Lucky Tan rebuts Minister Lim Swee Say

[makapaaa]

[h=2]Sunday, November 27, 2011[/h][h=3]Minster Lim Swee Say on Structural Unemployment....[/h]
Here is a report of what our Labor Chief Lim Swee Say said at a forum on Saturday:

"A big concern is a mismatch between workers' skills and what's demanded by
employers. Mr Lim said low-wage workers are vulnerable to structural
unemployment.

Another group is the Professionals, Managers and Executives
(PMEs).

He said the last 15 years have seen a concerted effort to train
workers better.

And the current focus on achieving sustainable and
inclusive growth is an extension of this goal." - Report in Today[Link]

Lim Swee say blames the structural unemployment problem on a "mismatch" of skills between job seekers and what employers are looking for. He then proceeds to conclude that the answer to our structural unemployment problems is retraining.

Structural unemployment has been a serious problem for the last decade and the severity of the problem is rising. Yet the PAP leaders refuse to see what is so plain and clear to everyone else and continues to prescribe a solution that had achieved so little results as the prblem grows.

Singapore underwemt great economic transformation in the 60s , 70s and 80s right up to the 90s. We moved from low cost manufacturing to electronics manufacturing to IT services and so on. We did not experience severe structural unemployment right up to the early 90s. While older workers were vulnerable during economic downturns as they are today, they are re-hired during economic recoveries when the labor market tightened up and employers had no choice but to tap the older workers to expand their businesses. Older workers got their chance in the good times and employers were willing to retrain them for job and kept them if they were able to perform. That was why structural employment never grew to become such a big problem in the past.

Since the late 90s, the PAP opened the floodgates to foreign workers. Employers have access to an unlimited pool of young workers from India, China and the Phillipines. When the economy picks up, employers don't have to hire older workers but young foreign workers that can be hired and retrenched easily.

Lim Swee Say's point that structural unemployment is due to a mismatched of skills if that isso, then why are the low wage workers most badly affected? These low wage workers have less skilled jobs and are the easiest to retrained to another low skilled jobs so why are they hit the hardest? The real reason is not skills but the availability of younger foreign workers.

For 15 years the PAP has perscribe retraining for people hurt by structural unemployment. After so much retraining, we find our structural unemployment problems has gotten more severe as time passes. The PAP refusal to face up to the truth and do what is right for ordinary Singaporeans and the continued denial means that the problem can only get worse. With a labor chief like Lim Swee Say, things can only get worse for older Singaporean workers.

 

[makapaaa]

60%: Huh? *mouth wide open*

 

[Fook Seng]

[h=2]Sunday, November 27, 2011[/h][h=3]Minster Lim Swee Say on Structural Unemployment....[/h]
Here is a report of what our Labor Chief Lim Swee Say said at a forum on Saturday:

"A big concern is a mismatch between workers' skills and what's demanded by
employers. Mr Lim said low-wage workers are vulnerable to structural
unemployment.

Another group is the Professionals, Managers and Executives
(PMEs).

He said the last 15 years have seen a concerted effort to train
workers better.

And the current focus on achieving sustainable and
inclusive growth is an extension of this goal." - Report in Today[Link]

Lim Swee say blames the structural unemployment problem on a "mismatch" of skills between job seekers and what employers are looking for. He then proceeds to conclude that the answer to our structural unemployment problems is retraining.

Since the late 90s, the PAP opened the floodgates to foreign workers. When the economy picks up, employers don't have to hire older workers but young foreign workers that can be hired and retrenched easily.

Lim Swee Say's point that structural unemployment is due to a mismatched of skills if that isso, then why are the low wage workers most badly affected? The real reason is not skills but the availability of younger foreign workers.

For 15 years the PAP has perscribe retraining for people hurt by structural unemployment. After so much retraining, we find our structural unemployment problems has gotten more severe as time passes.

Bull's eye! FT is supposed to be a stop-gap measure but has become the cornerstone of our entire manpower strategy.

 

[streetsmart73]

hi there


1. there is simply no impact to some running dogs, crying sheep or clowns.
2. biz as usual, monies still take mah!

 

[bryanlim1972]

Bull's eye! FT is supposed to be a stop-gap measure but has become the cornerstone of our entire manpower strategy.

PAP is pro-business, in the belief that if business do well, they will lift the economy and all will benefit.

they are starting to realize that some boats get drowned by the rising tide of a growing economy.

but our businesses are addicted to cheap foreign labour like methadone addicts. they refuse to consider alternatives and always blame "choosy" workers.

recap of an old article: http://www.asiaone.com/Business/News/Office/Story/A1Story20100517-216611/2.html

Higher profit share

THE issue of Singapore's low wage share has surfaced time and again.

In 2000, a paper by the Singapore Statistics Department highlighted this anomaly, noting that it could be due in part to conscious efforts by the Government to moderate wage increases and maintain high returns to investment largely from multinational companies.

The GDP is split three ways: One share is paid out in wages, another to companies as profits, and lastly, to the Government as taxes.

In 1980, the wage share was a low 38 per cent, climbing to a peak of 48 per cent in 1985, due to high wage policies during that high-growth period.

But recession hit in the mid-1980s, and the high wage policies were seen as adding to the severity of the situation as they eroded the profitability of companies.

Since then, the wage share has moderated to an average of 43 per cent to ensure a competitive wage structure.

It is, however, not on a par with that in other countries with similar GDP rates.

In 2000, Singapore's wage share was 42 per cent, lower than the United States' (58 per cent), Japan's (57 per cent) and France's (52 per cent), according to the paper by the Statistics Department.

In contrast, Singapore's profit share was 48 per cent, higher than these countries', which were closer to 35 per cent.

In fact, countries such as South Korea, New Zealand and Spain have a higher wage share than Singapore even though they have lower per capita GDP.

'These observations suggest that Singapore has First World per capita income but a Third World cost or productive structure,' the paper stated.

But it is not necessarily bad, the paper went on to explain, adding: 'As the economy matures, and wages and per capita income increase, the tendency is for the remuneration share of GDP to rise.'

Yet, a decade later, the wage share has not risen much. At last count, it was 44.9 per cent in 2008.

In March last year, economist Linda Lim said Singapore's economic growth model has tried to 'do too much, and achieved too little' in delivering returns for Singaporeans, relative to foreign firms and foreigners.

She cited the low wage share (41 per cent in 2007) and high share of profits, interest and dividends (more than 50 per cent). Foreign share of domestic production and income has also increased.

Similarly, a survey by Swiss bank UBS on prices and earnings last year showed a sobering picture for Singapore workers.

On a list of 73 cities, Singapore is the 24th most expensive city - moving up eight spots from the previous survey in 2006. It is costlier than Chicago, Hong Kong and Sydney.

But when it comes to wage levels, Singapore slipped two notches to 40th position. It is just one rung above Moscow, which is way down the 'expensive cities' list at No. 56 - or 32 places below Singapore.

With prices rising more than wages, Singapore workers cannot afford to buy as much as people in many other cities.

Purchasing power in Singapore declined 10 spots to 50th place, behind cities like Bratislava in Slovakia, Johannesburg in South Africa and Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia.

While some observers question the accuracy of such comparative studies, one inescapable conclusion is that wage increases have not been on a par with economic growth.

 

[huahero]

In Singapore, we must 活到老，学到死.

 

[Fook Seng]

Higher profit share

THE issue of Singapore's low wage share has surfaced time and again.

In 2000, a paper by the Singapore Statistics Department highlighted this anomaly, noting that it could be due in part to conscious efforts by the Government to moderate wage increases and maintain high returns to investment largely from multinational companies.

The GDP is split three ways: One share is paid out in wages, another to companies as profits, and lastly, to the Government as taxes.

Agree with you on the disturbing trend of the reducing PPP of our wages. But regarding your GDP analysis, I don't think taxes are included in GDP figures. That is why Govt likes to privatise many of its operations. There are many ways how to grow the economy. The govt's way was initially to rely on foreign investment, focussing on manufacturing and when we became cost ineffective, partly from labour and partly from land costs, FW was adopted as the solution to reduce costs. As you have mentioned, the reducing purchase power our wages, coupled with a larger share of housing cost in the household budget, is increasingly putting a strain on the population. There is a need to re-visit the entire economic solution. If purchase power can be raised, more consumerism can develop and a larger domestic economy is the result, relieving some weight from the export economy. Overall, the economy will be less reliant on the global performance. Especially in the next 10 years, when the world is adjusting to the musical chair of changing economic superpowers, this change has become imperative.

 

[Loofydralb]

I cannot believe you can get a minister that is so stupid sporting rubbish.

LHL must be so blind.

 

[psy83]

Who is lucky tan? I only know Bodoh Tan(Mah bodoh)

 

[mojito]

But regarding your GDP analysis, I don't think taxes are included in GDP figures.

Hi Fook Seng,

There are many ways to think about GDP. One way is the income approach, which equates production to income, then illustrates how income is being distributed between factors of production. What the article purports is probably true - workers here get a lower share of the total economic pie compared to other nations. This I believe is sadly because the proportion of homegrown companies vs foreign companies is much lower than the nations compared with.

In short, I am implying that homegrown companies are more valuable to the general wage level than international firms.

Do you agree, and if so why? Anyone here would like to warrant a guess?

 

[freedalas]

As usual, Lim Swee Say is talking cock. The best thing is when he's talking all these cock, he puts on a very serious face as if like so much profound wisdom is coming out of his mouth that you people better listen good to get enlightened.

When things started to get bad for our lower wage workers (Singaporeans), all he could mouth was to train and retrain as a solution, as if that alone is sufficient to make the problems go away. But train and retrain for what? Where are the jobs??? There are no jobs available even after you re-train a thousand times. The jobs have all gone to the foreign workers. It's as simple as that but PAP would never admit it. Why? Again it's simple. The government owns too many mega companies, Temasek alone already have Capitaland, SIA, DBS etc all under it. So the whole government policy is targeted at keeping the wage bill low for the government link companies that stem from opening the floodgate to foreign workers. The labor policiy is never meant to help Singaporean workers. That has never been PAP's objective. It is simply to ensure that labor cost remains low for the companies they owned such that the profit margin is being sustained to contribute to the reserves, which to LKY is the end all and be all of a government. The people are the least of his concern. And that's why S'porean workers are all suffering.

And because this position taken by the PAP can never be defended, you get clowns like Lim Swee Say trying to justify it and so the more he tries the worse it becomes. But Lim Swee Say is the "worstest" of them all partly because of his kindergarten-sounding english but more because he believes in what he is saying. Pscyhologists will tell you when you repeat a lie many times enough, you will start believing in your own lie. That's what had been happening to PAP.

More on Lim Swee Say. Whenever my friends talk about him, they feel so ashamed that S'pore has such a clown to be a minister, no less a labor chief. To them, it's a real disgrace as other countries will all be asking how on earth did he become a minister. Sad to say, more of the likes of him are emerging, chief of whom is Josephine Teo.

 

[Fook Seng]

Hi Fook Seng,

There are many ways to think about GDP. One way is the income approach, which equates production to income, then illustrates how income is being distributed between factors of production. What the article purports is probably true - workers here get a lower share of the total economic pie compared to other nations. This I believe is sadly because the proportion of homegrown companies vs foreign companies is much lower than the nations compared with.

In short, I am implying that homegrown companies are more valuable to the general wage level than international firms.

Do you agree, and if so why? Anyone here would like to warrant a guess?

From the tax angle homegrown companies are definitely more valuable to the country as far as tax collection is concerned. International firms will try all ways through transfer pricing to remit profits to some foreign holding companies set up in some tax haven countries. You don't get to tax them much. As far wage level, I am not too sure as MNCs normally pay better than local private firms.

 

[Received_by_Kings]

Where is Lucky Tan you lying piece of shit?

 

[BuiKia]

Why call Lucky? Sounds like my aunt's dog name.

 

[zeddy]

He said the last 15 years have seen a concerted effort to train
workers better

After completion of training, workers only get a pittance increase in their pay...

 

[mojito]

From the tax angle homegrown companies are definitely more valuable to the country as far as tax collection is concerned. International firms will try all ways through transfer pricing to remit profits to some foreign holding companies set up in some tax haven countries. You don't get to tax them much. As far wage level, I am not too sure as MNCs normally pay better than local private firms.

My original post was too lengthy, I will keep it short here.

The idea of a homegrown company being more complementary to a higher wage rate is best illustrated with Apple - a successful technology company with a few large corporations able to match their size and scale. Much of their value-added activities (hence jobs) remain in Cupertino, while manufacturing and limited sales, marketing and administration work is done out of America.

You are right about MNCs paying better than the average local private firm. But most international firms tend to do international labour cost arbitrage and locate their operations at low cost countries where possible. To prevent MNCs from moving overseas to low cost locations, we have allowed them to bring in workers from low cost countries instead. Brilliant! Until you realise ten or twenty years down the road that the establishment is delaying the inevitable.

We are in a state of denial - Many jobs created by attracting multinationals to relocate in Singapore are easily replaceable elsewhere, the roles may not be high value-add, and there is little evidence of tech or knowledge transfer. The flood of new immigrants into sectors and functional roles thus hollowed out is a result of flawed premise about what are valuable, strategic functional roles which we want to have based in Singapore.

There is a need to reassess the role government plays in pruning the economy. Has it brought foreseable externalities to the economy? Was it worth it? By what measures?

It is an opinion when I say general wage level would be higher with greater contribution from local companies. Take away the distortionary effect MNCs have on GDP and employment, when we are left with local companies and citizens, the proportion of wages to corporate profit will most certainly be higher. Survival of the local company will depend on the ingenuity of its product/service offering and improvements to productivity. This is the natural way an economy should grow, it is more resilient to competitive pressures and general wage level will grow in tandem following productivity gains.

Helping domestic firms grow big and become globally competitive is not impossible. In fact we are doing some of that already. I just think the wishy-washy ways of this government is infuriating. Our policies has benefited companies without 'trickle down' to the local labour force, and that is because there Singapore has no dedicated Ministry focusing on Labour.