It is surprising and commendable for the attempt to respond
in some positive ways, unfortunately were the conclusions
merely plagiarized from news reports without any
background understanding ?
In any economy senses, unemployment will alway lack behind growth,
in fact, you will see more unemployment in the
first and second quarter of next year. Firstly, employers are not
sure if the situation is stable, secondly, they are restructuring
and trimming their workforce to have a better begining to
face a new surge in economy. But once all these are settled,
properly by June next year, employment will be at full swing.
Bearing in mind, a 2% unemployment for singapore is consider full
employment.
Why should "unemployment
always lack behind growth" ?
Is this not a fallacy when the statement is
self-contradictory ?
When there is growth does that not indicate the economy is
expanding with economic activities ?
In an expanding economy that will mean increase in
commerce requiring goods and services to be increased - surely
it will require a demand for labor when those labor were already
retrenched when demand had fallen previously ?
Are you so certain that by June 2010 - the economy will be more
certain, or are you simply regurgitating the "hot gassed - feel
good" PAP propaganda to prepare the positve mood for an early
election ?
We said that economy had recovered, by certainly not in a bull
run situation, it will not be like previous kind of economy that
surge so fast, all the way leading to bubbling. It will be in
a slowly pace, more stable in hoping that the next recession will
take longer time to come. In any economy, there must a recession,
something must give way in the end, just a matter of when...
With so much "hoping that the
next recession will take longer time to come" -
and - "In any economy, there
must a recession, something must give way in the end, just a matter
of when" - it is a surprise that you will be so
emphatically certain that by June 2010 - "all these are settled properly".
The last economic crash was in 1997 - with the financial
meltdown, and this had barely been resolved when 9/11 occurred in
2001, followed by the Bird Flu in 2002, then SARS in 2003 -
followed by the economic slowdown in 2004 that led to the huge
retrenchment exercises that lasted till end-2005 and lingered on
through till even now.
It is amazing that you will dare to be so certain when
Singapore's economy is so dependent on the US economy, which the US
President Obama had said will take at least till 2011 to
resolve.
If you believe in the "theory of lagging" - can Singapore's
economic recovery happen so early and way ahead of the US
economy ?
Swee Say motto of Cheaper, better and faster is actually on
productivity, since the 1970s to 1990s, we are actually one of
the best productivity country in the region, we adapted the jap
model of productivity, his motto is to restart this productive
mindset churning again so that singaporeans will to continue
to be productive.
Can you produce anything cheaper, better and faster by being
productive alone ?
What do you understand by "productivity" ?
Are you expecting the Singapore Labor to be automated machines,
or do you expect the employers and entrepreneurs to make heavier
investments in automation so as to increase the productivity of
each unit of Singapore labor that is employed ?
With more automation - how will labor be deployed in their
employment ?
Will that not result in excess labor as the machine replaces the
output of each labor unit that is being employed ?
Can the labor and entrepreneur make any major decision to
speculate about any uncertain future in the economic prospect of
the World so as to determine if they should proceed to invest in
automation to increase productivity ?
Can the productivity of the human labor unit be tweaked
like an automation machine so as to achieve an increase
in manufacturing "productivity" by making the product
"cheaper, better and faster" ?
What do you think can be humanly achieveable when the work
methods employed are determined by the factory owner, the factory
manager, and the engineers that has the major responsibility of
designing the entire manufacturing process ?
China currently is cheap, fast, but not better, this is due to
their corruption and intellectual property rights
problems.
India is also cheap, but not fast, for better, they are also not
there.
If China is "corrupt" and has "intellectual property rights
problems" - how do you explain for the fact that it has been able
to build up her Foreign Reserves to a level of
over hundreds of Billion US Dollar ?
Are you not aware that the huge and fast Foreign Reserves is a
result of the vast number of foreign investors rushing in
to take advantage of its cheap labor, cheaper land, good
infrastructure, as well as a huge domestic market of consumers
?
What makes you believe that India is cheap but not faster nor
better ?
India may not be opening up to foreign investments in the same
way as China, but that does not mean that they are not better and
faster even as they are cheaper.
India is protecting herself from being ravaged by the MNCs that
will take advantage of its domestic consumer market, and have
preferred to open her doors only to foreign entrepreneurs that are
willing to set up manufacturing facilities for export only.
Software designers and electronic firms are big in India - with
‘Japan being a leading investor’ (*1)
As for other south east Asia countries, they care certainly
cheap, but never fast or better.
This statement smacks of being condescendingly smug
and shows the ignorance of how foreign direct
investments in some manufacturing processes that need
cheaper and productive labor to move out of Singapore into
regional countries such as Malaysia, Thailand,
Vietnam and Indonesia.
Your understanding of what "fast or better" is beginning to wear
thin with your false assumptions made that reflects the shallow
understanding in the needs of MNCs.
The idea of cheap do not mean cheap labour, or lower salary, the
idea is that we produce thing, be it tangible or intangible in a
more cheaper way, but being cheaper way, it does not mean we do
anyhow, we also need to do it better, and once we are able to
achieve cheaper way of doing thing and yet get better thing done,
we then can automate or process it in a faster way.
Are you not attempting to be caught in the idiocy of a simple
argument designed to defeat yourself ?
If - "The idea of cheap do not mean cheap labour, or lower
salary" - but to "produce thing - in a more cheaper
way" - how do you produce any thing "cheaper" by simply making
the product "better" ?
Are you certain that any product
can be produced "cheaper" and made "better" by
machines making it "faster" ?
With the high cost involved in any automated
machinery, can the product cost be made "cheaper"
and "better" - even if it can be produced
"faster" ?
Is there no other external elements that one must consider
which will affect the product and which must surely make
it useless to even consider the idea of "cheaper, better
and faster" as the sole consideration ?
