It's your 'duty' to procreate - What a load of rubbish

last SG · 2004-03-10T17:30:25+00:00

the last time lky raised the "graduate mother" eugenics program, it cost him plenty of votes... its never a good idea for the gov't to interfere in somethin...

Viper52 SG

Lyling, good post on the connundrum facing Singapore, Singaporeans and the Government of Singapore. However, one important equation you've left out, is that of the cost of living in Singapore. We all know the reasons why we need to have kids. But the question still remains, how can we afford it? The article I'll post in my next post is a simple calculation on the econmic viability of having a child in Singapore. Its simplistic, yes I know, but for the sake of this particular issue, it'll have to do for now.

Bear in mind, median household income is deceptive, it is almost certain that the numbers of those who earn above the median are a lot less than those who earn below the median.

Viper52 SG

From: TalkNoAction 29-Mar 15:23
To: ALL 1 of 42

44561.1

Pg. 15 Straits Times today. Median household income
in Singapore is $3600.
Income per year per household = $43K.

From Sunday Times:
Cost of raising child until 21 yrs old = $275K (no frills)

Cost of 3 rm flat = $300K. (incl. renovation + loan interest)

Cost of basic necessities per year = $20K (cost of house already
factored, this cost for food, medical care, utilities, clothes,
supporting aged parents, public transport, conservancy fees,
newspapers etc).

Suppose working life is 35 years, 2 child family:
Total income during that period = $1.5M ($43Kx35).
Total cost during that period = $20K x 35 + $275K x 2 + $300K =
$1.55M

The average Singapore household after slogging for 35 long years will have zero savings and a debt of $50K. This is assuming no holidays are taken, no loss of job, no major illness, no car. To assume that a person can hold a decent paying job past age 40 is also a big question mark.

So at age 60 an average Singapore retire with nothing to live on. So those who have done their maths decide not to have children. This will save about $550K. This is not even enough to retire in 35 years time - the bare minimum being $1M. There is simply no choice, those who have children and have not done their financial planning are being totally irresponsible and are heading for ruin. This is a time bomb waiting to explode.

Why is the PAP trying to trap Singaporeans to have more children knowing that the median household income is insufficient? Why isn't the government telling the truth financial situation in households and why are they totally unconcerned that most Singaporeans will have no money to retire if they have children. For heaven's sake, they can't even improve the job situation here yet they want people to have more children.

The real answer is the PAP cares only about its own financial health. Having more people means they can tax more and can suck more from the populace. Even if you end up financially ruined and begging on the streets, the PAP simply doesn't care.

Viper52 SG

This part is absolute rubbish lyling. Studies have shown that companies having pro-family policies (as opposed to getting employees to work till they drop) actually do better and save on costs.

I stand by my opinion that monetary incentives/longer maternity leave to urge Singaporean policies must be backed up by pro-family/pro-employee changes to the Employment Act. These would include guarantees for mothers to get their jobs back, increased leeway for mothers to sue companies for wrongful dismissal etc. No matter how much we give would-be parents, it will come to nought if they fear for their jobs and livelihood because of the skewed labour policies in the name of attracting MNCs/increasing competitiveness. See the following article in the next post...

Viper52 SG

Survey: Big returns await family-friendly companies

Study of 11 firms finds that every $1 invested in work-life programmes return $1.68 and staff are happier and more loyal

By M. Nirmala

THE stork is kept busy in companies with family-friendly policies.

At SP Consulting (International), nine of its 13 staff are married and, between them, have 20 children.

A dozen of these babies were born after their parents joined the 12-year-old company, a happy development that prompted managing director Lim Meng Wee to quip: 'We have more than replaced ourselves!'

Trusting his employees to deliver results on set targets, he allows them to work from home or come in late.

The company was one of 11 surveyed in a study by the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF), which found that companies with family-friendly policies reaped many intangible and tangible results.

Workers' morale went up and so did productivity and financial bottom lines, according to the study released yesterday.

Companies that were surveyed included Merck Sharp and Dohme, NTUC Income and Yokogawa Electric Asia.

The study found that for every $1 the companies invested in work-life programmes, their average gain was $1.68.

This figure was derived after the companies worked out how their revenue went up and costs were saved when pro-family policies were introduced.

On the cost front, for example, the companies looked at the expense of filling a vacant position, which could come up to half the annual salary of the post, compared to being flexible and retaining the worker.

Their employees also appreciated their moves.

Three-quarters of those polled said family-friendly practices have made their lives as parents and workers easier to manage.

Almost two-thirds said pro-family policies persuaded them to continue working for the organisation.

For example, NTUC Income fixed its attrition rate many years ago by allowing not just married women to work flexible hours but its singles as well.

'Some singles can't wake up early if they are studying at night or partying,' said Ms Cynthia Chin, Income's human resource manager.

These employees can start work later at 9am or 9.30am, instead of at 8.30am like the rest.

Based on the survey findings, SNEF, together with NTUC, the Manpower Ministry and the Ministry of Community Development and Sports (MCDS), has drawn up a road map for employers who want to be enlightened, family-friendly bosses.

Included are guidelines on how flexible work arrangements can be implemented.

Other suggestions include creating opportunities for children to visit their parents' offices, providing space at the workplace for new mothers to pump their milk, or even offering laundry pick-up services.

SNEF's executive director Koh Juan Kiat said the ideas will encourage employers to be more focused on how they can help their workers without fearing that targets will not be met.

'It can be a win-win situation,' he said.

Convinced that companies can be persuaded to adopt the guidelines, the SNEF will use the survey results to persuade companies that flexi-work need not compromise the company's bottom line but can, in fact, boost its productivity.

The survey results were presented at a work-life practices seminar at Orchard Hotel. Speaking at the event, Community Development Minister Yaacob Ibrahim urged firms to heed the example of those polled and be reassured that providing a better work-life balance can enhance their competitive edge.

'The sooner we dive into this, the faster we will see results.

stupidissmart SG

If u ask me... I don't really see people around tat got 0 savings after they worked for 35 years... The problem is u use an average income for household yet state an expenditure of a above average citizens.

3 rm flat in ulu places: 220k (sengkang)
cost of 1 child: 201.6K (800 per month)
expenditure: 18.25k ($50 per day)

so total = 1.262 million

so still have some saving of 238k which seems to be the norm these days. Another bonus is the house worth about 220k is yours.

But then again... I admit life really seems to be particularly bad for poor people in singapore...

Viper52 SG

The article is not mine, its a cross post from another forum...

The house is ours? Read the rules carefully my friend. The house is NEVER yours. 99 years! Laughing

Also, lets not forget, gahment target is 2 kids per family. So you will still be short of gahment expectations if you have 1. Take away the cost of the 2nd kid and you'll have 38K left. Now thats a substantial retirement fund

220K for HDB is the base cost. Reno loan? Interest on home and reno loan? Adding 80K to that is a low-side estimate.

And how about contributing to looking after aged parents? The original poster's calculation was:

Pg. 15 Straits Times today. Median household income
in Singapore is $3600.
Income per year per household = $43K.

From Sunday Times:
Cost of raising child until 21 yrs old = $275K (no frills)

Cost of 3 rm flat = $300K. (incl. renovation + loan interest)

Cost of basic necessities per year = $20K (cost of house already
factored, this cost for food, medical care, utilities, clothes,
supporting aged parents, public transport, conservancy fees,
newspapers etc).

Suppose working life is 35 years, 2 child family:
Total income during that period = $1.5M ($43Kx35).
Total cost during that period = $20K x 35 + $275K x 2 + $300K =
$1.55M

His estimation of $20K per year works out to $54 a day. Slightly more than your $50 estimate but reasonable considering the factors listed. Assuming the cost per kid (on absolutely no frills) is $200K per year not $275K, the total cost for 2 kids (gov't target) is still $1.4 million.

Not 0 savings, but just a 100K after you retire and your kid turns 21. Enough to keep you alive till you kick the proverbial bucket? I don't think so...

An average Singaporean family will have to live like the church mouse just to survive and procreate. And heaven forbid illness from striking any member of the family or the loss of a job.

But then again... I admit life really seems to be particularly bad for poor people in singapore...

Not just for the poor. Even for the average, it ain't no cakewalk.

stupidissmart SG

Sorry buddy... my calculation involves 2 child already

total = 18.25X35 + 201.6X2 + 220
= 1261.95k = 1.262million

The house is indeed 99 years only. However it can be used for 2-3 generations. After the end of 35 years there is still value in the house at the end which is almost the same price u buy it with.

In the end you get to take out some of your CPF too. I think the saving one have will increase.

I know it is not your article Laughing I am commenting on his article not yours.

Viper52 SG

A bit hard to tell, when in your first post, you said "The problem is u use an average income for household yet state an expenditure of a above average citizens."

Anyway, assuming one is to live in the same 3 room flat for 3 generations (VERY unlikely), it would be safe to assume each generation will want to renovate their house at least twice. Thats an additional what, 100K per generation? Inclusive of interests on reno loans.

Anyway, we can argue semantics and details till the cows come home, but the fact remains that, for an average family in Singapore, to raise 2 kids would mean a no-frills, no luxury, church mouse existence. Again, barring serious illness or job losses.

tyco_mun SG

Hi all! Just like to say that i think SG life is just too stressful for a family lor. I got friends working 7am till 12am almost everyday lor! and some dun even have OT! How to start family like that? Keep pets also difficult sia! And Dr Ong needs to use his brains more often, and think of the consequences b4 he says anything stupid again. And he better have at least 4 children, and if he already have 4 kids, he should have 5.

« Previous Page