I guess it is not to stop the population from producing itself
if they want to. Neither encourage nor discourage- that will allow
the population reduce gradually. This will be the best as we will
allow pure economics (so call the invisible hand) to work itself
out. Alternatively which is not encouraging is to limit childbirth
to 1 for each couple.
If we leave the population as it is, it is going to decrease
very gradually... I say it may takes another 100 years before we
can ever reach 2 million. Another problem that may surface is some
races will give birth more than other races. At that time the
population mix will change and there will be more problems that
surfaced. If we forced people to have only a single child, there
will be a very severe blow to human rights here... I don't think
majority will support this notion...
Insurance will surely help. It is dependent upon the number of
people as well as the risk involved. Given the current high number
population between the age of 28-45 years old- the insurance amount
is actually quite affordable since the risk is also low given the
large numbers in this age group.
I don't agree that we should encourage dependency on our youngs
just as our parents had expected us to do so. Don't you feel that
we were held back. Asian having subscribed to confucianism have
actually held themselves back for the last 150 years. One of the
factors is that we have to look after our parents in old age and
that discourages the young to be more courageous and adventurous.
For example- being terms as unfilial if he/ she leaves their
parents here and venture overseas etc. Besides we have a much
smaller household- the cost of maintaining the old is very
expensive. It hard to argue against this being a participant in
this myself. I would not want this to happen to my kids for me and
my wife
But then insurance does not come cheap... These companies are
also earning money from sales of insurance. I believe that a lot of
people cannot afford it tentatively... I mean look at the cleaner
or kopi shop worker... I don't think they can have the money to buy
insurance but have to depend on social help when they get
old...
About young supporting old. I support you to a vary degree but
there are a lot of people who don't... Actually it is their own
business whether the young should support the old... We cannot
force them in this instance again...
Well the foreign workers is already a phenomenon and a permanent
status quo. That will remain the same. There is a difference
between being a worker/investor here and being a immigrant sharing
or enjoying our forefather's labour.
About foreign workers I agree with you. However it is worth
noting that low end industry also employs a lot of singaporean too.
I don't think any country has ever succeed in making ALL the
citizens became professionals. In society naturally some will be
content to work as construction worker or operation worker. In
natural some people will turn out to be criminals and will have to
find job that used more labour... Even professionals will commit
crime and there will surely be people working the "unprofessional"
career
Disagree. Today we have poured in more money and funds to our
youngs much more than 10-20 years ago. This group of professionals
will surely rise in size. They are not to serve the local economy
but the region.
Actually now a lot of youngster do receive a lot of funds.
However they also became more "un-streetsmart" and more spoilt. The
size of professional may rise, but it will not be total. Meaning
there will always be people that fail to become
professionals.
Being professionals- their income will rise. Professionals as
doctors, lawyers, engineers, sales and marketing, businessmen,
insurance etc. This will effectively make Singapore the HQ for the
region
Hmm... but then if we compare with other countries the number of
professionals may not be higher. The proportion is higher but the
total number is not. This also effectively raises the overall
salaries of the singapore since people are more choosy about their
future career. Overall the number decline but the salary increases.
Whether that will make singapore the HQ may not be true.
Given our current high income among the 25-45 age groups, we
would be able to be self sufficient in income terms without having
to add to the young's burden when aging population sets in (due to
the insurance bought). That's why it is crucial not to increase the
population either via "foreign talent" or higher birth rates.
In fact the PAP is leading us to much worse situation by increasing
the population. How are we so sure that PAP is able to produce
jobs. I am not optimistic given their failure to do so since 1997.
The rise of China and India are further prove of this trend in
reducing empolyment here. It is only by reducing the population
with a higher number of professionals and Singaporean entrepreneurs
that we can ensure our value in this region.
Well... I still think this is a problem..
This is hard to argue against, given that we also not sure how
much the PAP has failed us - I agree. That's why we should not be
spending too much by having higher birth rates but rather prepare
with whatever funds we have to better educate our youngs and our
old age
hmm.... actually I always thought we had spend a lot on
educating our youngs... except for having a smaller class size how
else do we spend the funds to develop them fully ?
Not necessary, as over time our better youngs who became the
regional professionals will be able to bring back the bread and
bigger pie for everyone. Opportunities will be abound and lesser
governemnt involvement is required. The governement will spend less
given that the population is self-funding and privatisation will
have a much larger role to play. The government's role is only to
ensure that the superstructure of the bureaucracy is retained for
the normal operation of the private sector. So in the end will be
More SIngaporean companies, lesser people, lots of opportunities,
Singaporeans being the real owners of Singapore, lots of private
revenue and much less dependent on the government and for course
and less dominant PAP or whatever government
I am not very sure why opportunities will be abound... I mean do
you think when singapore has decrease its labour more foreign
companies will invest in here ? And do you think with a decreasing
population the retail business will improves ? I guess naturally
about 30% of the shops may close down due to the lack of people
here...
The spending will be lessen since privatisatiion sets in. More
funds can be channelled to strategic items such as robotics.
Besides with private companies being involved, these funding is
taken care of. In the US, Rockheed Martin, Raython and many others
has involvement in these expenditure.
Privatisation may actually means a reduction to Gov revenue
I
always though Gov is earning money from some sectors etc...
Yes- we can afford if we start now
... it is still largely optimistic...
Well if everything becomes affordable and privatisation sets in,
the government's role is reduced, why would they need more money?
Now is very bad.
Our current government wants privatisation and revenue as well- no
logic since they have spend less but still wants more money- you
know why? Because we have grown the population by 25% too fast too
soon. That's why we are now facing unemployment and lack of
funds.
it is largely optimistic... I don't think robots are efficient
to be deployed as soldiers yet... maybe 2o years later but not
now... Privatisation may reduce the income of Gov. If not, it may
means the standard of living has increase too. Talking about
standard of living, it will definitely increase when population
decreases... generally income become more, than everything that we
buy will also increase in price. Life may not get better if cars or
housing decreases but food and other expenditure increases...
