• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Pm lee: Singaporeans' wages will fall if productivity falls

makapaaa

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
[h=1]PM LEE: SINGAPOREANS' WAGES WILL FALL IF PRODUCTIVITY FALLS[/h]
Post date:
30 Apr 2015 - 7:53pm








Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong repeated his stale message today that if productivity in Singapore does not grow, wages cannot grow as well.

But this is a stale message that Mr Lee has been repeating since way back to at least 2012 but the issue has still not been resolved.

Mr Lee said: "Wages have been rising in the tight labour market, but this is not sustainable. If productivity continues to stagnate, after a while so will wages, which may even fall back."

However, Mr Lee had labouriously repeated this message since 2012 but little effective has been done to address this.

In 2012, Mr Lee said at the May Day Rally that, "you must get at least 30 per cent productivity growth in ten years" so that "we can raise the workers’ wages by 30 per cent".
He said that to do so, "that means every year, I need to make 2.7 per cent productivity growth. 2.7 per cent year by year, 10 years compounded, I can make 30 per cent in a decade and then we can raise the workers’ wages by 30 per cent."

However, since 2012, Singapore's productivity growth has been dismal, to say the least. In fact, from 2011, productivity in Singapore not only stagnated but even fell.
In 2011, productivity fell by 2 percent, in 2012, it fell even lower by 2.6 percent. In 2013, productivity was zero and last year, productivity yet fell again by 0.8 percent.
Productivity never picked up since 2011. One wonders where Mr Lee gets the deluded belief that productivity should grow for wages to grow.

Not only that, real wages in Singapore for the median income earners have largely been stagnant for the past 10 years and for lower-income Singaporeans, it has been stagnant for even longer - for 20 years or so.

In fact, real wages have been estimated to have only grown by 0.5 percent annually for the past 10 years.

Mr Lee also said: "We have to get used to slower growth than before, because our economy is more mature, and we have tightened up on foreign manpower."

However, what Mr Lee failed to also mention is how the low economic growth in Singapore is also due to the overly-high income inequality in Singapore.

An OECD report at the end of last year revealed that, "The single biggest impact on growth is the widening gap between the lower middle class and poor households compared to the rest of society."

OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría said: “This compelling evidence proves that addressing high and growing inequality is critical to promote strong and sustained growth and needs to be at the centre of the policy debate."
This was also what a report from the International Monetary Fund said, that "lower net inequality [that is, after tax and transfers] is robustly correlated with faster and more durable growth."

As such, what Mr Lee had failed to mention was that the low economic growth is also a direct result of the income inequality in Singapore.

Indeed, Singapore today has the highest income inequality among the developed countries and because of that, it has also resulted in a whole host of social problems: the lowest levels of trust after Portugal, the highest prisoner rate after the United States, and one of the lowest social mobilities among the developed countries.

Yet, Mr Lee said, "We must still be concerned with growth, because that is how we can afford to invest in healthcare, education and our people."

But again, what Mr Lee conveniently ignores is how Singapore already spends the least on social protection, health, education and pension among the developed countries.

In fact, Singapore's income inequality is so high precisely because the Singapore government spends the least on social protection among the developed countries, even though the government has tens of billions in surplus every year that it does not declare to Singaporeans which is more than enough to provide free healthcare and education to all Singaporeans.

However, Mr Lee continues to bear down on the propaganda that growth is needed for the government to be able to spend more on social protection.

First, the government does not spend more on social protection because it does not want to - there is more than enough money over the past 10 years for the government to do so, regardless of the level of economic growth. Second, economic growth is low also become the government spends the least on social protection, which results in high income inequality and thereby low economic growth.

In short, the stagnation of economic growth in Singapore is a direct result of the Singapore government's perpetuation of the income inequality.

Not only that, Mr Lee had the cheek to say, "Nowhere else in the world do Government, employers and workers work closely together, give-and-take and create win-win outcomes out of difficult circumstances."

However, what Mr Lee said is severely out of line and out of touch with the lived realities of Singaporeans. In the first place, it is widely known that workers have very little rights in Singapore.

In fact, Singapore has the least employment protection legislation among the OECD and Asia Pacific countries, after the United States. Not only that, Singapore is one of very few countries in the world which still do not have income protection for unemployed workers.

In short, Singapore's workers basically have very little employment protection, or next to nothing, not least because the Singapore government also controls the labour union by putting its own minister in charge of the labour union.







Not only that, the Singapore government also controls a significant portion of businesses, where the largest companies in Singapore are government-linked and Singapore has been ranked 5th on The Economist's crony capitalism index, whereby it is the 5th easiest for the rich to get rich in Singapore if they are affiliated to the government.

Also, the government had in the 1960s to 1980s arrested hundreds of labour unionists and detained them without trial, and crippled the a segment of the labour unions, and then taking control of the existing one.

As such, Mr Lee can make lofty clams that "Nowhere else in the world do Government, employers and workers work closely together" but this can only stand true in Mr Lee's own imaginations.

Yet, Mr Lee continues to ignore the realities of the problems in Singapore due primarily to the income inequality and the government's resistance to mediate the situation, and he instead said, "We need a fresh approach. This is why we are working hard to make SkillsFuture a reality."

But SkillsFuture had been panned for being only a symbolic gesture, without any real effects when it comes to improving the wage situation of Singaporeans.

Mr Lee said, "As a society, we must be supportive and open-minded. We should not measure people by their paper qualifications, but by their skills and contributions."

All nice and well, except that when it comes to being supportive, it is clear that the government is only paying lip service. The rich-poor gap in Singapore is the widest among the developed countries. In fact, it is estimated that 30 percent of Singaporeans live in poverty where they cannot earn enough to even spend on basic necessities.

SkillsFuture is supposed to provide support for polytechnic and ITE students but no where in SkillsFuture does the government has a plan to increase wages. Where the starting pay of polytechnic students hover at around $2,000 and where 30 percent of Singaporeans who live in poverty earn less than $2,000, this means that polytechnic and ITE students are expected to live on poverty wages, especially since these groups of students can expect their wages to remain stagnant for the rest of their lives.

In fact, Singapore today still does not have a minimum wage. Cleaners still earn only $1,000 and this is half of the basic necessary for Singaporeans to have even a basic living. Not only that, when compared to countries with a similar cost of living, Japan has a minimum wage of $2,000, Australia $3,000 and the lowest-paid workers in Switzerland and Norway earn a minimum of $3,000 and $5,000 respectively.
In short, Singaporeans are severely shortchanged by the Singapore government, or more specifically the PAP-run government.

One is hard-pressed to understand why Mr Lee even bothered to give a May Day speech for workers.

Basically, workers in Singapore are given a tough lot in life, primarily due to the Singapore's government lack of responsibility to its citizens.

Mr Lee said that Singapore can achieve growth, raise wages and achieve better lives for all if everyone worked together.

However, it is clear that the PAP-run government has not kept its side of the bargain. In fact, the PAP-run government has reneged on its responsibilities.

Mr Lee might say that everyone in Singapore should work together but where the government can only make lofty claims without acting on them, then they will remain lofty and the lives of Singaporeans will continue to be compromised by the Singapore's government's lack of responsibility.
 

blackmondy

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Dear Pinky,

What is your productivity ? Talking cock, collecting 4 million every year and have over 80 dogs doing your work for you ?
 

halsey02

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
I have been hearing this for ages...wtf!.....low cost foreigners depresses salaries & lower productivity.....
 

laksaboy

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Sinkies are already overworked and underpaid, they are not obliged to work harder to fatten the wallets of your cronies.

Lee Hsien Loong, take your 'productivity' and shove it up your ass. :oIo:
 

laksaboy

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
This music video encapsulates PAP's tripartism for you:

[video=youtube;dG6-m90Wyos]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG6-m90Wyos[/video]
 

halsey02

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Sinkies are already overworked and underpaid, they are not obliged to work harder to fatten the wallets of your cronies.

Lee Hsien Loong, take your 'productivity' and shove it up your ass. :oIo:

Read carefully the news the Shit Times, is putting up, subtly of late, news on the top earners here, & elsewhere...they are saying, the MIW's are " overworked & underpaid"....be observant, you will notice.

The lesser mortals are unproductive, that is why, they are paid less....but the lesser paid mortals are funding the overworked & underpaid MIW's....ha ha ha ha ha
 

jw5

Moderator
Moderator
Loyal
Ohhhh, so that's why he appointed Toothpick Zorro Lim as Manpower Ministar. :biggrin:
 

enterprise2

Alfrescian
Loyal
Productivity is a joke in gahment bodies and stat boards. Go to any museum in Spore and tell me what the staff r doing! Also perm secs can take 3 months leave to freshen up their French cooking skills with no impact to the organization!
 

JohnTan

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
PM Lee is right. No boss would overpay for his labour. If his capable sinkie employees feel marginalized and underpaid, they would simply job hop to another company that offers better pay/benefits.

Setting a minimum wage distorts free market and rewards incompetence and low-value work.
 

syed putra

Alfrescian
Loyal
scaremongering again. Its better to drive wages up and therefore increase household spending and increase economic activities. depressing wages will only result in low economic activities.
 

frenchbriefs

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Wtf is productivity u dumbfuck clown.amount of money made over number of hours worked?how the fuck do u increase the productivity of a human being every year?can we get a diploma or degree in productivity?
 

JohnTan

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Wtf is productivity u dumbfuck clown.amount of money made over number of hours worked?how the fuck do u increase the productivity of a human being every year?can we get a diploma or degree in productivity?

What is the value of your work? Why would a boss raise your pay, if after the pay raise, you continue to do as you have always done? To the boss, that is just burning a hole in his pocket. He will only tolerate such nonsense up to a certain point, before he fires you and replace you with someone cheaper and younger, and maybe even someone who is foreign.

A worker or a chef whose work value is low and easily replaced deserves a low wage. But if the quality of your work is high, and you show potential for greater things, the boss will pay you more willingly because having you around is good for business.

What's so difficult to understand about that? In life, if you want a pay raise, show your boss that you deserve it. It's not your birthright.
 

frenchbriefs

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
What is the value of your work? Why would a boss raise your pay, if after the pay raise, you continue to do as you have always done? To the boss, that is just burning a hole in his pocket. He will only tolerate such nonsense up to a certain point, before he fires you and replace you with someone cheaper and younger, and maybe even someone who is foreign.

A worker or a chef whose work value is low and easily replaced deserves a low wage. But if the quality of your work is high, and you show potential for greater things, the boss will pay you more willingly because having you around is good for business.

What's so difficult to understand about that? In life, if you want a pay raise, show your boss that you deserve it. It's not your birthright.

Then I have a question,the cost of living as u have noticed have skyrocketed over the past ten years.what has companies and government corporations done in order to justify the massive increase in prices? Not only has standards and quality of services and goods declined,my quality of life has also decreased due to overcrowding and limited resources availability.

A few example,less than a decade ago I could get a taxi ride for 7 to 8 bucks,now it cost over 10 bucks easy.but a taxi ride is still a taxi ride.a piece of chicken from kfc cost $2.60 10 years ago now a 3 piece meal cost 10 bucks.but the chicken has gone from bad to worse,they are using low quality chicken to keep up with the massive demand.quality goes down,prices go up....justification?can I tell my boss I work shorter hours do 25% less work make 30% more mistakes and get 30% more wages?and ban him from using cheaper better faster?
 
Last edited:

palden

Alfrescian
Loyal
Is our millionster productive?

We are already working more than 10 to 12 hours a day. I even work today and got to got back to office tomorrow. What productivity he want? Productivity is top down. If 10 meetings are required to decide on a simple task so that it is a group decision and accountability can be hazy what productivity are we talking about?
[h=1]PM LEE: SINGAPOREANS' WAGES WILL FALL IF PRODUCTIVITY FALLS[/h]
Post date:
30 Apr 2015 - 7:53pm








Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong repeated his stale message today that if productivity in Singapore does not grow, wages cannot grow as well.

But this is a stale message that Mr Lee has been repeating since way back to at least 2012 but the issue has still not been resolved.

Mr Lee said: "Wages have been rising in the tight labour market, but this is not sustainable. If productivity continues to stagnate, after a while so will wages, which may even fall back."

However, Mr Lee had labouriously repeated this message since 2012 but little effective has been done to address this.

In 2012, Mr Lee said at the May Day Rally that, "you must get at least 30 per cent productivity growth in ten years" so that "we can raise the workers’ wages by 30 per cent".
He said that to do so, "that means every year, I need to make 2.7 per cent productivity growth. 2.7 per cent year by year, 10 years compounded, I can make 30 per cent in a decade and then we can raise the workers’ wages by 30 per cent."

However, since 2012, Singapore's productivity growth has been dismal, to say the least. In fact, from 2011, productivity in Singapore not only stagnated but even fell.
In 2011, productivity fell by 2 percent, in 2012, it fell even lower by 2.6 percent. In 2013, productivity was zero and last year, productivity yet fell again by 0.8 percent.
Productivity never picked up since 2011. One wonders where Mr Lee gets the deluded belief that productivity should grow for wages to grow.

Not only that, real wages in Singapore for the median income earners have largely been stagnant for the past 10 years and for lower-income Singaporeans, it has been stagnant for even longer - for 20 years or so.

In fact, real wages have been estimated to have only grown by 0.5 percent annually for the past 10 years.

Mr Lee also said: "We have to get used to slower growth than before, because our economy is more mature, and we have tightened up on foreign manpower."

However, what Mr Lee failed to also mention is how the low economic growth in Singapore is also due to the overly-high income inequality in Singapore.

An OECD report at the end of last year revealed that, "The single biggest impact on growth is the widening gap between the lower middle class and poor households compared to the rest of society."

OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría said: “This compelling evidence proves that addressing high and growing inequality is critical to promote strong and sustained growth and needs to be at the centre of the policy debate."
This was also what a report from the International Monetary Fund said, that "lower net inequality [that is, after tax and transfers] is robustly correlated with faster and more durable growth."

As such, what Mr Lee had failed to mention was that the low economic growth is also a direct result of the income inequality in Singapore.

Indeed, Singapore today has the highest income inequality among the developed countries and because of that, it has also resulted in a whole host of social problems: the lowest levels of trust after Portugal, the highest prisoner rate after the United States, and one of the lowest social mobilities among the developed countries.

Yet, Mr Lee said, "We must still be concerned with growth, because that is how we can afford to invest in healthcare, education and our people."

But again, what Mr Lee conveniently ignores is how Singapore already spends the least on social protection, health, education and pension among the developed countries.

In fact, Singapore's income inequality is so high precisely because the Singapore government spends the least on social protection among the developed countries, even though the government has tens of billions in surplus every year that it does not declare to Singaporeans which is more than enough to provide free healthcare and education to all Singaporeans.

However, Mr Lee continues to bear down on the propaganda that growth is needed for the government to be able to spend more on social protection.

First, the government does not spend more on social protection because it does not want to - there is more than enough money over the past 10 years for the government to do so, regardless of the level of economic growth. Second, economic growth is low also become the government spends the least on social protection, which results in high income inequality and thereby low economic growth.

In short, the stagnation of economic growth in Singapore is a direct result of the Singapore government's perpetuation of the income inequality.

Not only that, Mr Lee had the cheek to say, "Nowhere else in the world do Government, employers and workers work closely together, give-and-take and create win-win outcomes out of difficult circumstances."

However, what Mr Lee said is severely out of line and out of touch with the lived realities of Singaporeans. In the first place, it is widely known that workers have very little rights in Singapore.

In fact, Singapore has the least employment protection legislation among the OECD and Asia Pacific countries, after the United States. Not only that, Singapore is one of very few countries in the world which still do not have income protection for unemployed workers.

In short, Singapore's workers basically have very little employment protection, or next to nothing, not least because the Singapore government also controls the labour union by putting its own minister in charge of the labour union.







Not only that, the Singapore government also controls a significant portion of businesses, where the largest companies in Singapore are government-linked and Singapore has been ranked 5th on The Economist's crony capitalism index, whereby it is the 5th easiest for the rich to get rich in Singapore if they are affiliated to the government.

Also, the government had in the 1960s to 1980s arrested hundreds of labour unionists and detained them without trial, and crippled the a segment of the labour unions, and then taking control of the existing one.

As such, Mr Lee can make lofty clams that "Nowhere else in the world do Government, employers and workers work closely together" but this can only stand true in Mr Lee's own imaginations.

Yet, Mr Lee continues to ignore the realities of the problems in Singapore due primarily to the income inequality and the government's resistance to mediate the situation, and he instead said, "We need a fresh approach. This is why we are working hard to make SkillsFuture a reality."

But SkillsFuture had been panned for being only a symbolic gesture, without any real effects when it comes to improving the wage situation of Singaporeans.

Mr Lee said, "As a society, we must be supportive and open-minded. We should not measure people by their paper qualifications, but by their skills and contributions."

All nice and well, except that when it comes to being supportive, it is clear that the government is only paying lip service. The rich-poor gap in Singapore is the widest among the developed countries. In fact, it is estimated that 30 percent of Singaporeans live in poverty where they cannot earn enough to even spend on basic necessities.

SkillsFuture is supposed to provide support for polytechnic and ITE students but no where in SkillsFuture does the government has a plan to increase wages. Where the starting pay of polytechnic students hover at around $2,000 and where 30 percent of Singaporeans who live in poverty earn less than $2,000, this means that polytechnic and ITE students are expected to live on poverty wages, especially since these groups of students can expect their wages to remain stagnant for the rest of their lives.

In fact, Singapore today still does not have a minimum wage. Cleaners still earn only $1,000 and this is half of the basic necessary for Singaporeans to have even a basic living. Not only that, when compared to countries with a similar cost of living, Japan has a minimum wage of $2,000, Australia $3,000 and the lowest-paid workers in Switzerland and Norway earn a minimum of $3,000 and $5,000 respectively.
In short, Singaporeans are severely shortchanged by the Singapore government, or more specifically the PAP-run government.

One is hard-pressed to understand why Mr Lee even bothered to give a May Day speech for workers.

Basically, workers in Singapore are given a tough lot in life, primarily due to the Singapore's government lack of responsibility to its citizens.

Mr Lee said that Singapore can achieve growth, raise wages and achieve better lives for all if everyone worked together.

However, it is clear that the PAP-run government has not kept its side of the bargain. In fact, the PAP-run government has reneged on its responsibilities.

Mr Lee might say that everyone in Singapore should work together but where the government can only make lofty claims without acting on them, then they will remain lofty and the lives of Singaporeans will continue to be compromised by the Singapore's government's lack of responsibility.
 

halsey02

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Then I have a question,the cost of living as u have noticed have skyrocketed over the past ten years.what has companies and government corporations done in order to justify the massive increase in prices? Not only has standards and quality of services and goods declined,my quality of life has also decreased due to overcrowding and limited resources availability.

A few example,less than a decade ago I could get a taxi ride for 7 to 8 bucks,now it cost over 10 bucks easy.but a taxi ride is still a taxi ride.a piece of chicken from kfc cost $2.60 10 years ago now a 3 piece meal cost 10 bucks.but the chicken has gone from bad to worse,they are using low quality chicken to keep up with the massive demand.quality goes down,prices go up....justification?can I tell my boss I work shorter hours do 25% less work make 30% more mistakes and get 30% more wages?and ban him from using cheaper better faster?

But LHL wants to get 1,000% increase in Salary, get 60% of people in PMO to do his work & his production rate is less than 10%, & a very low productivity rate, can we get cheaper alternative, faster, & ban him?
 

JohnTan

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Then I have a question,the cost of living as u have noticed have skyrocketed over the past ten years.what has companies and government corporations done in order to justify the massive increase in prices? Not only has standards and quality of services and goods declined,my quality of life has also decreased due to overcrowding and limited resources availability.

A few example,less than a decade ago I could get a taxi ride for 7 to 8 bucks,now it cost over 10 bucks easy.but a taxi ride is still a taxi ride.a piece of chicken from kfc cost $2.60 10 years ago now a 3 piece meal cost 10 bucks.but the chicken has gone from bad to worse,they are using low quality chicken to keep up with the massive demand.quality goes down,prices go up....justification?can I tell my boss I work shorter hours do 25% less work make 30% more mistakes and get 30% more wages?and ban him from using cheaper better faster?

Prices are expected to go up. That's inflation.

There are a few reasons for inflation:

1. Population increases faster than availability of resources; food, water, oil, other necessities and luxuries. Hence, you need to pay more for them due to greater competition for these limited resources.

2. Global warming and climate change has resulted in more freak weather. Hence, you should expect more natural disasters, floods and forest fires and overfishing to destroy crops and strain food resources. That means there are lesser resources around, and you have to pay more for them.

3. Population increase basically increases demand for land use in housing and business and industries. So, land price will go up, which means rental goes up, and that leads to increase in prices.

4. Population getting better educated. The gahmen and the people invested so much in their own education, be it the ITE, poly, or JC-university route. Naturally, these people will expect a higher salary in return for their years of studying and paying of school fees. That also translate into larger business costs, which inevitably gets passed on to consumers

5. As investors or landlords, we also want better returns each year. Hence, we demand high returns for REITS or better dividend yield for stocks. For property, we keep property contracts short, so that after two to three years, we can raise the rent yet again. Any sane tenant will absorb business costs to the point where he cannot take it anymore, and raise prices, close for good or relocate the business.


As a salary slave, why would the boss want to raise your pay unless the boss thinks your absence is a huge loss to the company? You don't get a pay raise because the cost of living has gone up. You get a pay raise only when your value to the company goes up. A cleaner and security guard are at the bottom of the food chain. We throw them scraps and expect them to be grateful. Throwing them anything more than scraps is a huge burden. On the contrary, if the employee is really talented, I have no qualms paying him his market value and maybe a bit more just to retain him, as his presence would help the company earn even more money.

That's life. You don't get paid high salary simply because you are a human. Neither do you get paid high salary simply because you are a nerd who can score 'A's. You get paid based on what the company thinks your contribution is worth. Up your value in your company. That's the best way to beat inflation if you intent to remain a salary slave your whole life.
 
Top