The ugly truth about Total Fertilty Rate and foreign influx

[bushtucker]

Quoted from: http://singaporemind.blogspot.com/2012/04/ugly-truth-about-tfr-and-foreign-influx.html?m=1


Yesterday we heard this argument again - if Singapore's fertility rate does not go up, we have to import more foreigners. A paper from the National Population and Talent Division, suggested that unless we get our TFR (Total Fertility Rate) up from 1.2 which is the lowest in Asia, we need an inflow of 25,000 to keep our working population stable[Immigration crucial in baby-scarce Singapore: Govt paper].

"Without immigration, the paper shows that citizen deaths will exceed births in 13 years. By 2025, the population will also start to age and shrink, with the median age being 45 - up from the current 39 years.

The citizen workforce will also start to shrink, with fewer working-age citizens supporting each elderly citizens.

Currently, there are 6.3 working-age citizens supporting each elderly citizen.

By 2030, this ratio will drop to 2.1 is to 1." - Today Report [Link]

I haven't gone through the numbers but lets take it that it is correct and reasonable to maintain a workforce of a constant size. That is not what the PAP govt did in the last 10 years - they were not maintaining the workforce but expanding it to ramp up the GDP:

The above chart shows just the new PRs + new citizens [Link]does not include the large non-resident workforce of more than 1 million (see previous posting). Lets get this clear : the large foreign influx of the last 10 years was not about maintaining our workforce due to declining TFR but to expand the workforce - the numbers of 100,000 (2008) is just too big to justify using declining TFR. Also, when you import an adult, you're compensating for lower TFR of 20-30 years ago when that adult should have been born in Singapore - our TFR was about 1.7 to 1.8 during that time. By expanding the workforce so rapidly in the last 10 years, we have a even bigger ageing workforce to replace in 2030 .....the PAP worsened the original problem through its liberal immigration policy now tells us that it needs to import people to fix it!

There are 3 options for a country when its TFR goes down 1. Get the TFR back up 2. Import people 3. Let the population age.

Most countries have taken option 1 and succeeded. Japan tried option 1, failed and are now at option 3. Many countries don't have the low TFR problem e.g. Malaysia, Indonesia, USA.

How did our TFR fall to the lowest or one of the lowest in the world? If you check the list of countries with lowest fertility in Wikipedia, Singapore appears near or at the bottom depending on data set[Link]. We are close to Macau and Hong Kong - 2 territories with similar combination of traits of very high population density and high income gap - in fact if you get another list of highest population density and income gap in the developed world, you find Singapore, Macau and Hong Kong right on top. The relationship between high population density has been found and researched [Link, Link].The PAP compounded the low fertility problem by importing more people causing the population density to increase and the HDB adds to this vicious cycle by shrinking flat sizes arguing that Singapore families are now smaller when in fact people have fewer children because they cannot afford bigger better housing.

Once the TFR falls, govts intervene to get it back up. In most cases, they are able to stabilise it to prevent it from falling further or better still get it back up.

"History shows that governments can raise birthrates close to replacement levels if they adopt the right policies. France and Sweden, for example, have crafted thoughtful, comprehensive and consistent policy responses that have largely reversed their declining birthrates over the long run."- Mind the Baby Gap

However, TFR in Singapore fell and kept falling until it became the lowest in the world [CIA Factbook]. How did this happen despite PAP govt claims that it was encouraging families to have more children?

The PAP efforts to get the TFR back up is tainted by other goals. In the late 80s when the problem was detected, the PAP govt wanted to take an eugenics approach to solving this problem with the graduate parents scheme - they wanted only graduate parents in particular married graduate women to have more children[Graduate Mother's Scheme]. The scheme neglected ordinary citizens, most of whom were not graduates and the govt saw a backlash at the 1986 elections and the scheme had to be scrapped. To get the TFR back up, govts that have succeeded implemented simple and non-discriminatory schemes e.g taking care of the delivery and medical expenses for the child during the early years. Giving financial aid, say, to families who need help to care for a child encourages more people to have children. However, these are not the type of schemes PAP implemented - the policies implemented by the PAP are highly discriminatory and tainted by other objectives.

Take the HOPE scheme as an example. It is meant to help poorer families with children's education and housing. However, families only qualify for aid if they have only one or 2 children - they get nothing if they have more children. Doesn't a family with 3 children need more help? How does denying help to families with 3 or more children lead to better outcomes for them? This help scheme is hijacked for the purpose of social engineering to discourage certain groups from having more children. How can our TFR be raise when hundreds of thousands of families belong to these groups are discouraged from having more children? How many of you come from modest income families with more than 2 children...you wouldn't even exist if your parents went on the HOPE scheme!

Instead of simple financial incentive given to all women who have children, the govt decided to give financial incentives in the form of tax rebates - $20,000 for the 3rd & 4th child[Link]. These tax rebates have to be used within 5 years. Such financial incentives are targeted at high income families who can fully utilize the rebate because they pay higher income taxes - those earning $40K and below claim less than one tenth the rebate. Anyone with common sense knows that giving more money to those who are already highly paid and less or nothing to those who need it most is a bad incentive scheme to encourage Singaporeans to have more children. These schemes are not effective and have failed to boost our TFR.

We are in our present situation because of various policies the PAP has pursued over the years. Now they are using the current low TFR figure to justify importing more foreigners. Why not revamp the incentives scheme and encourage more women to have children by removing the discriminatory nature of the current schemes? Why not solve the housing issue and ease the burden of married Singaporeans?

The ugly truth is this ....I don't think the PAP govt cares if the workforce is largely native Singaporeans or imported. Only ordinary Singaporeans care and worry about this. For the PAP, Singapore is Singapore Inc and they take a corporatist view of things. Companies love to recruit trained personnel from other companies especially their competitors. It is cheaper to let other countries educate their people and supply us with a workforce. The moment China opened up, the PAP leaders were eager to conduct a war for talent to bring Chinese students here. In other countries, it may be done by private companies but never at the govt level in such a big scale. Leaders of other countries, be it South Korea, Japan or Taiwan focus on developing their own people to the fullest and relying on their own people to compete globally - they may recruit a small number of special talents e.g. S. Korean national soccer team coach but it is their own people that do the heavy lifting. It is this faith leaders have in their people that takes a country forward to achieve great things. Leaders who get into power and wished they had some other country's people will lead its own citizens from one disappointment to another.

For the PAP, it doesn't matter if this economy runs and hums with your children when they grow up or the somebody from the Philippines, China or India. But ask yourself, if you do not defend this island and contribute to its development for your family and your children, what else is it worth doing for?

 

[Leongsam]

LKY revealed the real reason for the imports.. Singaporeans aren't hungry enough... their genes aren't good enough and they need spurs stuck in their hides before they get off their sorry asses.

 

[sammyboi]

LKY revealed the real reason for the imports.. Singaporeans aren't hungry enough... their genes aren't good enough and they need spurs stuck in their hides before they get off their sorry asses.

What the gov is doing or did last time before is called "leapfrogging in the next century", in economic terms, it's called "cheating" or taking the shortcut, just like in the past, the gov bypassed manufacturing and moved straight to Information technology and military expertise.

If not for this move, your sons and daughters will still be in manufacturing like the Chinese in Foxconn unable to own a property at all.

In business you've gotta work smart, gotta let others do the dirty jobs for you, while you sit at home and collect rental every month . They have thus become your slaves, servicing Car and housing commitments as well.

As the "new fools" come into the country, the gov has succeded in wooing these new fools into Singapore and tricking them that Singapore is a place to Live. Work and Play. When actually it, Eat Work and Sleep !!

HAHAHAHAHHAHA Hh...AHAHAHAHHHH!!!

 

[Silent88scope]

Those MIWs forever will give the same old shit excuse to justify that importing FT is the right thing to do.

The more FTs we have in sillypore of course will lead to much lower birth rate for the local S'poreans.
1) More FTs implies to lesser jobs for local S'poreans.
2) More FTs implies to lower wages for local S'poreans.
3) More FTs implies to higher cost of living as more public funds will be needed to sustain the larger population in various subsidy.

Hence how do you expect local S'poreans to give birth to more kids when the basic need for a job to feed the family is not even easily available?

 

[Char_Azn]

Japan tried option 1, failed and are now at option 3.

This guy probably have not been to Japan for a long time. There are a lot of non Japanese workers in Japan nowadays. In fact my IT vendor in Japan is mostly made up of non-Japanese. Most of the hotels I stayed in have non-Japanese staff and many of the bigger restaurants have non-Japanese waiters.

Truth about his article is as usual, Lucky Tan is pulling bullshit out his ass.

Reminds me of his article trying to take potshots at Tharman's comment about Taiwan not progressing due to lack of Talent. I was in Taiwan the last 2 weeks and all my colleagues agreed with his statement. There were even several talk shows bringing up the topic, agreeing with it and how Taiwan should move forward

 

[Fook Seng]

I remember Lucky Tan identified, several months ago, the mis-calibration of FT influx with TFR that was off by some 20 odd years and he correctly concluded, borne by actual population explosion, that TFR was just an excuse to increase GDP through population growth. If this move was not carried out in such a secretive way, the whole country's infrastructure - housing, transportation, communal programme could have been better managed. Further more, the size of this intake could have been debated nationally and an acceptable level be adopted. But this did not happen. The reason is very clear. Decision was made within a very small group and as power is so concentrated and the political domination so complete, that there was no
way such a decision could have been questioned let alone overturned.

 

[Char_Azn]

I remember Lucky Tan identified the mis-calibration of FT influx with TFR that was off by some 20 odd years and he correctly concluded, borne by actual population explosion, that TFR was just an excuse to increase GDP through population growth.

His above article proves he knows nothing about why couples are not giving birth. Everyone I know who have only 1 or doesn't want to have babies cite troublesome, or lower quality of life. Reducing cost of flats, cost of living more money incentive is not going to change that. The only ones who are enjoying that benefits are the malays but what the government need is to have more Chinese couples to make babies. The trend is happening not just here but all across East Asia. Taiwan has the lowest birthrate in the world. SG, Japan Hong Kong are not far behind. It's a cultural trend, one which the government can only lessen but no one have figure out how to reverse. Unless the mindset of pple change, no matter how much money the government throw at us or how low your cost of living is, the low birth rate is not going to change.

 

[Char_Azn]

Here is an excellent article on the lack of babies in SG. Read it and it's pretty apparent, cost is not the main issue. Not counting husband, woman earning 2.3K claim not enough money to have babies? Seriously???? Between the wife and husband they should be making 5K. I have friends who earn 2K a month, wife not working and still can afford to pay for flat, wife and kid.

The ranks of married Singaporeans remaining childless have grown in the past decade and a small-scale study has shed some light on why some women have chosen not to procreate.

In 2010, 20.5 per cent of ever-married female citizens in the 30 to 39 age group were childless – and that is a significant jump from the 13.2 per cent in 2000, said demographer Gavin Jones.

By the end of their child-bearing years, the proportion of married women in their 40s who are childless has also risen in the past decade, although not as sharply as those in their 30s, he noted.

In 2010, 8.6 per cent of ever-married female citizens in the 40 to 49 age group were childless – up from 6 per cent in 2000. Ever-married refers to those currently married, divorced or widowed.

The latest Census data suggests that more married Singaporeans were not having babies, said Professor Jones of the Asia Research Institute. The figure includes women who want children but are infertile.

This trend is a headache for policymakers struggling to boost Singapore’s shrinking birth rates.

But not all women who have decided against motherhood are doing so because they do not want children, according to an in-depth study of 16 married Chinese Singaporean women who have chosen not to have babies.

For the eight women without degrees and earning an average monthly pay of $2,350, the most commonly cited reason for being childless is a lack of money. Most said they desire children but feel that they cannot afford to raise a child in costly and highly competitive Singapore.

[A&W - mind you, this is not including their husbands' pay (assuming husbands are working too). Say, if husband's earning is on par with the wives, the couple will have a combine income of $4,700/month; is this not enough to consider having even one child? My household income is less than that, and I have two.

And what about a friend of mine, combine income probably in the region of $10,000 - living in a condominium, driving a BMW, didn't bat an eyelid spending $10,000 for a piece of carpet, and their reason for not wanting children? "It's too expensive." (Well, then again, couple often jets around so probably too busy too.)]

The top reason against babies for university-educated women who take home an average monthly pay of $6,250 is that they feel they cannot juggle motherhood and a job, and are unwilling to sacrifice their career prospects.

The qualitative study is the first published research examining why Chinese Singaporean women consciously choose not to have children, Nanyang Technological University sociology professor Caroline Pluss, 48, told The Sunday Times.

Her former student Amanda Ee, 25, and Hong Kong sociologist Chan Kwok-bun, 62, also authored the study. It will be published in Springer’s International Handbook of Chinese Families later this year.

The study, while not representative of Singapore’s population, provides a ‘unique insight’ into a phenomenon not openly discussed or well understood, said Professor Pluss, who has a young son.

Its sample size is small given that married women who choose not to have children are in the minority and it is hard to get them to open up. Qualitative studies also usually involve a small number of people.

In fact, most women interviewed preferred to keep mum about their decisions not to have children, as it is considered a deviant attitude in family-friendly Singapore, said Miss Ee, who is single. All the women had to persuade their husbands not to have children.

The university-educated women did not see the need for children to complete their families, she added, even though society usually defines a family as a couple with children.

Aside from financial constraints, the less-educated women also said they were deterred by the lack of reliable help in raising children, such as from parents.

Both groups of women were loath to give up their time and freedom, and anticipated that their husbands would not do their share in caring for Junior.

Jane, a 32-year-old graduate and business development officer who was not involved in the study, said that she and her bank employee husband of three years do not want children because it means a lifetime of having to worry about everything from care to getting them into good schools.

Jane, who has a master’s degree and declined to give her full name, said: ‘It’s too much trouble. I don’t think having kids are worth it. There’s just too much to think about.’

++++++++++
A&W

I am NOT advocating that married couples SHOULD have children. This is a very personal affair. Although, some, as above article mentioned, may CHOOSE not to have kids, there are others who may, due to medical conditions, not able to have any.

For those who choose not to have, it is their preferred lifestyle choice, their personal choice. No right or wrong.

As our nation become more affluent and our citizens begin to put more emphasis on personal freedom, having little ones is really not the best idea – at least for now. As to who will look after us when we aged, many are “optimistic” enough that they will be financially and physically independent till their dying years while some of us simply “que sera sera”.

However, on a national level, for our nation to continue to survive and to progress, having that ‘que sera sera’ attitude just will not do. It is a problem that has to be tackled NOW, and thus the reason for needing immigration in our country. As layman, we may be uncomfortable with the increase of new citizens on our little island. But just tip toe and we will be able see that down the road there are holes, and that we have to prepare now; carrying bags of sand (even though they may be heavy) to cover up those holes before we fall into them.

For those who still do not have a clear vision, then have trust in our leaders. Their foresight, under the leadership of our PM Lee, is better than many of us added together.

http://anythingandwhatever.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/why-we-are-not-having-babies/

 

[Bigfuck]

Those MIWs forever will give the same old shit excuse to justify that importing FT is the right thing to do.

The more FTs we have in sillypore of course will lead to much lower birth rate for the local S'poreans.
1) More FTs implies to lesser jobs for local S'poreans.
2) More FTs implies to lower wages for local S'poreans.
3) More FTs implies to higher cost of living as more public funds will be needed to sustain the larger population in various subsidy.

Hence how do you expect local S'poreans to give birth to more kids when the basic need for a job to feed the family is not even easily available?

1) That is true. Contrary to misconceptions the current registered foreign population in Japan is 2,186,121 as of 2009 stats and in 2009 the population is 127 million, still less than 2%. It used to be closer to 1 percent but then TFR there has been at the 1.39ish levels. There is resignation about Japan competing against
foreigners for jobs. With biometrics, it is difficult for foreigners to sneak in and stay long term in Japan now.
2)Some companies use the trainee category to cut costs - that can be sometimes 1/3-5th the costs.
3)Not so much a case. The 125 million are the ones bloodsucking Japan's budget with the government stoking it due to populist politics.