All out to defame our governement

last SG · 2007-06-07T10:34:23+00:00

Not in biomed business, but believe such hubs exist in many places besides Australia and Singapore. not interested in disputing what the australians have est...

Gazelle SG

a) We are discussing wage growth between 1997 to 2007 hence whatever figures you show above is of no relevant to our discussion

b) Obviously you still dont understand why i said that a comparison between 1990 and 2000 figures does not reflect the current economy situation because year 2000/1 is the peak of Singapore worst recession.

To proof my point

Avg income - At the 20% mark
1990 - $934/mth
1997 - $1352/mth

(that is about 44.7% increase in income growth)

Gazelle SG

I am surprise why you are bugging me about this when those figures are provided by Rock_Star? Plus those number provided by him are of no meaning to our discussion because we are discussin a country, not individual.

Gazelle SG

Since the whiners here likes to compare Singapore's minister's pay to President Bush, I am sure there must be a basic understand that we are comparing apple to apple isnt it? Hence if we want to compare apple to apple, then why should we just limit ourselves to talking about the good apples in USA and not the bad ones.

Honestly if you dont have what it takes for a proper discussion, my advice to you is to be quiet. Such name calling tactic doesnt really work on me and definitely wont make you look any smarter either.

Jontst78 SG

First of all, the y2k figures are the latest study conducted by the PAP with regards to income distribution. If you have more updated data on income distribution, I'll gladly use it.

Isn't the discussion about a certain "flat" income growth? Hence the "flat" income growth of the lower income in relation to the higher income groups. Very Happy

I was using the Y2k data as a baseline for the income distribution, to support my claim that the the income growth of lower income families has always been "flater" than the higher ups even in a dipping economy. The peak of the recession being post Y2k only further supports my claim as the higher ups were getting more income increases than lower income families (in terms of percentage), who were less increases in a dipping economy pre Y2k. With the economy dipping even further, unless the govt has more recent data, using their data as a baseline, I don't expect it to be any different. IF there is more updated data that is endorsed by the government, I'd gladly use it.

That also further supports my claim as in that same year

Avg income - At the 80% mark
1990 - $3,897/mth
1997 - $6,093/mth

Which is a 56.3% percent increase.

Avg income - At the 90% mark
1990 - $5152/mth
1997 - $7965/mth

Which is a 54.6% increase

Which furthers my point of a flat income growth of lower income households in relation to the higher income groups. Very Happy

Gazelle SG

If you are interested in this subject about income distribution, please continue
here http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=250502

Jontst78 SG

Nah, I'm more interested about people trying to defame the Govt etc... Very Happy the income distribution thingy was just a side dish , feel free to refute my claims on this thread tho. I might take the time to read the one in your link if I can find some later. This thread is alot more amusing tho Smile

Atobe SG

Originally posted by Gazelle:
Since the whiners here likes to compare Singapore's minister's pay to President Bush, I am sure there must be a basic understand that we are comparing apple to apple isnt it? Hence if we want to compare apple to apple, then why should we just limit ourselves to talking about the good apples in USA and not the bad ones.

Honestly if you dont have what it takes for a proper discussion, my advice to you is to be quiet. Such name calling tactic doesnt really work on me and definitely wont make you look any smarter either.

If 'apples are to be compared to apples' is it not quite ridiculous for the Singapore Government to justify their own wages by comparing their own values to that of the top corporate earners in the Private Sector - even if these are the top earners in Singapore ?

Should they not compare their own performance based on the performance of the top ten national economies, and the amount of ''wages plus perks'' paid to the respective governments of those top ten economies ?

soul_rage SG

that's a very good point.

On top of that, we should compare against the top 10 economies, and based on our position in the rankings, pay accordingly.

So if we are ranked 5th, then our perks and wages should be between the 4th and 6th top economy.

Am waiting to see what Gazelle says next.

maurizio13 SG

Middle class wage stagnation could lead to social instability
By Pearl Forss, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 11 January 2007 1856 hrs

SINGAPORE: Middle class wages have been stagnant in the past 5 years, according to economists, and this could lead to social instability.

These concerns were shared by economists at the annual Institute of Policy Studies Singapore Perspectives conference, who also added that the government is taking steps to address the problem.

Economists believe a US economic slowdown in business and consumer spending may cause problems for Singapore, but as Singapore is tops in the ASEAN resilience index, it should be able to weather external shocks, thanks to a diversified economy and strong Asian demand.

They predict that growth going forward will be above 3 to 5 percent.

The long-term growth limits for a mature economy was previously in the 3 to 5 percent range.

However, economists are asking who this growth is for. The income of the bottom 30 percent of the population has fallen. What is more worrying is the fact that the majority of Singaporeans in the middle class has only seen about a one percent increase in their nominal income in the last 5 years.

This is not not just a Singapore problem say economists who point out that stagnant wages is a global problem.

The chief reason for this is globalisation, especially with India and China introducing a large pool of skilled and unskilled labour to compete with the labour forces of industrialised countries.

Singapore is susceptible to this because of its open economy.

Manpower Ministry data shows that 124,000 jobs were created last year and 45 percent of these jobs went to foreigners.

"With the rate of immigration, even among unskilled and semi skilled labour at a rate twice of what we experienced in the 90s, at a rate fastest in the developed world, the question is - does this dampen our real wages as we grow? Does the strategy itself dampen real wages and depress real wages at the low and middle end of the spectrums? They are sacred cows but we should step back and think about them," said Yeoh Lam Keong, Vice President, Economic Society of Singapore.

Another reason cited for middle class wage stagnation is the move by the government to cut CPF employer contribution rates for older workers by 4 percentage points over the last 2 years.

"So if you were a worker in the 50-55 age group, you could have seen your wages fall as much as 10 percent over the last 3 or 4 years. Now with the economy improving, the government could bring that back, the increase is 1 or 2 percent. I'm in support of CPF tinkering but probably it happens far too often, but I think there's probably some justification to look back and think that the restructuring was a bit too aggressive on the CPF side and it has contributed somewhat to a very sandwiched middle class," said Chua Hak Bin, Director, Asia Pacific Econ & Market Analysis, Citigroup Global Markets Singapore.

The government is looking at increasing CPF by 1 to 2 percentage points in 2007.

Economists say workfare should become a more permanent pillar of the economy so as to cushion growing inequality.

- CNA /dt

snow leopard SG

met a filippino professional who took up citizenship so as to qualify for cheap education and other perks but unashamely declares that her heart will always be with the phillipines.

i don't blame her, she's just a survivor, it is our govt who is the sucker ...

snow leopard SG

wow, this is a big bang reply from bangkokboy

maurizio13 SG

Using the data from our beloved CPF board in 2005, it is a FACT that 43.03% of Singaporeans have monthly wages of less than $2,000.

43.03% = (191,461 + 175,922 + 62,876 + 71,230 + 34,474 + 15,345 + 13,221 + 12,220 + 17,525) / 1,381,068

maurizio13 SG

There are dangers in using averages in analysing data, because if the raw data is skewed (biased) towards a particular direction, you can't decipher from the averages.

A - 10,000 count - $ 20,000
B - 500 count - $ 1,000,000

Average = ($200,000,000 + $500,000,000) / (10,500)

The average for this is $66,666.66

If group A's income level drops by 10% and B's income increases by 10%.
We have:

A - 10,000 count - $ 18,000
B - 500 count - $ 1,100,000

Average = ($180,000,000 + $550,000,000) / (10,500)

The average would have increased to $ 69,523.81.

Does this mean that the income of A has risen because the averages of their income has risen?

Gazelle SG

A good example of a whiner trying to distort facts to defame our government.

1) He tries to create the impression that the mean income per employee figures shown on the government website are actually distorted by our minister's million dollar salary.

2) He tries to create the impression by speculating that the rise in wages is mainly contributed by the rich getting richer.

Comments :-
Obviously he is not aware that there is an Explanatory Notes stating that the figures only show wage in the private sector. which mean minister's salary and government servants are not included in the survey.

I think he is also unaware the rich people dont create wealth from drawing salary, but from investment and businesses.

Suppose if he is an opposition party accusing our government of that, he will become a joke in the parliment and charged for defamation I am sure

soul_rage SG

Originally posted by maurizio13:

Using the data from our beloved CPF board in 2005, [b]it is a FACT that 43.03% of Singaporeans have monthly wages of less than $2,000.

43.03% = (191,461 + 175,922 + 62,876 + 71,230 + 34,474 + 15,345 + 13,221 + 12,220 + 17,525) / 1,381,068[/b]

A total of 196,348 out of 1,381,068 is earning $5,000 and above

196,348/1,381,068 = 14%

So Gazelle, my information that the top 10% in 2006 earns > $7,000.00 is highly possible.

Also, I think you have nothing else to say since someone has given you a news report stating CLEARLY that the middle income pay has stagnated for the past 5 years. These are your so-called FACTS you want to see, and you cannot say these researchers are sprouting BS.

soul_rage SG

Gazelle SG

Instead of using such vague example (ie. there is only upper class and lower class scenario) may I suggest that you visit MOM website and read their reports before speculating and guessing

Gazelle SG

1) Where is the report which state clearly that middle income pay has stagnated for 5 years.

2) What is your definitely of middle income?

3) We are talking about past 10 years from 1997 to 2006

4) Which 5 years you are talking about? are you talking about 1997 to 2001?

WHERE ARE THE FACTS!!

Gazelle SG

There is no point talking about monthly wage if you dont take into consideration the age group. e.g. $2000 per month for a 17 years old is alot of money as compare the $2000 for a adult with family. Plus it is normal for man around the age of 21 to 25 to be earning 2000 per month.

It might better if you could state your intention of showing us the chart and the 43.03%.

snow leopard SG

Originally posted by maurizio13:
[b]
Important to have a leader of a country that will not abandon ship!!! Is it possible with the kind of ministers we have, where salary comes first and foremost before country? We don't even need an obstacle for them to abandon ship, you pay them $1 million less and they will move to some other profitable venture. Their motto, show me the money, then show me the country.
[b]

excellent rebuttal

« Previous Page Next Page »