“Prices of goods and service in Singapore may be rising at a slower
pace, but Singaporeans still feel the squeeze, convinced the cost of
living is rising faster.”
What is this statement in thenewpaper trying to say? Prices rising at
slower pace so no rising cost of living but Singaporeans, not locals,
think cost of living is rising faster and this is not true. Why, because
the govt are doing so many things to ease the rising cost of living,
like more taxes, higher fees, etc, all working towards lowering the cost
of living.
You don’t believe these would work? You forgot that increasing GST is to
help the poor? Sugar taxes to reduce diabetes? 30% increase in price of
water to reduce usage of water and to teach people the importance of
water that falls down from the sky, free? More foreigners are here to
provide jobs, good jobs for Singaporeans? And the infamous million
dollar ministerial salary to prevent corruption? All these are uniquely
Singaporean way to solve our unique problems by our super talented
ministers.
And sure they work. Listen to this comment by Chan Chun Sing. “People’s
aspirations, and their ability to fulfil them, can also affect their
perception of the issue.” Huh, what’s that? Oh, if you have million
dollar salary, your perception of rising cost of living would be
different from those trying to make ends meet. This one I also know.
And MP Liang Eng Hwa got the gumption to ask if the cost of living has
significantly increased. My answer is a definite NO. And I thank Chan
Chun Sing for agreeing with me. He said, “But looking at absolute
measures, overall inflation in Singapore has, in fact, declined between
2012 and last year, compared with the five year period before it.” See, I
am right, inflation is in decline, though still going up and the govt
is helping the people to stretch their hard earned dollar.
Personally I know my kopi has gone up from 90c to $1.10, train fares
have also gone up, the food in hawker centres also up. No I cannot
afford $6 kopi or $10 lunch. So my perception of rising inflation is not
true, because I am trying to stretch my dollar to get me as much as I
could get.
There is no rising cost of living in Singapore despite our honour of
being the most expensive city in the world. This is only a matter of
perception. If you are earning million dollar salary, what inflation?
And if you know how to stretch your dollar like buying the cheapest
things available, eating less, where got inflation? And don’t take
public transport if you cannot afford it, try bicycle or walking and you
can be richer by saving a few dollars or a few cents.
See, Singapore is a cheap place to live, even if it is the most
expensive place in the world. The govt is doing all it could to lower
the cost of living and inflation by raising more taxes, hiking more fees
and charges. All these are to reduce inflation and cost of living for
sure.
Trust me.
7/16/2018
How much is a worker paid versus how much he has to pay to live
"A family getting by on $117,400 (£87,970) in one US city can now be considered ‘low income’, according to government figures. How can that be the case?
That workers with six-figure salaries could be considered “poor” is something that might surprise many people.
But taking into account income and housing costs that is the reality for some families – who may be eligible for housing assistance – according to a recent report from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development.
In San Francisco and nearby San Mateo and Marin Counties it said $117,400 for a family of four was “low income”, while $73,300 (£54,900) was “very low income” – the highest figures anywhere in the country.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44725026"
The above statement was posted by Cynical Investor to explain the relative income and purchasing power of money. Everything is relative and the numbers are deceiving. We have recently heard Koh Poh Koon lamenting that the productivity of our workers was below the wages they were being paid, ie, our workers are overpaid. So how? He is saying that the wages or our workers are too high, overpaid, so it is necessary to cut down the wages of our workers to be competitive.This is a very simplistic view of the relationship between wages and productivity. An approach we called single factor analysis, picking on one or two isolated factors to prove a point but really is misinformation or disinformation. The wages of workers are not just measured on productivity alone though productivity is an important factor.
The workers need to live and get on with his life in a given set of parameters in the society or country he lives. He needs to pay for housing, food, clothing, bringing up children, medicare and all the social needs that cost money. This is why there is a term called basic wages that is linked to the cost of living of a country. How much does a person needs just to afford the basic needs of his environment to get by.
Singapore has priced itself to be one of the most expensive city in the world. Some jokers think this is a great achievement and recklessly increasing the cost of living with higher and higher taxes and fees to be on top of the world for the wrong reason. They did not care simply because they are being paid in the millions and would not be affected by the higher cost of living. But for the workers every cent counts and any increases would eat into his already thin wage and would likely to mean he has to give up on things that he no longer has the extra dollar to pay for. They have to cut ends and eat less or live on less.
Does the govt ever consider how much a family needs to live in this most expensive city in the world when the value of money is getting smaller by the day? Before any joker starts to even think of wage cuts, he should be very clear in his mind what is the minimum wage needed to get by in this expensive city. Oh, what expensive, $1,000 wage can buy HDB flats. Oh ya?
In countries like China or India, when cost of living are very low, they could pay their workers low wages but still enough to live comfortably. With the big difference in exchange rates, the workers of these countries would be paid really very little relative to our workers and thus become very competitive relative to their productivity. Would the jokers conveniently say our workers should also be paid the same wage as these workers to be competitive?
The above examples of the income of American workers are obvious and easy to understand even to the dull. The paper value of income must be read in the context of the cost of living of the country. Singapore has prices itself out of competition by its silly and irresponsible policies that ended up in very high cost of living and going higher by the day. And the jokers think that this is sustainable as long as we reduce the wages of our workers to be competitive.
It is very easy to make arguments in a vacuum or use single factor anal-lysis. Just keep farting. Yes the wages are high relative to the wages of developing countries. But our wages are low, some near poverty level, relative to our high cost of living.
So, what is your answer? Raise more taxes, more rentals, higher property prices, higher fees, higher train and bus fairs, build more monuments and charged to the people?
7/15/2018
China is making everyone richer
Thanks to the industrious Chinese workers, they are making everyone
richer by producing goods that are not only affordable, but very cheap.
The goods and products produced and made in China are now made available
not only to the Chinese people but to the rest of the world, the
working and middle classes in the developed countries and the lower
classes in the developing world.
Many of the poorer people would not be able to buy or afford to buy the goods that made life more convenient if the Chinese did not make them and sell them at a price they could afford. Think of the hundreds of millions of mobile phones, good quality phones, being sold in India and China and Africa, Asia and the rest of the world. The names like Huawei, Xiaomi and Oppo are household names all over the world. How could these people afford to pay a thousand US dollar or more for just a mobile phone? The Chinese are selling them for a fraction of that sum and hundreds of millions of people in the developing world are now proud owners of mobile phones to enjoy and benefit of the advances in science and technology.
The Chinese have made goods cheaper or in a way make money bigger, or purchasing power greater for the same monetary value. The American and European middle class and lower class would now be able to buy more luxury goods made by China that they would otherwise not be able to afford. This is applicable to everywhere in the world. The Chinese people could afford reasonably priced cars, cars costing a fraction of those made in Europe and the USA. Computers, laptops, notepads, are practically all made in China and made available to the rest of the world at a price that is really affordable even to children of developing countries.
At the country level, China not only helped to built infrastructures for many countries, China helped to send their satellites to space, high speed trains, even military hardware for a song. Without China they would have to pay for American prices and in American dollars for the same goods. Would Malaysia be able to even consider building the major ports and high speed trains at Japanese or European prices?
China is helping the rest of the world to stretch their dollars, make their money bigger and not be fleeced by the Americans and the West, dictating their prices and terms of trades with steel chains attached. It is a new freedom for the rest of the world, for the poorer nations of the world, to have the things they want at a price they could afford.
China and Chinese workers are benefitting the world with their productivity at a fraction of the cost of the Americans and the West. More will come from China in electric cars, solar energy panels, windmills to tap cheaper sources of energy. This is only the beginning of China changing the world, to make the world a better and more peaceful place to live.
Many of the poorer people would not be able to buy or afford to buy the goods that made life more convenient if the Chinese did not make them and sell them at a price they could afford. Think of the hundreds of millions of mobile phones, good quality phones, being sold in India and China and Africa, Asia and the rest of the world. The names like Huawei, Xiaomi and Oppo are household names all over the world. How could these people afford to pay a thousand US dollar or more for just a mobile phone? The Chinese are selling them for a fraction of that sum and hundreds of millions of people in the developing world are now proud owners of mobile phones to enjoy and benefit of the advances in science and technology.
The Chinese have made goods cheaper or in a way make money bigger, or purchasing power greater for the same monetary value. The American and European middle class and lower class would now be able to buy more luxury goods made by China that they would otherwise not be able to afford. This is applicable to everywhere in the world. The Chinese people could afford reasonably priced cars, cars costing a fraction of those made in Europe and the USA. Computers, laptops, notepads, are practically all made in China and made available to the rest of the world at a price that is really affordable even to children of developing countries.
At the country level, China not only helped to built infrastructures for many countries, China helped to send their satellites to space, high speed trains, even military hardware for a song. Without China they would have to pay for American prices and in American dollars for the same goods. Would Malaysia be able to even consider building the major ports and high speed trains at Japanese or European prices?
China is helping the rest of the world to stretch their dollars, make their money bigger and not be fleeced by the Americans and the West, dictating their prices and terms of trades with steel chains attached. It is a new freedom for the rest of the world, for the poorer nations of the world, to have the things they want at a price they could afford.
China and Chinese workers are benefitting the world with their productivity at a fraction of the cost of the Americans and the West. More will come from China in electric cars, solar energy panels, windmills to tap cheaper sources of energy. This is only the beginning of China changing the world, to make the world a better and more peaceful place to live.
7/14/2018
Singapore wages too high and businesses may close down
Thestatestimesreview wrote this, “Senior Minister for Trade and Industry
Koh Poh Koon complained in Parliament yesterday (July 11) that
Singaporeans’ wages are too high and unsustainable. Referencing to the
productivity growth, the S$1.1 million-a-year PAP minister threatened
that businesses will downsize or shut down if wages continue to rise….In
Singapore, manual labour jobs like cleaners earn as little S$900 a
month after CPF deduction. At about S$5 an hour, this is a quarter of
the S$20 minimum wage in Australia. Foreign workers from third world
countries like Bangladesh earn much lower, taking home about S$600 a
month.”
Unbelieveable! A drunk would never admit that he is drunk or would not know that he is drunk. A glutton would never see himself as a glutton. Or Napoleon and his fellow pigs would not know that they were cheating the people and feeding themselves crazy on the people’s labour and contribution.
Singaporean wages high? What nonsense! A $1,000 wage in Singapore is bordering on the poverty line. A $1,000 wage in third world country is middle class. A cleaner with $900 wage is barely surviving. What is high or low is relative. You can't be so simple minded to just compare monetary value without looking at the real value of money in purchasing power.
This is the same farce that the Americans are groaning about. They are demanding that China pays its workers the same wage as the American workers. They refused to acknowledge the differences in cost of living, purchasing power and lifestyle. A Chinese worker earning $1,000 is very comfortable as prices of essential items are relatively cheap. An American worker cannot live with a $1,000 wage as not only things are relatively more expensive, but an American worker would want his medium rare steak and his cabernet sauvignon as part of his daily meal. The Chinese worker would be happy with his noodle or rice with a few shreds of meat or fish.
Wages are high in Singapore not at the bottom but at the top. The multi million dollar salaries of ministers and politicians, top civil servants and CEOs of GLCs are not sustainable. Just imagine how many commuters must take the train or bus before the train/bus company makes $1m. At $1 a trip, it means 1m trips just to pay the joker his 1m salary. And if you have 20 jokers with an average salary of $1m it means 20m trips just to pay their salaries.
The sickness of our economy is not the wages of the workers but the salary of those at the top. Do they contribute enough to earn the millions that are paid to them other than talking nonsense? The salary of a million dollar top man or politician could pay for a thousand workers. This is the real problem of unsustainability and irresponsible remuneration system.
Yes, it is very high at the top and very unsustainable. Stop spewing nonsense and everyday scheming to reduce the wages of the workers and stealing their savings in their CPF.
The only way to solve the Singapore unsustainable high salary problem is lightning strike.
PS. How are Singaporeans going to survive in this most expensive city in the world if their wages are to be the same as Malaysians, Indonesians, Pinoys, or Indians?
Unbelieveable! A drunk would never admit that he is drunk or would not know that he is drunk. A glutton would never see himself as a glutton. Or Napoleon and his fellow pigs would not know that they were cheating the people and feeding themselves crazy on the people’s labour and contribution.
Singaporean wages high? What nonsense! A $1,000 wage in Singapore is bordering on the poverty line. A $1,000 wage in third world country is middle class. A cleaner with $900 wage is barely surviving. What is high or low is relative. You can't be so simple minded to just compare monetary value without looking at the real value of money in purchasing power.
This is the same farce that the Americans are groaning about. They are demanding that China pays its workers the same wage as the American workers. They refused to acknowledge the differences in cost of living, purchasing power and lifestyle. A Chinese worker earning $1,000 is very comfortable as prices of essential items are relatively cheap. An American worker cannot live with a $1,000 wage as not only things are relatively more expensive, but an American worker would want his medium rare steak and his cabernet sauvignon as part of his daily meal. The Chinese worker would be happy with his noodle or rice with a few shreds of meat or fish.
Wages are high in Singapore not at the bottom but at the top. The multi million dollar salaries of ministers and politicians, top civil servants and CEOs of GLCs are not sustainable. Just imagine how many commuters must take the train or bus before the train/bus company makes $1m. At $1 a trip, it means 1m trips just to pay the joker his 1m salary. And if you have 20 jokers with an average salary of $1m it means 20m trips just to pay their salaries.
The sickness of our economy is not the wages of the workers but the salary of those at the top. Do they contribute enough to earn the millions that are paid to them other than talking nonsense? The salary of a million dollar top man or politician could pay for a thousand workers. This is the real problem of unsustainability and irresponsible remuneration system.
Yes, it is very high at the top and very unsustainable. Stop spewing nonsense and everyday scheming to reduce the wages of the workers and stealing their savings in their CPF.
The only way to solve the Singapore unsustainable high salary problem is lightning strike.
PS. How are Singaporeans going to survive in this most expensive city in the world if their wages are to be the same as Malaysians, Indonesians, Pinoys, or Indians?
7/13/2018
Dialectics on Education – idealism versus pragmatism, reality versus aspiration
Many pages of the media, many efforts and valuable manhours, and many
heads have been put together to untie the Gordian knot of the Singapore
education system. The reason for the change, the wanting to change,
comes not because the education is flaw, foul or ineffective, but
because of stress factor, because of the complaints by parents that
their children are unable to cope. What are the statistics on the
complaints, type of complaints, relevant or irrelevant, real or just
fear, are not given.
So a massive exercise has been taken, by the people that may not know much about education, by people that may not know much about what life and living is all about, by people who knows not but pretending or thinking they know a lot.
Here are some takeaways from the things said and printed in the media and the contradictions or fictions that have been generated. The most important point raised, and out of a sense of wanting to provide a child with an all round education, to be a knows all of everything but knowing nothing, is this, to develop a whole child, whatever that means. And the present wisdom, a future of uncertainties and it is better to develop a child that can cope with future changes. Let me quote Indranee, a lawyer, not an educationist, not a parent bringing up children. “We now put a lot more emphasis on developing the whole child – not just their academic achievements….The ability to learn, unlearn and relearn will be the key.” And this motherhood statement, ‘Book knowledge alone is not enough, and the change caused by technology and other disruptive factors means that learning, has to continue well into adult life.’
I have several questions. How many children require all round development? How many children needs to be educated in the arts and sciences to become a knows all? How useful is a child with a well rounded education that he can use all these knowledge in his job? How many children are capable, with the intellect, to acquire a full rounded education other than being superficial and ended up becoming a good for nothing? In the real world, when everyone needs to get a job to feed himself, other than the super rich, is a general all round education going to be more useful than a specific education with specific skills, but very narrow in nature?
Why are Singaporeans, especially the PMETs losing out in the job market, unemployable, because they did not have specific skills needed in the job market? Why are foreigners, who did not benefit from our super all round education, coming from very basic education system, are beating our super talented Singaporeans, with super grades, in the job market? Why are ministers saying that there is no need for university education, all one needs is a skill in demand?
Are there contradictions between idealism and reality, between aspirations and the hard truth in life? While talking about educating children to become more flexible and adaptable, would these compromise the children in acquiring specific skills in demand? Funny, if every child is going to become a superman that can do everything, a wholly developed person, are they not going to become one stereo typed, wholly developed person? Assuming of course every child is a genius by nature and could benefit from such a complex and varied education, and without stress.
I am not an educationist or expert in education. These are some of my thoughts as a layman, someone who has no deep knowledge about education and I do not pretend to know the answers to how a child should be educated to the best of his ability, his gifted or not gifted talent. A child is not the same as every other child, each with his own special talents and non talents. Should it not be to develop a child according to the best of his natural endowment and according to what society and the new world expects from him? Not what the parents want them to be?
It will be a different matter if every child is born a genius and a sports talent and is gifted to do and excel in everything.
From comments in Parliament and the direction they are pointing it appears that they are being mislead by a small group of noisy and vociferous parents dictating how the education should be like for their not too bright or even dull children to be admitted to the best schools, play and be happy, without any pressure, no need exams, learn more study less, and end up with super grades in the end. Such things can only happen in third world countries and degree mills.
The children come in all shapes and sizes and not everyone is a perfect circle. One way to push them through perfect circles is to enlarge the circles. But they would come out in their original shapes and sizes. The only method to turn odd shapes into perfect circles, or cast iron into steel is through the crucible of fire.
A buffet of schools
What Singapore needs is a tough minister to offer to the parents a buffet of schools, from happy schools to tough competitive schools, to specialized schools that would turn out children according to the demand of the schools and their specialization. Play schools would turn out playboys and playgirls. Rich parents can afford these playboys and playgirls as they grow up to party their whole lives without worries, without stress, without having to work for a day.
Those who want their children to be engineers, scientists, doctors, and the hard disciplines have no choice but to work for it. There is no other way to master these tough disciplines except through degree mills and pariah school systems in third world countries. Is that what we want?
Stop fooling around with our education system and the lives of our young. No pain no gain. Oops, maybe we have magicians in Parliament that could really produce an Einstein who is also a great artist, a great football player without having to work for it. Just pull him out from the hat and viola, you have your superman!
So a massive exercise has been taken, by the people that may not know much about education, by people that may not know much about what life and living is all about, by people who knows not but pretending or thinking they know a lot.
Here are some takeaways from the things said and printed in the media and the contradictions or fictions that have been generated. The most important point raised, and out of a sense of wanting to provide a child with an all round education, to be a knows all of everything but knowing nothing, is this, to develop a whole child, whatever that means. And the present wisdom, a future of uncertainties and it is better to develop a child that can cope with future changes. Let me quote Indranee, a lawyer, not an educationist, not a parent bringing up children. “We now put a lot more emphasis on developing the whole child – not just their academic achievements….The ability to learn, unlearn and relearn will be the key.” And this motherhood statement, ‘Book knowledge alone is not enough, and the change caused by technology and other disruptive factors means that learning, has to continue well into adult life.’
I have several questions. How many children require all round development? How many children needs to be educated in the arts and sciences to become a knows all? How useful is a child with a well rounded education that he can use all these knowledge in his job? How many children are capable, with the intellect, to acquire a full rounded education other than being superficial and ended up becoming a good for nothing? In the real world, when everyone needs to get a job to feed himself, other than the super rich, is a general all round education going to be more useful than a specific education with specific skills, but very narrow in nature?
Why are Singaporeans, especially the PMETs losing out in the job market, unemployable, because they did not have specific skills needed in the job market? Why are foreigners, who did not benefit from our super all round education, coming from very basic education system, are beating our super talented Singaporeans, with super grades, in the job market? Why are ministers saying that there is no need for university education, all one needs is a skill in demand?
Are there contradictions between idealism and reality, between aspirations and the hard truth in life? While talking about educating children to become more flexible and adaptable, would these compromise the children in acquiring specific skills in demand? Funny, if every child is going to become a superman that can do everything, a wholly developed person, are they not going to become one stereo typed, wholly developed person? Assuming of course every child is a genius by nature and could benefit from such a complex and varied education, and without stress.
I am not an educationist or expert in education. These are some of my thoughts as a layman, someone who has no deep knowledge about education and I do not pretend to know the answers to how a child should be educated to the best of his ability, his gifted or not gifted talent. A child is not the same as every other child, each with his own special talents and non talents. Should it not be to develop a child according to the best of his natural endowment and according to what society and the new world expects from him? Not what the parents want them to be?
It will be a different matter if every child is born a genius and a sports talent and is gifted to do and excel in everything.
From comments in Parliament and the direction they are pointing it appears that they are being mislead by a small group of noisy and vociferous parents dictating how the education should be like for their not too bright or even dull children to be admitted to the best schools, play and be happy, without any pressure, no need exams, learn more study less, and end up with super grades in the end. Such things can only happen in third world countries and degree mills.
The children come in all shapes and sizes and not everyone is a perfect circle. One way to push them through perfect circles is to enlarge the circles. But they would come out in their original shapes and sizes. The only method to turn odd shapes into perfect circles, or cast iron into steel is through the crucible of fire.
A buffet of schools
What Singapore needs is a tough minister to offer to the parents a buffet of schools, from happy schools to tough competitive schools, to specialized schools that would turn out children according to the demand of the schools and their specialization. Play schools would turn out playboys and playgirls. Rich parents can afford these playboys and playgirls as they grow up to party their whole lives without worries, without stress, without having to work for a day.
Those who want their children to be engineers, scientists, doctors, and the hard disciplines have no choice but to work for it. There is no other way to master these tough disciplines except through degree mills and pariah school systems in third world countries. Is that what we want?
Stop fooling around with our education system and the lives of our young. No pain no gain. Oops, maybe we have magicians in Parliament that could really produce an Einstein who is also a great artist, a great football player without having to work for it. Just pull him out from the hat and viola, you have your superman!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)