me out.

and if staff wants more pay, well, the company must first of all make sufficient money. But our market is simply too small and saturated. If you don't want more people to pour into Singapore, then tell me what should be done to increase our market size?

Move overseas? Then jobs will move overseas.

 

[Goondu]

Hi:

Cut you into one piece one piece = chiat le chi teh chi teh
...

So, "Cut you into one piece piece" is similar to "Like a lamb to the slaughter"?

There's a saying which I can always remember, "Fire can be a good servant or a bad master" It depends on which school of thought you are in. We can always argue until the cows comes home and still there will not be a conclusion to this.

 

[sORe-EyEz]

I'm sorry that you failed to see the greater picture. If you ask most PMEBs in Singapore, they will tell you that our population is too small to sustain our current lifestyle.

Our domestic market is saturated. It is harder and harder to get sales and competition within our country is getting tougher.

As for certain subway station being under utilised, well, you cannot wait until there's sufficient demand then you start to build the station. People will condemn it! You anticipate the growth and build it. But then again, there will still be people complaining. That's what Singaporean do the best. Under utilised station> complain. Cannot build in time> Complain.

As for hike in transportation, inflation, that's a global threats. We are not alone. The forces behind it is beyond our control. And if the authority is to subsidise heavily, then that is even more grave considering that we will be heading towards a nanny state, and what's next? Welfare state?

As for not enough good schools and staffs having low salary... that's the point I'm trying to make you understand.

Building more schools is easy. Staffing the school with good teachers is the problem because most of our qualified people are venturing out for business as our market is too small and saturated. Therefore we need to attract the so call foreign teachers but our peasants are complaining. So help me out.

and if staff wants more pay, well, the company must first of all make sufficient money. But our market is simply too small and saturated. If you don't want more people to pour into Singapore, then tell me what should be done to increase our market size?

Move overseas? Then jobs will move overseas.

sustain our current lifestyle? whose? wad happened to our can-do spirit of our founding fathers?

as for the station's situation its unique, when other stations were built non needed any justification to operate, they just did.

for inflation woes, blaming global trends is a cop-out, an excuse. S'pore isn't where we are due to global trends. we're not labelled as asian tigers for no good reason. we grew beyond our physical size & surpassed our neighbours. S'pore bucked the trend (yah, passed tense liao, doh. history?).

our teachers pay not enough? how little are they paid? as i am not in that profession, i cant answer.

think abt it - they have been revising the pay quite regularly for the last few years. if the pay is so blardy attractive, why are there more teachers leaving than teachers coming in every year? of course there are many reasons why people leave the teaching service. however, if u pay attention to minister tharman's speech last nite on the news, even he acknowledged dat payrise alone cannot keep existing teachers. i'm glad to hear MOE is looking into measures on how to improve the working conditions of existing teachers - great move, considering the emphasis was on the students for the last few years.

As someone else in the thread has mentioned, don't join teaching for the sake of the money.

Teaching is a calling...join if you have the underlying belief that you want to impart to and invest in children/youths, because that's the only thing that will keep you sane in the midst of the workload and kids that never seem to run out of ideas to make you angry. :sweat:

 

[Silence Sky]

I'm sorry that you failed to see the greater picture. If you ask most PMEBs in Singapore, they will tell you that our population is too small to sustain our current lifestyle.

Our domestic market is saturated. It is harder and harder to get sales and competition within our country is getting tougher.

and if staff wants more pay, well, the company must first of all make sufficient money. But our market is simply too small and saturated. If you don't want more people to pour into Singapore, then tell me what should be done to increase our market size?

Move overseas? Then jobs will move overseas.

I do not understand your points.

We started off with a smaller population and with limited resources we built Singapore into a first class city.

Do we really need additional foreigners to maintain our current lifestyle? That would be very pathetic, Singaporeans standard of living depends on foreigners.

Going by your logic, Indonesia must be much stronger than Singapore because their population is so much bigger than ours.
A point to ponder - Why China implemented the "One Child Policy"?.

Economics 101- A population standard of living depends on their productivity.

Maths 101 - A foreigner contribute to the economy if he/she pay more tax than the benefits he/she receives. You can make a guess, how many billions of dollars these workers transfer out of Singapore each year.

There is a thread on electricity price hike, if put it all together we may be able to solve the puzzle.

 

[night86mare]

We started off with a smaller population and with limited resources we built Singapore into a first class city.

Do we really need additional foreigners to maintain our current lifestyle? That would be very pathetic, Singaporeans standard of living depends on foreigners.

yes, but the potential to be attained then is so much more than the potential to be attained now - is it really so hard to see that turning into something better than a newbie golfer is a lot easier than tiger woods retaining his title every year?

and there is nothing shameful or pathetic about "needing additional foreigners to maintain current lifestyle" - that point is debatable and i do not wish to go into that. but fact is fact, many countries' economies are sustained largely by foreigners, rather than the locals. in an increasingly globalised climate, is there really a significant difference between a foreigner and a local in the long run?

 

[night86mare]

for inflation woes, blaming global trends is a cop-out, an excuse. S'pore isn't where we are due to global trends. we're not labelled as asian tigers for no good reason. we grew beyond our physical size & surpassed our neighbours. S'pore bucked the trend (yah, passed tense liao, doh. history?).

our teachers pay not enough? how little are they paid? as i am not in that profession, i cant answer.

1) the label of asian tigers is heavily debated in the economist's world. there are many economists today who perceive the rapid growth of singapore (along with the other "asian tigers") as a result of factors other than some magic growth formula that is unique to the region or any result of asianity. the most common counterargument is actually population growth. no doubt stricter governance and better management of resources have a part to play, but possibly they are not as magical as you have painted them out to be.

2) on teachers' pay - "enough" is subjective. for some people, there can never be enough.

 

[night86mare]

Singaporeans, do you still feel that Singapore is your home after so call being "invaded" by foreigners?
Yes, they help take up jobs which we do not want, they help boost our economy, however gradually i think Singapore wont be Singapore in time to come. Just my thoughts.

the same could be asked of any city that has been subjected to rapid globalisation.

if you walk on the streets of london, you will see more foreigners than british going about their daily life. yet is london still london? without a doubt.

 

[night86mare]

higher GDP but stagnant salary for the masses, a benefit?

stagnant salary for the masses? please compare the starting pay of yesterdays to the starting pay of today. *just* the civil service alone is more than enough. if any company has not adjusted their payscale accordingly, then i suggest that if you are in such a company, you should leave for greener pastures.

just because someone has not been promoted, nor has his company given him any customary (almost) increment, doesn't mean that the entire economy revolves around him. i am frequently amused by the fact that such statements are made unthinkingly and aloud. an individual's own plight doesn't represent the whole economy.

 

[sORe-EyEz]

stagnant salary for the masses? please compare the starting pay of yesterdays to the starting pay of today. *just* the civil service alone is more than enough. if any company has not adjusted their payscale accordingly, then i suggest that if you are in such a company, you should leave for greener pastures.

just because someone has not been promoted, nor has his company given him any customary (almost) increment, doesn't mean that the entire economy revolves around him. i am frequently amused by the fact that such statements are made unthinkingly and aloud. an individual's own plight doesn't represent the whole economy.

no doubt civil service employs a large number of population, private sector is as different as day & night. just because my sentiment does not necessarily represent the whole economy does not mean i cannot make a personal stand on the issue. btw, neither does civil service sector jobs alone represent the whole economy, if thatz how you view each post.

 

[night86mare]

no doubt civil service employs a large number of population, private sector is as different as day & night. just because my sentiment does not necessarily represent the whole economy does not mean i cannot make a personal stand on the issue. btw, neither does civil service sector jobs alone represent the whole economy, if thatz how you view each post.

sure, you can make a personal stand on the issue, that might be affected by your own emotions and all that, but it is frankly speaking, to me.. in anything one might call a "logical discussion".. a very inane thing to do. because anything and everything under the sun can be called a "personal stand" and what do you expect people to respond to that?

it is the same as claiming that your photograph is art, even though 8000 people hate it and find it messy, horrible. in other words, it is a form of copping out.

i think it should suffice to say that civil service jobs are comparably more weakly paid compared to private sector jobs. of course there are reasons for this, other than the common argument that it is the warm fuzzy feeling that civil servants get in their hearts for serving nation and people.

take a look at the job market though, based on averages.. pay has been going up. if that is not enough, then i'm not sure what is. but then again, you can always retreat into your personal stand. that's a bit unfair, in that no one's going to argue that you have a right to a personal stand. after all, if i say that i am 2.50 metres and am the tallest man in the world, and it is a personal stand.. no one's really going to argue with me.. :bsmilie:

 

[sORe-EyEz]

sure, you can make a personal stand on the issue, that might be affected by your own emotions and all that, but it is frankly speaking, to me.. in anything one might call a "logical discussion".. a very inane thing to do. because anything and everything under the sun can be called a "personal stand" and what do you expect people to respond to that?

it is the same as claiming that your photograph is art, even though 8000 people hate it and find it messy, horrible. in other words, it is a form of copping out.

i think it should suffice to say that civil service jobs are comparably more weakly paid compared to private sector jobs. of course there are reasons for this, other than the common argument that it is the warm fuzzy feeling that civil servants get in their hearts for serving nation and people.

take a look at the job market though, based on averages.. pay has been going up. if that is not enough, then i'm not sure what is. but then again, you can always retreat into your personal stand. that's a bit unfair, in that no one's going to argue that you have a right to a personal stand. after all, if i say that i am 2.50 metres and am the tallest man in the world, and it is a personal stand.. no one's really going to argue with me.. :bsmilie:

the same can be said of you as well.

a rather emotive reply at that...

 

[night86mare]

the same can be said of you as well.

a rather emotive reply at that...

...

this is amusing. but here's my msn message quote:

"I know of only one bird - the parrot - that talks; and it can't fly very high."

 

[TheQuestion]

...

this is amusing. but here's my msn message quote:

"I know of only one bird - the parrot - that talks; and it can't fly very high."

neither do ostriches and emus or pigs for that matter :bsmilie:

 

[Silence Sky]

yes, but the potential to be attained then is so much more than the potential to be attained now - is it really so hard to see that turning into something better than a newbie golfer is a lot easier than tiger woods retaining his title every year?

So..? What is the point that you are trying to bring across here.
Having built Singapore with our bare hands and why now we can't maintain it without the help of foreigners?
If you are importing Tiger Woods; Jerry Young or Steve Jobs, may have positive impact on our economy. But look, who do you think we are importing today.

and there is nothing shameful or pathetic about "needing additional foreigners to maintain current lifestyle" - that point is debatable and i do not wish to go into that. but fact is fact, many countries' economies are sustained largely by foreigners, rather than the locals. in an increasingly globalised climate, is there really a significant difference between a foreigner and a local in the long run?

70% of Singaporeans live in HDB, 80% takes public transport, 80% eats at hawker center.
Do we really need foreigners to maintain these kind of basic lifestyle? Something must have gone terribly wrong with our management system.
why you did not mention many countries taxed foreigners heavily and give the proceeds to the locals who are displaced by the "gobalisation" trend?

Do you really think there is no Significant differences between a foreigner and a local in the long run?

 

[Silence Sky]

...

this is amusing. but here's my msn message quote:

"I know of only one bird - the parrot - that talks; and it can't fly very high."

I also know of one bird - the Chicken - a young one, plain feathers - that try to impersonate a Peacock and dance like one.:bsmilie:

 

[Silence Sky]

no doubt civil service employs a large number of population, private sector is as different as day & night. just because my sentiment does not necessarily represent the whole economy does not mean i cannot make a personal stand on the issue. btw, neither does civil service sector jobs alone represent the whole economy, if thatz how you view each post.

Someone is going round the moon...
No doubt nominal income has increased over the years.
Go straight to the point, compare using Real Income Increment.

A man who earned $1,000/month 30 years ago, can retire comfortably today.
A man earning $3,000/month today, I ask does he have enough for retirement 30 years later.

 

[sORe-EyEz]

Someone is going round the moon...
No doubt nominal income has increased over the years.
Go straight to the point, compare using Real Income Increment.

A man who earned $1,000/month 30 years ago, can retire comfortably today.
A man earning $3,000/month today, I ask does he have enough for retirement 30 years later.

i dun have that answer, i'll quote some 1 who has it :bsmilie: (rite below)...

take a look at the job market though, based on averages.. pay has been going up. if that is not enough, then i'm not sure what is.

 

[LazerLordz]

Absolute and comparative values of paychecks vis-a-vis SOL differ by a fair bit over a period of time. This is fundamental stuff.

 

[Exposure]

very soon... we will see pple climbing on top trains and buses just to go to work.:sweat:

 

[ahpan]

Someone is going round the moon...
No doubt nominal income has increased over the years.
Go straight to the point, compare using Real Income Increment.

A man who earned $1,000/month 30 years ago, can retire comfortably today.
A man earning $3,000/month today, I ask does he have enough for retirement 30 years later.

Agreed. No matter how pay increased, the cost of living is getting more expensive, ie; food, transport all increased in cost. Earning $3k/month is not enough to save for retirement, if taking example your housing loan up to 30years down the road and supporting a family.

Wages increased but the actual take home pay after deducting all these high expenses is not really alot. Or should I say like never increase in pay at all.