Why don't you read the threads here? They have been countered. Can you read? Is it time to take your medicine?
-
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.
Professor Lim Chong Yah: Singapore’s income gap approaching dangerous levels
- Thread starter aurvandil
- Start date
Why don't you read the threads here? They have been countered. Can you read? Is it time to take your medicine?
So he earns no royalties from you, big fuck hah? I am talking about the 95% or other students who had to buy his book and hence forced to help him make even more money. Stop dancing around the question, exactly what contribution is it that u claim Lim Chong Yah made? Exactly which one of his 160 publications u claim he wrote has contributed in anyway to singaporeans or any other person on earth?
Pls, note, Big Fuck is my copyright signature in the world of SB.
Why has inequality increased?
It is always tempting to look for a single cause that can explain a major social or economic event, but in all likelihood the growing gap between rich and poor has many causes. A list of the "usual suspects" is easy to compile; evaluating their relative importance is far more difficult.
Much evidence points toward declining demand for low-skilled workers as a crucial factor. In the view of many economists, the principal source of this shift has been technological change that has allowed firms to economize on low-skilled labor while increasing the demand for highly educated workers. Ironically, these changes are broadly a consequence of the growing importance of computers and automation in the economy, the very technological advances that have helped drive the current economic boom.
Globalization of the economy may also have played a role. In the past 25 years, low-skilled American workers have experienced increasing competition from both low-paid immigrants and low-paid workers living in other parts of the world who produce goods that compete with American products. Although the effects of globalization are not negligible, most economists think they are less significant than the effects of technological change on wage inequality.
Finally, institutional changes in the labor market have had an impact. These include the declining membership in labor unions in the private sector and the declining real value of the legal minimum wage, which until recently had been severely eroded by inflation.
International comparisons support this analysis. The pressures on low-skilled wages from technological change and globalization have affected all developed economies, but the growth of inequality has been far greater in the United States. International differences in wage-setting institutions and income-transfer programs may explain the different outcomes. They may also help account for the higher unemployment rates in many other developed economies, a perspective that casts the U.S. experience in a more favorable light.
Why should we care?
Compared with the residents of many other economically advanced countries, Americans seem to have a high tolerance for economic inequality. The growing gap between rich and poor has prompted intermittent public discussion about fairness but little sustained dialogue regarding what, if anything, is wrong with income inequality and what ought to be done about it.
Part of the problem is that low-paid workers lack the political voice to raise these issues in the political sphere. But another aspect of the problem is that Americans seem to have lost sight of the compelling moral arguments for reducing economic inequality, beyond merely serving the self-interest of the poor. Nothing is more symptomatic of this ideological vacuum than the fear of mainstream politicians that, by speaking out on inequality, they will be perceived as fomenting "class warfare."
But income inequality raises basic ethical issues that should be the subject of public debate and inform government policy. Moral arguments for reducing income inequality follow from a number of basic principles, including the following:
Public Compassion or Sympathy: As members of a larger community, we simply should and do care how others are doing. Income growth at the top of the distribution provides the means to act on our compassion by improving the material well-being of those at the bottom.
Fairness: Morally arbitrary differences among us arising from the circumstances of our birth, upbringing, or current position in the market economy should not be permitted to create drastic differences in basic well-being or human dignity. In a just society, those with a better draw in life's lottery should contribute toward the welfare of those with a poorer draw. Furthermore, to the extent that family income helps determine a child's life chances, fair equality of opportunity depends on providing families with adequate resources to give their children a good start.
Desert: The income a person receives should have some relationship to what she or he deserves. Arguments based on desert have often been used to defend market-derived inequality: In the labor market, pay is a function of productivity, and lower pay reflects a smaller contribution to production. But in our everyday language, we also link desert to effort: The low-skilled worker who puts in a long, hard day's work may in this sense be as deserving as the high-powered lawyer or CEO.
Democratic Solidarity: A demo-cratic community cannot tolerate too much social stratification before it loses its demo-cratic character. This is perhaps most evident in the relationship between income and political influence in modern American politics. Although the wealthiest candidates and causes do not always win, they are always sure of being heard.
Positive Liberty: Americans place great value on freedom as the absence of constraints on conscience or expression (negative liberty). But the exercise of freedom in practice depends on access to the basic resources and capabilities necessary to act. The absence of positive liberty is nowhere more evident than in the limited options of the poor.
Self-interest: It is at least plausible that, after a point, increased inequality might lead to social or political instability and impede economic performance. Self-interest, even among the rich, might be served by moderating inequality.
These principles point toward a special concern for inequality that arises from low incomes, or poverty. The exercise of basic freedoms and participation in the political and social life of one's community typically require some minimum standard of living. This minimum is not fixed and absolute, but depends in part on the social standards and expectations of the community. Concern about inequality thus properly focuses on the social safety net and the problems of the working poor, though it should not ignore the concentration of economic power at the upper end of the income distribution.
What should be done?
Individual and communal acts of charity will always play a role in reducing the adverse effects of income inequality, but significant reductions of inequality will depend upon the government's power to tax, transfer, and regulate. Inevitably, however, redistributive policies involve real costs, in terms of both their economic impact and the infringements of property rights that accompany them. Thus there is a trade-off between equity and other values. To minimize the damage to these other values, two principles of policy design-efficiency and efficacy-should guide us as we evaluate proposals for reducing inequality.
If a policy is efficient, it will achieve its redistributive goals at minimal cost to the economy as a whole. Perhaps surprisingly, the criterion of efficiency is usually better served by policies that treat the symptoms, rather than the causes, of inequality.
For instance, to the extent that import competition is a source of downward pressure on low-skilled wages, protectionist trade policy could counteract the trend. Yet protectionism comes at a high cost to consumers and trade-dependent sectors of the economy. More efficient would be a policy that directly enhanced low-skilled workers' incomes, whether through training, subsidies, or minimum wages.
The second guideline, efficacy, requires that policies target the individuals and families most in need of income support. By this criterion, the minimum wage is a rather poor tool for redistribution: A surprisingly large percentage of minimum wage workers reside in fairly prosperous households.
A policy that does a better job targeting the working poor is the earned income tax credit (EITC), which has become one of the most important components of federal antipoverty policy. The EITC is a federal tax credit on every dollar earned, up to a maximum (currently about $3,700 per year for families with two children). The credit phases out as a worker's earnings rise beyond a certain level. By design, the EITC can only augment the incomes of families that contain workers.
Political rhetoric favors training and education programs as the best means of upgrading the skills and thus the pay of low-wage workers, but these also fail the efficacy test. Unfortunately, studies of job search and training programs have typically found that while they can help low-skilled workers find jobs, they seldom lead to significant increases in earnings potential, and thus seldom lift poor workers out of poverty. There is little reason to believe that job training, even on a massive scale, would do much to reverse the trend in wage inequality.
While broader educational reform is central to any long-run strategy for improving the living standards of the poor, its effects are also uncertain and will only be observed over the course of a generation or more.
If narrowing the gap between rich and poor is to be accomplished in the here and now or the near future, old-fashioned income redistribution policies still have much to recommend them. Income transfers to the poor, financed by a system of progressive taxation, have the virtue of targeting those in need without undue disruption of the economy.
The form such transfers might take is as much a function of political feasibility as it is a matter of fairness or economic efficiency. Progressive economists, especially in Europe, have often favored a guaranteed basic income, or negative income tax, which would be paid regardless of employment status. But in the current political climate of the United States, offering an income to the poor with no strings attached is not a realistic policy option.
Increasing the EITC and expanding programs that support poor workers (such as job search assistance, health insurance, and housing and child care subsidies) are less radical but potentially quite effective ways to mitigate the worst effects of the inequality trends of the past 25 years. Such policies must still be augmented by an adequate system of social insurance-a safety net- for those Americans who are simply unable to earn enough to escape poverty.
Finally, government can take measures to reduce the advantages of the very rich in the political sphere, where income inequality threatens basic democratic values. Serious campaign finance reform is the logical approach here.
Although egalitarianism is less politically popular than it was earlier this century, the current political climate is in some ways conducive to reopening the debate about distribution. Indeed, the recent welfare reform and increases in the minimum wage and EITC have moved poverty onto the political front burner. And the remarkable overall performance of the economy may lead many to ask why we cannot now afford to reduce the wide disparities in living standards and life chances that still exist among Americans.
William A. Sundstrom is associate professor of economics at Santa Clara University and a member of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics Steering Committee.
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v9n3/income.html
It is always tempting to look for a single cause that can explain a major social or economic event, but in all likelihood the growing gap between rich and poor has many causes. A list of the "usual suspects" is easy to compile; evaluating their relative importance is far more difficult.
Much evidence points toward declining demand for low-skilled workers as a crucial factor. In the view of many economists, the principal source of this shift has been technological change that has allowed firms to economize on low-skilled labor while increasing the demand for highly educated workers. Ironically, these changes are broadly a consequence of the growing importance of computers and automation in the economy, the very technological advances that have helped drive the current economic boom.
Globalization of the economy may also have played a role. In the past 25 years, low-skilled American workers have experienced increasing competition from both low-paid immigrants and low-paid workers living in other parts of the world who produce goods that compete with American products. Although the effects of globalization are not negligible, most economists think they are less significant than the effects of technological change on wage inequality.
Finally, institutional changes in the labor market have had an impact. These include the declining membership in labor unions in the private sector and the declining real value of the legal minimum wage, which until recently had been severely eroded by inflation.
International comparisons support this analysis. The pressures on low-skilled wages from technological change and globalization have affected all developed economies, but the growth of inequality has been far greater in the United States. International differences in wage-setting institutions and income-transfer programs may explain the different outcomes. They may also help account for the higher unemployment rates in many other developed economies, a perspective that casts the U.S. experience in a more favorable light.
Why should we care?
Compared with the residents of many other economically advanced countries, Americans seem to have a high tolerance for economic inequality. The growing gap between rich and poor has prompted intermittent public discussion about fairness but little sustained dialogue regarding what, if anything, is wrong with income inequality and what ought to be done about it.
Part of the problem is that low-paid workers lack the political voice to raise these issues in the political sphere. But another aspect of the problem is that Americans seem to have lost sight of the compelling moral arguments for reducing economic inequality, beyond merely serving the self-interest of the poor. Nothing is more symptomatic of this ideological vacuum than the fear of mainstream politicians that, by speaking out on inequality, they will be perceived as fomenting "class warfare."
But income inequality raises basic ethical issues that should be the subject of public debate and inform government policy. Moral arguments for reducing income inequality follow from a number of basic principles, including the following:
Public Compassion or Sympathy: As members of a larger community, we simply should and do care how others are doing. Income growth at the top of the distribution provides the means to act on our compassion by improving the material well-being of those at the bottom.
Fairness: Morally arbitrary differences among us arising from the circumstances of our birth, upbringing, or current position in the market economy should not be permitted to create drastic differences in basic well-being or human dignity. In a just society, those with a better draw in life's lottery should contribute toward the welfare of those with a poorer draw. Furthermore, to the extent that family income helps determine a child's life chances, fair equality of opportunity depends on providing families with adequate resources to give their children a good start.
Desert: The income a person receives should have some relationship to what she or he deserves. Arguments based on desert have often been used to defend market-derived inequality: In the labor market, pay is a function of productivity, and lower pay reflects a smaller contribution to production. But in our everyday language, we also link desert to effort: The low-skilled worker who puts in a long, hard day's work may in this sense be as deserving as the high-powered lawyer or CEO.
Democratic Solidarity: A demo-cratic community cannot tolerate too much social stratification before it loses its demo-cratic character. This is perhaps most evident in the relationship between income and political influence in modern American politics. Although the wealthiest candidates and causes do not always win, they are always sure of being heard.
Positive Liberty: Americans place great value on freedom as the absence of constraints on conscience or expression (negative liberty). But the exercise of freedom in practice depends on access to the basic resources and capabilities necessary to act. The absence of positive liberty is nowhere more evident than in the limited options of the poor.
Self-interest: It is at least plausible that, after a point, increased inequality might lead to social or political instability and impede economic performance. Self-interest, even among the rich, might be served by moderating inequality.
These principles point toward a special concern for inequality that arises from low incomes, or poverty. The exercise of basic freedoms and participation in the political and social life of one's community typically require some minimum standard of living. This minimum is not fixed and absolute, but depends in part on the social standards and expectations of the community. Concern about inequality thus properly focuses on the social safety net and the problems of the working poor, though it should not ignore the concentration of economic power at the upper end of the income distribution.
What should be done?
Individual and communal acts of charity will always play a role in reducing the adverse effects of income inequality, but significant reductions of inequality will depend upon the government's power to tax, transfer, and regulate. Inevitably, however, redistributive policies involve real costs, in terms of both their economic impact and the infringements of property rights that accompany them. Thus there is a trade-off between equity and other values. To minimize the damage to these other values, two principles of policy design-efficiency and efficacy-should guide us as we evaluate proposals for reducing inequality.
If a policy is efficient, it will achieve its redistributive goals at minimal cost to the economy as a whole. Perhaps surprisingly, the criterion of efficiency is usually better served by policies that treat the symptoms, rather than the causes, of inequality.
For instance, to the extent that import competition is a source of downward pressure on low-skilled wages, protectionist trade policy could counteract the trend. Yet protectionism comes at a high cost to consumers and trade-dependent sectors of the economy. More efficient would be a policy that directly enhanced low-skilled workers' incomes, whether through training, subsidies, or minimum wages.
The second guideline, efficacy, requires that policies target the individuals and families most in need of income support. By this criterion, the minimum wage is a rather poor tool for redistribution: A surprisingly large percentage of minimum wage workers reside in fairly prosperous households.
A policy that does a better job targeting the working poor is the earned income tax credit (EITC), which has become one of the most important components of federal antipoverty policy. The EITC is a federal tax credit on every dollar earned, up to a maximum (currently about $3,700 per year for families with two children). The credit phases out as a worker's earnings rise beyond a certain level. By design, the EITC can only augment the incomes of families that contain workers.
Political rhetoric favors training and education programs as the best means of upgrading the skills and thus the pay of low-wage workers, but these also fail the efficacy test. Unfortunately, studies of job search and training programs have typically found that while they can help low-skilled workers find jobs, they seldom lead to significant increases in earnings potential, and thus seldom lift poor workers out of poverty. There is little reason to believe that job training, even on a massive scale, would do much to reverse the trend in wage inequality.
While broader educational reform is central to any long-run strategy for improving the living standards of the poor, its effects are also uncertain and will only be observed over the course of a generation or more.
If narrowing the gap between rich and poor is to be accomplished in the here and now or the near future, old-fashioned income redistribution policies still have much to recommend them. Income transfers to the poor, financed by a system of progressive taxation, have the virtue of targeting those in need without undue disruption of the economy.
The form such transfers might take is as much a function of political feasibility as it is a matter of fairness or economic efficiency. Progressive economists, especially in Europe, have often favored a guaranteed basic income, or negative income tax, which would be paid regardless of employment status. But in the current political climate of the United States, offering an income to the poor with no strings attached is not a realistic policy option.
Increasing the EITC and expanding programs that support poor workers (such as job search assistance, health insurance, and housing and child care subsidies) are less radical but potentially quite effective ways to mitigate the worst effects of the inequality trends of the past 25 years. Such policies must still be augmented by an adequate system of social insurance-a safety net- for those Americans who are simply unable to earn enough to escape poverty.
Finally, government can take measures to reduce the advantages of the very rich in the political sphere, where income inequality threatens basic democratic values. Serious campaign finance reform is the logical approach here.
Although egalitarianism is less politically popular than it was earlier this century, the current political climate is in some ways conducive to reopening the debate about distribution. Indeed, the recent welfare reform and increases in the minimum wage and EITC have moved poverty onto the political front burner. And the remarkable overall performance of the economy may lead many to ask why we cannot now afford to reduce the wide disparities in living standards and life chances that still exist among Americans.
William A. Sundstrom is associate professor of economics at Santa Clara University and a member of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics Steering Committee.
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v9n3/income.html
Last edited:
I have specific reasons why Oct idea is dumb. Lcy himself said it will cause inflation n possible unemployment n date not defend his idea. We just don't see any counters from you or anyone to these criticisms.
Sure we know you have. Go take your medicine. LTK and WP still will not take you back.
Who is Kinana?
Someone you don't want to argue with. He just wants to be perverse with nothing else to offer other than opposing views.
Last edited:
Who is Kinana?
A very nice that is looking out for you.
To help you cut thru all the BS out there.
A true patriotic Singaporean that is here to help you understand the issues.
Are patriotic? You go around calling Singaporeans names? Do you know what is BS? Do you know you talk BS? Have you forgotten that I told you chew 5 times b4 you swallow with 3 mouths of water, 1 mouth each? Do you remember I told not to drink too much water at a go too, as you have bad bladder control?
I noticed that he never seemed to be capable of substantiating his views. Read through his post history. It's all one-liner platitudes.
Last edited:
Ahbutthen? Next he comes up as a champion for the world in SB? What a joke? Not even bigfuck does that how can allow no fuck do that? Got balls go in front of Hougang residents, LTK, WP and even YSL and say it! Go champion claims in front of PAP! Probably biboobiboo, the IMH van comes. Stay on target and keep contributing insights. We know who kanina is.
Pls, note, Big Fuck is my copyright signature in the world of SB.
Ok, I don't use Big Fuck anymore. LOL. My apologies, I will replace it with Large Coitus.
The gov can minimize inflation if they chose to like the recent intervention in the public transport saga. The price of bus fare, according to minister Lui, would have gone up by 15c if they had not pumped in the 1.1b.
There are many other ways if they chose to.....just to name a few,
1. Reduce business costs by way of lowering rental on state owned land
2. Reduce corporate tax to those businesses affected by the wage increase
3. Reduce transport costs by removing the 40% tax on petrol
4. Subsidize SME on the wage increase
Doing so will devalue property prices and cause mass inflow of foreign purchase of property causing huge problems down the line.
Besides, it does not increase real productivity which comes from higher work rates.
It also reduces state coffers and assets and therefore reserves.
Not feasible cos all businesses will be affected. Plus it still doesn't solve the problem of inflation due to greater money supply for those who will still hold jobs.
Besides, Singapore already has one of teh lowest corp taxes in the world, less corporate taxes will mean more income tax. Are you willing to pay more income tax?
And increase pollution? Besides, our transport cost is already very low compared to other countries.
Thats will mean low wage industries get subsidised and have no incentive to upgrade. Singapore will be condemned to competing with low wage jobs from overseas and becomes a vicious cycle.
You see, all your suggestions taxes on the state and is lopsided.
Here is a better solution.
Help workers upgrade so they can get paid more. Skill development are already heavily funded.
Direct subsidy of housing for the lower income group. This was not accounted for in the Gini index. Note that home ownership is higher than 90% for singaporeans. Had these things been added, the index would be much lower and become a non issue.
Direct subsidy for this housing sector will not depress pricing for higher end homes so much so its good.
Ironically, as it turns out the upgrade mantra has rather limited utility. The government already acknowledge this when they were assessing the effectiveness of WDA and workfare a few years ago. There are plenty of low wage workers paid a good sum of money to acquire new skills but in the end they found themselves not going very far.
And at the end of the day, everybody savvy enough will already know that the wage is not a measure of your true economic value in terms of skills or knowledge but a measure of how much negotiating power you have.
I just wish the MIW can stop reusing the same old arguments. Either they think we are all idiots or they are really that clueless.
Z
Zombie
Guest
There are many who upgraded themselves and earned better wages as a result too.
The better skill and more productive you are, the more negotiating power, thats the point.
Why are you against up grading and govt subsidy for housing?
Actually this Gini index thing is a non issue.
The lower income are heavily subsidised in housing and most of them own homes.
You want to earn more? Work harder and upgrade, then you deserve more.
Similar threads
