-
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.
Breaking: S'pore GDP is up but our Avg Salary is going down !
- Thread starter kojakbt
- Start date
Can be many reasons. Usually the correlation between GDP and average salary is not great. U have to see the per capita GDP number. I suspect that there is a large influx of FT employees working cheap, hence dropping the average salary overall.
No suspect here, it is a fact that the FTs are depressing thw wages. Talk about productivity???>
:oIo:
Spastic maggot :oIo:
Because your and your peers are useless and doing simple things that Chinese/Indians can easily do in China/India? :oIo:
Get real :oIo:
U think PAP decides your low wage? they actually set a very high wage benckmark through the civil service. :oIo:
You just don't have skills, experience and connections. :oIo:
Spastic maggot :oIo:
Because your and your peers are useless and doing simple things that Chinese/Indians can easily do in China/India? :oIo:
Get real :oIo:
U think PAP decides your low wage? they actually set a very high wage benckmark through the civil service. :oIo:
You just don't have skills, experience and connections. :oIo:
In % terms, the average earnings was negative in 2Q 2010!
As one wise man once said: You spastic gay maggot!!
And look at your graph again. A quick cursory glance will tell you that the average wages have gone up by 7% in total.
Also, with more FW workers coming in being prepared to work for lower wages, of course the average salary will rise as fast as GDP. But does that mean that the average salary for Singaporeans and PRs have fallen? The reality is no. Your own graph speaks for itself.
The disinformation of the MONGREL who bit his masters' hands LOUDHAILER chee soon juan at work again?
Last edited:
GST Hike: Helping the Sandwich Class
by Ms Seet Cher Lui Stephanie
Sengkang West Division of Ang Mo Kio GRC
Assistant Secretary, Young PAP
Dated : 14-02-2007
http://www.pap.org.sg/articleview.php?id=1514&mode=&cid=23
Economic Climate on the Middle Class
While the elderly and lower income groups will be better off with the GST offset package, recent economic restructuring appears to affect the middle income class the most. Given the climate of economic reforms, the impact of the GST hike on this group should not be evaluated in isolation.
The economy appears to have fully recovered from the 1997 Asian financial crisis, with 2006 registering a better-than-expected 7.6% growth. The government has also announced plans to restore CPF cuts.
There are, however, indicators of leaner times ahead, with the growing income divide being magnified with the emergence of a dual economy. Reports of middle class wage stagnation over the past ten years hardly suggest that the bullish economy benefits the majority of income-earners.
Who is more useless? Know that there is income stagnation for 10 years and choose to do NOTHING?
I certainly agree with you on the connections part. No wonder the elites are getting richer everyday... Even a permanent secretary can earn more than President Obama. Some more got time to fly to Paris for 5 weeks to learn French cooking.... * shake head *
Still evading the fact that wages have gone up by 7% over the 3 years and not fallen, as you claimed?
There are none so blind as those who will not see, none so deaf as those who will not hear.
Very selective indeed. You show a graph which shows a fall AFTER a big increase and then pick on the fall.
Starting $3,562, ending $3,819. Hardly a fall, wouldn't you say?
just look at Nathan pay----people say nathan basic pay is $420k per month, and his pension is 3/4 of his last drawn pay.
so he may be drawing ---let say , $700k per month right ?
and local sporns struggling to get $3000 to 3800 per month comparing to nathan...we see the difference right !
GDP up, even pay increase also cannot fight what Nathan is drawing.
700k vs 3k---who wins? we need to have rocket scientists look at what is wrong with the difference if GDP donch affect the Nathan figure right !
so next GE , PAP must be shown to the doors right !
so he may be drawing ---let say , $700k per month right ?
and local sporns struggling to get $3000 to 3800 per month comparing to nathan...we see the difference right !
GDP up, even pay increase also cannot fight what Nathan is drawing.
700k vs 3k---who wins? we need to have rocket scientists look at what is wrong with the difference if GDP donch affect the Nathan figure right !
so next GE , PAP must be shown to the doors right !
now this is what u and the oppo parties shud be barking at. the extremely indecent high pay of the miw. this is the root and the cause of all the problems u were barking about in your other threads.
Not at all. As I've said, the key here is to look at the trend. I, of course, hope that this is only temporary and that salaries of Singaporeans will trend up again.
You can't just take what was good earlier and add them up together to say things are ok.
If you want to argue like that, might as well argue that Singapore, since 1965, independence, our wages have grown by leaps and bounds, so why complain?
Tio bor?
My friend, we are not talking about selectively choosing 7.35 year or 55.784 year time frames. We are just looking at one year - four quarters.
Again, you miss the point.
The point is, why is our GDP growing but our salaries are falling?
compare this:
2010 Q1: $4,310
2010 Q2: $3,819 (-11.4% drop)
to this GDP % growth:
2010 Q1: 16.9%
2010 Q2: 18.8%
We're not talking about starting $3,562 and ending $3,819. If you want to talk about this just to make oneself feel better, might as well compare avg salary of $3,819 with, say, those in 1965 at independence (which I think it's about less than $100 pm)...
You follow?
Again, I'm comparing the GDP growth vs salaries growth for 4Qs. Something is just not right here...
Similar threads
