4/19/2007

comparing the non talents

There is a letter by Alvin Tan Sheng Hui disputing the numbers of Muchamed Elfian Harun that $207 a month for the Public Assistance cases is sufficient, and some can save from it also. Alvin put up some figures to say that this sum is definitely inaccurate and not enough. I can understand Alvins's point. But to put the argument from another perspective, one must have a reference point or something to compare with. In the first place these are non talentsor not talented people. And you can only compare them with the same group which has very low market value. If there are other organisations paying such people more money, then there will be reasons to give them a hefty increase. And they can't possibly quit to go to another agency to give them more allowances. It is all about comparison and supply and demand, and also talent.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Should the legal faculty be making sufferage monies and yield to his highest bidder?No wonder there is such cynicism attached to our judiciary when the cream de saucier shed their moral cloak for an unostentatious versace suit.
The bleeding shame must surely be on those who worship its image in the house?

redbean said...

hahaha, anonymous, you are getting religious.

Matilah_Singapura said...

What is "wrong" with having a "low" market value? Surely most of the responsibility rests with the individual—if you want to earn more, offer more value.

All work in the market is honourable work—even the lowly jobs like cleaning toilets and sweeping the roads and footpaths (now aided by machines).

The way you look down on people who have "low" market value is disgusting redbean. Not everyone is a super-talent. But in a vibrant economy even the "weak" can have jobs and have the DIGNITY of not being a recipient of welfare.

If you can work, work. What would prefer? A nation of beggars?

redbean said...

whay whay,
when did i look down on people huh?

now i need to start saving to buy that pair of sandals advertised in the paper. It cost only $590. i think it is a prata or parda or something like that.

Speedwing said...

Hey Redbean, I see you are a low life. It is called the prata sandals. Never heard of prada before. You mean to say that you have to save up for something that costs $590?

redbean said...

ya lah,

i sua koo. now, my vegetarian lunch is $3. that will cost me 200 lunches man.

maybe i will get a pair that is made of canvas. oh, ntuc fairprice also advertised. $7 for two pairs.

now i am in a dilemma. shall i go for it, $7 for two pairs, and don't care whether they are prada or prata?

Matilah_Singapura said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matilah_Singapura said...

Alamak guys, "price and value" lah. Price is what you pay, Value is what you get.

If you value the Prata brand, good for you lah... maybe one day you'll get to have lunch with Angelina Jolie or Paris Hilton, and you can turn up in your expensive slippers and "impress" them lah.

Meanwhile, I, beach-bum-at-large, will be walking around barefoot $590 richer, and if I really want a pair of those I can buy a pirate-copy for 200Baht, still "impress" the likes of Jolie and Hilton, and get them to pay for lunch!

redbean said...

actually i like the pratas or whatever that is genuinely made in thailand. quality wise no problem.

but i must say that all these branded stuff is good to induce the flow of liquidity. or else or the money will be stuck somewhere.

redbean said...

it will be better if we can conduct means testing to insist that the rich buy only such products.