Originally posted by Aceone10:How do human competitive nature related to looking for a fight?? How is this even related?? How is looking for a fight is being competitive?? So being a gangster is damn competitive huh...
So did I admit I'm a Troll?? If I did and you too admit you a whore. You will have to pay me to teach you how to serve so tat you can get more customer and be the no.1 whore in GL. I can teach you 101 if the price is right.
Ok, let's stick to the topic.
I have no interest to continue arguing when you need to restort to lying in order continue your personal struggle.
..So can anyone enlighten why Hong Kong is better in these respects than Singapore, besides Minimum wage Laws?...
Answer: probably due to the fact that Hkg is only next door to china??
Good to have min wages across the board.
Bad news for all the employers, they need to pay more wages.
Good that it bridge both class together closer.
Will employees be more hunger for more wages, thus begin another round of protest in hkg?
We must make our wages flexible against a cyclical global economy, if we had set minimum wages, long long ago, most companies would had left us. In fact, we had add value to enhance our wages flexibility inorder to stay competitive in a global platform, the like of MVC, CPF cuts are contributing factors that allow us to stay relevant to the fragile economy. We have maintain our competitiveness a nos 3 spot behind the swiss and swedish, and the major contributing factors are beside good governance, a good labour management relation and a flexible wage system, stability, harmonious and peace. In our everday routine life, we do not see such as important, now where is HK sitting in the competitiveness table?? HK has never been independent throughout their history, they are alway under someone cares, from British to China, now, who care for singapore?? nobody.
It is more like if SG implemented minimum wages long ago, there will be less so call not up to the mark FT and less ppl like you down here talking c*ck. You just another think you know it all. Also we can have less of those so called MNC that invest here just to exploit the low wages. Talking about low wages, there are so many countries that give many time lower cost then SG, why still come here? Think before you talking c*ck again.
TO Parn,
Is more like you are running out of lie and you are raising the white flag.
Say "Pleased" and "I am Sorry" and I might let you off the whore hook..
Originally posted by Aceone10:Well, it is long and meaningless post. Minimum wage = starting pay. Easier for you to understand? If a company were to use this excuse to cut old employees pay, good luck to their business. Ppl talks and news spread and who will continue to work there?
Min wage =/= starting pay.
Min wage = least amount you can get.
Why parn said min wage = max wage is because through an employer point of view, as long as they give let say $1000 (min wage), they would not increase it. As long as they are not breaking the rules, they will continue giving out this $1000.
Right now, without any hard or fast rule where wage is solely up to the discretionary of the company, they do not have a guideline, thus they would give solely base on the ability. Till then, it would be up to the employee luck to see if he/ she can find a similar job with a higher pay or not, which would not have happened if there is a minimum wage. If you don't understand, I can explain in another way.
As for people talking. These company would know how to deal with it. Don't need to worry. As long as the company is able to keep its products low, who would bother on how they sack their retired staff or not. E.g. SIA. Have anyone boycott SIA because of their staff retrenchment exercise to cut cost?
Originally posted by Aceone10:It is more like if SG implemented minimum wages long ago, there will be less so call not up to the mark FT and less ppl like you down here talking c*ck. You just another think you know it all. Also we can have less of those so called MNC that invest here just to exploit the low wages. Talking about low wages, there are so many countries that give many time lower cost then SG, why still come here? Think before you talking c*ck again.
Question u have to ask yrself is that, without a minimum wage system, how come singapore can be so successful, a country without natural resource other than human resources, we did well.
As said, a lazybone singapore man would had been a beggar crawling the floor begging for food in some poor countries, but in Singapore, he is blessed to ride the wave of success, even if he is a lazy, good for nothing person. And that is the differences we are talking about.
With a mere 1.8 local workforce, can we handle a market that command a 3 millions workforce from workers to MDs??
Originally posted by parn:
I didn't realised that my posts and opinions really means and matters so much to you.
Cool down ok? This is a gentle reminder from your Idol.
i am not sure why you said that i am not looking at this from an employer's perspective. i just wrote clearly that it companies/employers actually benefit from lower staff turnover.
other than your identity crisis, your english comprehension is in similar state.
just becos i reply doesn't mean it matters to me. frankly, i don't five a guck about what you write.
Cheaper better faster is the way to go.
Why?
Because our minister says so.
One earning a million dollar annual salary cannot be wrong.
Originally posted by Phantomnite:3. By passing minimum wage, it means that everyone is equal. What more can you offer if your skills are equal, the salary you are asking for is equal. Then all the boss need to do is close his eyes, stretch his hands out and pick the resume he have chosen. Tadah! That would be the person for the job. Not up to it? Change new one. After all, everyone cost the same!
you have no bloody concept of what this is....you should do yourself a favor by at least reading `minimum wage for idiots' first before you comment.
Originally posted by Phantomnite:Min wage =/= starting pay.
Min wage = least amount you can get.
Why parn said min wage = max wage is because through an employer point of view, as long as they give let say $1000 (min wage), they would not increase it. As long as they are not breaking the rules, they will continue giving out this $1000.
Right now, without any hard or fast rule where wage is solely up to the discretionary of the company, they do not have a guideline, thus they would give solely base on the ability. Till then, it would be up to the employee luck to see if he/ she can find a similar job with a higher pay or not, which would not have happened if there is a minimum wage. If you don't understand, I can explain in another way.
As for people talking. These company would know how to deal with it. Don't need to worry. As long as the company is able to keep its products low, who would bother on how they sack their retired staff or not. E.g. SIA. Have anyone boycott SIA because of their staff retrenchment exercise to cut cost?
again, you are all over the shop on this one. and what has singapore airlines retrenching gotta do with minimum wage?
if parn is confused by min wage=max wage as you understand it, i hope you know he has a gender crisis, so his mind is mostly not thinking right.
A question back to you the wingless angel.
Singapore was successful without much foreigner since the early days and the minimum pay then was higher in term of value then comparing to now?
What comparing sources you base on? between 2009 and 2010?? Try stretch it bigger. And again in what capacity and which context you conclude that being lazy still can ride the success of SG?? Where have you been?? within the window of your own toad well?? Why not you quit any source of income and see if you can lazy around and ride on the sucess... When you had done tat then I am convince. If not, prefer you STFU, cos what I'm writing is something that happen you are merely joyriding around.
Regarding what you mentioned about local 1.8m workforce and the demand of 3M in the market. So where you get that figures?? From some part of your hair?? To answer you that, if there wasnt any restriction to child birth rate back then, if living expenses wasnt that high now, then we can have 5M work force and could be since 10 yrs ago. And yes I got the figure from some part of my hair.
You did not read my previous post? Cos you have nothing to say that's why you skipped that? You are just another selective poster. Posting for the purpose of posting.
To Phantomnite,
So what you are also saying you agreed with Parn? Or you = Parn??
Anyway, when you start step into the real world and working for a real job. And when you start to learn that what is more important to a company's business then you start posting here and tell us your point of view.
Stop smelling someone else butt
Originally posted by redDUST:i am not sure why you said that i am not looking at this from an employer's perspective. i just wrote clearly that it companies/employers actually benefit from lower staff turnover.
other than your identity crisis, your english comprehension is in similar state.
just becos i reply doesn't mean it matters to me. frankly, i don't five a guck about what you write.
How is lower staff turnover or higher staff turnover related to this Minimum wages thing?
Staff turnover rate isn't dependent on work laws or schemes such as Minimum wages, and if you believed that staff turnover rate is going to improve for whatever reasons you believed, kindly share your reasons and scenarios with relations to Minimum wages and staff turnover rate.
Like I've said you are not looking from an employer's perspective, how is staff turnover rate going to affect any employers?
It's true from your employee's perspective, you can be naive and imagined all the employees walking away from their job and the employers will need to beg these employees to stay. DREAM ON ok? Do you not realised that it is now an employers' market rather than an employees' market? Go ahead and quit your job, I don't think anyone will ever be missed because their job position will be replaced in a flash.
I am unable to agree with you with the information that I'm aware of. But you are still welcome to express your own opinions without feeding people with false impression and ideals.
Identity crisis? Are you complaining that you desired to know more about me?
Originally posted by Aceone10:TO GREAT Parn,
I'm raising the white flag.
I'm Saying "Pleased" and "I am Sorry" and let me off the whore hook..
Hmm...looking at what you have wrote to me in my quote, I still need to consider first.
Originally posted by likeyou:..So can anyone enlighten why Hong Kong is better in these respects than Singapore, besides Minimum wage Laws?...
Answer: probably due to the fact that Hkg is only next door to china??
Nobody said Hong Kong is better than Singapore, so are you must be trying to force your false hopes into "fact"?
Nice try by the way.
Originally posted by Phantomnite:Min wage =/= starting pay.
Min wage = least amount you can get.
Why parn said min wage = max wage is because through an employer point of view, as long as they give let say $1000 (min wage), they would not increase it. As long as they are not breaking the rules, they will continue giving out this $1000.
Right now, without any hard or fast rule where wage is solely up to the discretionary of the company, they do not have a guideline, thus they would give solely base on the ability. Till then, it would be up to the employee luck to see if he/ she can find a similar job with a higher pay or not, which would not have happened if there is a minimum wage. If you don't understand, I can explain in another way.
As for people talking. These company would know how to deal with it. Don't need to worry. As long as the company is able to keep its products low, who would bother on how they sack their retired staff or not. E.g. SIA. Have anyone boycott SIA because of their staff retrenchment exercise to cut cost?
Thanks for explaining in greater details to retarded trolls like Aceone10.
I won't even waste my time on imbeciles like Aceone10.
Originally posted by Aceone10:It is more like if SG implemented minimum wages long ago, there will be less so call not up to the mark FT and less ppl like you down here talking c*ck. You just another think you know it all. Also we can have less of those so called MNC that invest here just to exploit the low wages. Talking about low wages, there are so many countries that give many time lower cost then SG, why still come here? Think before you talking c*ck again.
If Singapore do not have minimun wages scheme, you and your FATHERS and your uncles would've been paid alot lesser and at an unsubstainable salary rate.
Do you think their employers pays them such unsubstainable salaries in the past because they were smart, hardworking, capable and the employers were feeling generous?
Looking at the failed end product here, I believe they were saved by minimum wages scheme so that you are able to come here and talk cock. Obviously there is a lack of communication between you and your FATHERS and uncles or any other relatives in your family.
Oh...and don't forget people can only talk cock only if they have a cock. So I am unable to talk cock like you.
Originally posted by Aceone10:A question back to you the wingless angel.
Singapore was successful without much foreigner since the early days and the minimum pay then was higher in term of value then comparing to now?
What comparing sources you base on? between 2009 and 2010?? Try stretch it bigger. And again in what capacity and which context you conclude that being lazy still can ride the success of SG?? Where have you been?? within the window of your own toad well?? Why not you quit any source of income and see if you can lazy around and ride on the sucess... When you had done tat then I am convince. If not, prefer you STFU, cos what I'm writing is something that happen you are merely joyriding around.Regarding what you mentioned about local 1.8m workforce and the demand of 3M in the market. So where you get that figures?? From some part of your hair?? To answer you that, if there wasnt any restriction to child birth rate back then, if living expenses wasnt that high now, then we can have 5M work force and could be since 10 yrs ago. And yes I got the figure from some part of my hair.
You did not read my previous post? Cos you have nothing to say that's why you skipped that? You are just another selective poster. Posting for the purpose of posting.
"Singapore was successful without much foreigner since the early days and the minimum pay then was higher in term of value then comparing to now?"
Hahahaha...which era were you from? Are you sure Singapore was successful without much foreigner since the early days?
Go and correct your facts first before you come and flood us with your verbal vomit.
Shall we donate a toilet bowl to you if you are too poor to afford one.
Originally posted by Aceone10:To Phantomnite,
So what you are also saying you agreed with Parn? Or you = Parn??
Anyway, when you start step into the real world and working for a real job. And when you start to learn that what is more important to a company's business then you start posting here and tell us your point of view.
Stop smelling someone else butt
Phantomite, please ignore this Aceone10.
He is so full of shit and nonsense stucked inside his brain that he forgot to tell you the time when he tried to sniff soneone's chair and was caught on CCTV camera.
It's on Youtube by the way.
Originally posted by parn:"Singapore was successful without much foreigner since the early days and the minimum pay then was higher in term of value then comparing to now?"
Hahahaha...which era were you from? Are you sure Singapore was successful without much foreigner since the early days?
Go and correct your facts first before you come and flood us with your verbal vomit.
Shall we donate a toilet bowl to you if you are too poor to afford one.
why so nice to even donate something to him? He deserves nothing from any of us.
Originally posted by kengkia:why so nice to even donate something to him? He deserves nothing from any of us.
Hello Phantomnite
hello parnie...
oh btw, me not Phantomnite hor...
Originally posted by parn:
How is lower staff turnover or higher staff turnover related to this Minimum wages thing?Staff turnover rate isn't dependent on work laws or schemes such as Minimum wages, and if you believed that staff turnover rate is going to improve for whatever reasons you believed, kindly share your reasons and scenarios with relations to Minimum wages and staff turnover rate.
Like I've said you are not looking from an employer's perspective, how is staff turnover rate going to affect any employers?
It's true from your employee's perspective, you can be naive and imagined all the employees walking away from their job and the employers will need to beg these employees to stay. DREAM ON ok? Do you not realised that it is now an employers' market rather than an employees' market? Go ahead and quit your job, I don't think anyone will ever be missed because their job position will be replaced in a flash.
I am unable to agree with you with the information that I'm aware of. But you are still welcome to express your own opinions without feeding people with false impression and ideals.
Identity crisis? Are you complaining that you desired to know more about me?
you really got short memory. you are the one that said that "They can always fire you and re-employed someone else on minimum wages." . I am telling you that it doesn't work well from an employer's perspective because it is more costly to hire, train, etc.
no where did i imply that staff turnover is dependent on min wages. it is in your figment of imagination and in your course of argument, you got things all mixed up and start confusing things by putting words in my mouth.
it will be in your interest to argue to the point and succinctly. you can't even talk straight in this case. but of cos, cross-dresser like you are always in two minds, not sure if you should wear a dress or a pant.
great minds we have here....i am outta here.