Paul Cheung speaks out against the FT Policy

[kingrant]

What a load of crap!

Look at the PAP govt. They want us to guarantee a minimum wage for their Ministers and MOS before they will take office. That proves that min wage does not push up unemployment. In fact, it guarantees full employment.

When Lee Kuan Yew believes that, it surely must be true.

All the minimum wage does is push up unemployment. Employers won't hire more staff if each addition contributes a significant overhead.

 

[kingrant]

You might as well import slaves instead of cheap labour.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with a widening income gap. While socialists may argue that it is detrimental to society as a whole, it is actually desirable from an economic standpoint as it ensures a supply of cheap labour to keep industries going.

As long as opportunities are made available to those who want to improve their lot, I would say that this parameter is irrelevant.

 

[freedalas]

You might as well import slaves instead of cheap labour.

At times, I worked with psychologists in my voluntary work and today there was one among our group. We chatted about this forum and the different types of threads and postings, Somehow the conversation strayed into our dear forum host. I described to the pscycologist that the forum host would like to post comments that are absolutely ridiculous, totally nonsensical, and downright inconceivable. I asked if such a behavior is that of a person craving for attention or is there an even more serious underlying mental condition. And what label would a psycologist give to such a person. He asked for some examples of the postings our forum host had made and so I provided him some for psycho-analysis. After reading them, he shook his head and said there's nothing mentally wrong with our forum host nor is he an attention-seeker. So I eagerly asked what would such a person be called in the field of psychologist. He smiled and replied "Oh, just an idiot, a plain and simple idiot."

 

[GoldenDragon]

At times, I worked with psychologists in my voluntary work and today there was one among our group. We chatted about this forum and the different types of threads and postings, Somehow the conversation strayed into our dear forum host. I described to the pscycologist that the forum host would like to post comments that are absolutely ridiculous, totally nonsensical, and downright inconceivable. I asked if such a behavior is that of a person craving for attention or is there an even more serious underlying mental condition. And what label would a psycologist give to such a person. He asked for some examples of the postings our forum host had made and so I provided him some for psycho-analysis. After reading them, he shook his head and said there's nothing mentally wrong with our forum host nor is he an attention-seeker. So I eagerly asked what would such a person be called in the field of psychologist. He smiled and replied "Oh, just an idiot, a plain and simple idiot."

Has to be lah. Who rides a bicycle without a seat?

 

[Leongsam]

So I eagerly asked what would such a person be called in the field of psychologist. He smiled and replied "Oh, just an idiot, a plain and simple idiot."

It seems that when you've run out of ideas regarding how to counter my sound logic, you take the well trodden alternative path of attacking the messenger instead.:p

If I really am the idiot that you claim, you have to ask yourself why many self proclaimed intellectuals like yourself make use of the platform created by an idiot to expound their wisdom.

 

[freedalas]

It seems that when you've run out of ideas regarding how to counter my sound logic, you take the well trodden alternative path of attacking the messenger instead.:p

If I really am the idiot that you claim, you have to ask yourself why many self proclaimed intellectuals like yourself make use of the platform created by an idiot to expound their wisdom.

Thanks for asking as I forgot to mention that I'd also asked the psychologist then how come he can manage the forum so well. The psychologist explained that contrary to popular belief, an idiot do have some innate abilities that can be put to good use if that had been identified. He added that in case of the forum host this side of him can come through quite well, but unfortunately in terms of analytical and reasoning powers, he would remain at the idiotic level.

 

[Leongsam]

You might as well import slaves instead of cheap labour.

You're starting to be ridiculous. I'd be the last person on earth to advocate slavery. I'd be perfectly happy to see the wages of the lowest strata of society going up 10 fold every year. However, I also see no problems with the incomes of the top 10% going up 100 fold every year.

This "Gini coefficient" stuff is meaningless because it implies that a wide income disparity is a bad thing when that need not be the case.

 

[Leongsam]

Thanks for asking as I forgot to mention that I'd also asked the psychologist then how come he can manage the forum so well. The psychologist explained that contrary to popular belief, an idiot do have some innate abilities that can be put to good use if that had been identified. He added that in case of the forum host this side of him can come through quite well, but unfortunately in terms of analytical and reasoning powers, he would remain at the idiotic level.

You're making yourself appear really pathetic with these sorts of lame responses to what was otherwise a good debate. Stick to the issue. Tell me exactly what is wrong with the successful members of society becoming extremely wealthy and thus widening the difference between the richest and poorest in society.

 

[brocoli]

You're making yourself appear really pathetic with these sorts of lame responses to what was otherwise a good debate. Stick to the issue. Tell me exactly what is wrong with the successful members of society becoming extremely wealthy and thus widening the difference between the richest and poorest in society.

the problem is that theese moron are fixated on the rich end than on the poor end ....

rich half doesnt need attention..... as long as the poor end have enough to get by .... extreme inequality should not be a concern at all

 

[kingrant]

Now you are beginning to shift yr position, arent you?

Thus far, you have not shown a dot of concern for the lowest strata and called us liberal-minded socialists for bringing it up. Now you say you would be happy to see their wages go up tenfold every year? If that is so, then our debate can close because that would mean the income gap can close.

On the other hand, my contention is that while the rich are getting richer, govt shld look back and bring up the rear. Not by robbing the rich, not by doling out to the lazybones or those who do not want to work, but by clever redistributive policies such as creating higher productivity jobs so that workers filling them can be paid more.

I'd be perfectly happy to see the wages of the lowest strata of society going up 10 fold every year. However, I also see no problems with the incomes of the top 10% going up 100 fold every year.

This "Gini coefficient" stuff is meaningless because it implies that a wide income disparity is a bad thing when that need not be the case.

 

[kingrant]

In fact, I am not.

You're starting to be ridiculous.

Let's recap what you said:

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with a widening income gap. While socialists may argue that it is detrimental to society as a whole, it is actually desirable from an economic standpoint as it ensures a supply of cheap labour to keep industries going.

As long as opportunities are made available to those who want to improve their lot, I would say that this parameter is irrelevant.

Slavery can provide big fat capitalists with their ideal source of "cheap labour". In fact, it costs nothing, so their marginal profit is infinity (division by zero).

Slavery also provides opportunities for slaves to improve their lot. I am sure working for you touches their lives immeasurably.

 

[Leongsam]

Now you are beginning to shift yr position, arent you?

Thus far, you have not shown a dot of concern for the lowest strata and called us liberal-minded socialists for bringing it up. Now you say you would be happy to see their wages go up tenfold every year?

I've never wished ill upon anybody. If their salary goes up, I'm happy for them. If they're stuck in a rut, that's their own problem. What I hate is when poor people blame their poverty on everybody else but themselves.

All humans need to learn that their destiny lies entirely in their own hands regardless of the social strata they occupy.

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

Sam, you are confused between the success that is Singapore, that was created ages ago, starting as a port city with a strategic sea-trade location. Then built up by the British. The early government of Singapore, its first 30 years of independence, was not formulated or thought off as Singapore Inc. As world trade grew after many years without a world at war and as Singapore rightly prospered, housing and other integral expenditures and salaries were kept to pace each other.

What you are barking about, Singapore Inc, is in effect analogous to the destruction of Singapore as a country for its people, rich and poor. I am not including those in perpetual dire straits who are in actual then a small minority but now have gradually grown in numbers not because of the natural way of societal living but due to poor policies from the government over the past 20 years. Policies that are based on the concept of Singapore Inc, as you support it.

While there should be no issues with those that earn a huge amount of money through their intelligence, perseverance and perhaps even good luck, there should be an issue when policies are put into place that in actual fact allow for such practices. The deliberate open-door policy towards FTs/FWs has created such a scenario. The pricing of HDB homes which are in all intensive purposes payable after 25-30 years of mortgage payments is also culpable.

The first 30 years of Singapore allowed for Singaporeans to partake in economic and social mobility, upwards. Those born within the lower economic and social rungs in the last 15 years will find it a huge task to better their lives. This has even been acknowledged quite recently by Tharman.

But these are no secrets known only to those from Middle Earth. These are the results of economic policies that have allowed a few to privilege themselves economically without actually being intelligent, hard-working or even lucky as we would know what luck means in its truest sense of the word. This privileged group are one of the last groups of people that deserve their riches. They are largely ignorant of the true ways to creating wealth other than kissing arse.

Such arse kissing and pulling out hairs from arses are the kill-all of every society throughout history. We have become no different.

 

[Leongsam]

The first 30 years of Singapore allowed for Singaporeans to partake in economic and social mobility, upwards. Those born within the lower economic and social rungs in the last 15 years will find it a huge task to better their lives. This has even been acknowledged quite recently by Tharman.

I fully acknowledge that in the first 30 years, even idiots made a very comfortable living. I witnessed this personally when I was part of the system that allowed people with little or no skills and a questionable work ethic to make huge sums of money relative to what they were actually worth.

This was a result of the PAP, through the EDB, being far too successful in attracting large MNCs to Singapore and thus creating a huge shortfall of manpower. Companies had to fight tooth and nail to fill positions and were offering ridiculous salaries in order to fill vacancies. Many of my technicians ended up earning even more than I did!

This dream run came to an end in the mid 90s and all we're seeing now is the effects of a maturing economy.

As for arse kissers they've been around since the dawn of history as you fully acknowledge. It's a skill in itself and while the absolute numbers have grown, percentage wise things probably haven't changed.

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

I have no issues with those less intelligent being able to earn a living and in so doing, contribute their part to society. What I will not condone are the lazy and greedy who cannibalize and hoodwink their way to riches not because they are intelligent but because of fascist policies that are skewed towards their rather unfortunate success.

With respect to a maturing economy, I assume that we are both talking about a developed economy. Should you acquaint yourself to the socio-economic groups that make up a developed economy, you will find a large representation by the middle income group. This was indeed the case with Singapore 10-20 years ago. Today, the so-called middle-class in Singapore is not what one would deem as middle class under first-world country status. The middle-class in Singapore today suffers from economic and social ill-effects similar to those of the lower-class, with no sign of improvement but rather a sad promise of further deepening of such ill-effects and the unavoidable event of even more ill-effects.

In short, Singapore's socio-economic stratification today more closely resembles a third world country than it does a first-world country.

As you have agreed, since the 90s the Singapore dream began dissipating. It is no mere coincidence that this dissipation began just as Singapore Inc reared its ugly fascistic head.

 

[coolguy]

This is totally untrue.
Foreign companies are not that cheapskate as local ones.
They themselves have a minimum wages for their FTs to abide to.
For e.g, an Indian company. If they were to get an Indian FT to sg, they must guarantee him a min salary for e.g 3k.
Anything more than that is up to that FT to negotiate with the company.
Only a cheapskate local NTUC linked company will tried to get one at the cheapest rate.
Don't forget their motto is "Cheaper, Better and Faster."

What a load of crap!

Look at the PAP govt. They want us to guarantee a minimum wage for their Ministers and MOS before they will take office. That proves that min wage does not push up unemployment. In fact, it guarantees full employment.

When Lee Kuan Yew believes that, it surely must be true.

 

[mojito]

On the contrary. I feel that anyone can make it regardless of their roots because I remember where I came from.

And while many may resent those they believe are earning more than their worth, very few of those who feel this resentment would turn down a similar salary if it was offered to them regardless of whether they felt worthy or not. It really is all about envy and nothing much else.

Finally you think far too highly of the human species. Life on earth was never designed to be meaningful. It was designed to be a competition. Everything we do is a competition right down to debates we have in this little forum.

This has to be the second time in a week when I lost a long post to "Ctrl-V".

Long story short, I think we live in different times today. Labour competition is very keen with the global labour supply glut. I don't think it's fair to extrapolate achievements during a time where literacy (in terms of formal education and training) is much lower. That is not a disparaging remark, since even in your time there must be quite a number of literate people who aren't very good at what they do for a living, while you have (as you claimed) done very well for yourself and your employer.

I do not think the destitute feels envy, or wishes ill for the successful. Rather I believe there is a lack of empathy from both the middle class earner as well as more successful members of the community. Envy comes from the average wage earner who sees what they could have been but isn't. That shouldn't stop you from empathizing with the challenges of the working poor to realise that some of the good things in life, some basic needs should be extended to them when they need it.

 

[freedalas]

You're making yourself appear really pathetic with these sorts of lame responses to what was otherwise a good debate. Stick to the issue. Tell me exactly what is wrong with the successful members of society becoming extremely wealthy and thus widening the difference between the richest and poorest in society.

What's the point of debating with an idiot who only posts rubbish? All the govts in the world are very concerned with the widening income gap and see it as a potential source of revolution. And u say it's not a problem? So what else is there to say to a fool who insists that he's right when the whole world already knows that the rich getting richer poor getting poorer situation has to be corrected.

 

[Fook Seng]

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with a widening income gap. While socialists may argue that it is detrimental to society as a whole, it is actually desirable from an economic standpoint as it ensures a supply of cheap labour to keep industries going.

As long as opportunities are made available to those who want to improve their lot, I would say that this parameter is irrelevant.

I have a fantastic idea to solve all our problems. Let's convert this country into one big company with each citizen allocated shares in this company. Then we recruit only FTs and FWs to run the company. Find the cheapest, bestest FTs there are. It would be an Utopia man. Imagine we have all the time to do what we want. Fly to NZ to fish in the lakes or ski in the mountains or zoom off to Paris to do shopping or UK's Fat Duck for dinner. Isn't that good?

 

[Fook Seng]

I understand that but I'm asking a more fundamental question regarding WHY it should be an issue in the first place?

Supposing I live in a street with 5 houses and they're all nice and friendly neighbours. I'm earning $50,000 a year and I'm the poorest guy on the block. The richest guy in the street earns $200,000 per year so he draws 4 times what I'm earning.

Extend this scenario to a whole country and I don't see why it should be an issue at all. It only becomes an issue if those in the lower income levels resent the success of those who have made good.

Where is this place? Are you talking about NZ? People here do not live in houses, at least most don't. The guy earning $50k a year cannot anyway. And the guy earning $200k lives in a different street and he with $2million lives in a bungalow, far away from everybody else. Sam, I think you should start understand that a difference in income doesn't just mean a different pile of money in your account in the bank.