Democrats rebut PAP minimum wage groupthink
-
http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/4499-democrats-rebut-pap-minimum-wage-groupthink Democrats rebut PAP minimum wage groupthink Tuesday, 18 January 2011 Singapore Democrats Last week in Parliament several PAP MPs demonstrated their awesome ability to engage in groupthink. They stepped up one by one to say how Minimum Wage will not work while blithely ignoring the fact that the policy is a key feature in developed economies all around the world. Instead they promoted their party's Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) Scheme which is effectively a programme to get older workers to continue working but for less pay. The Singapore Democrats pointed out how ineffective WIS was here. We take this opprtunity to rebut some of the points that the MPs made about Minimum Wage and in the process continue to make our case for its introduction in Singapore. ‘Ms Josephine Teo: "From the perspective of the labour movement, growth in the last few years has been inclusive. Our tripartite approach works...As the economy grows, now is the best time to catch the wind and help low-wage Singaporeans do better and for Singapore to become even more inclusive." ’ It is patently untrue to say that Singapore's economy is inclusive. For much of the last decade when the economy was booming, the income disparity increased every single year. (See figure on right) Even as the rich made their millions, the working poor saw themselves getting more and more impoverished. The PAP lifted not a finger to help these low-wage workers then. Now it expects us to believe that it is serious about helping them? Does the fact that the elections are around the corner have anything to do with this sudden demonstration of compassion? ‘Ms Denise Phua : "A minimum wage will become an additional cost of business paid by employers who in turn will either pass on the cost of business to their customers, causing further increase in the cost of living, or become more cautious especially in hiring those who are less skilled or able.� ’ Increase in the cost of living is caused by the myriad of fees and fares that the PAP imposes on the people. It is also caused by the high rentals that businesses have to pay to an oligopoly. Office and business rentals are determined largely by the control of land and its sales which the PAP Government controls. If Ms Phua is genuinely concerned about not increaing the cost of living in Singapore, she would propose that her party stops jacking up land cost. She would also advocate that the GST be reduced and abolished for essential items, and that fees like public utility rates be decreased. Instead she is using the passing-the-cost-on-to-consumers bogey to deny low-income workers a decent, lving wage. Minimum wage will put more money into the pockets of workers which will mean greater spending power for the people and the increased consumption will benefit businesses and, hence, the general economy. ‘Mr Heng Chee How: "You do that [introduce minimum wage], and if the workers become unemployed, you have just converted them from low-wage workers to no-wage workers. Who is (then) going to be responsible for these no-wage workers and their families? I don't recommend minimum wage but best wage." ’ Mr Heng treads on dangerous ground when he talks about Singaporeans becoming unemployed. In the first place it is the PAP's policy of bringing in cheap foreign labour enmasse that has led to countless Singaporeans being displaced from their jobs. Those who manage to find work have to compete with foreign workers who are willing to accept lower wages because they are transient workers with their families back in their home countries. Singaporeans, with their roots here, cannot survive on these wages. This problem can be attenuated by the SDP's proposal of a Singaporeans First Policy where businesses are required to demonstrate that the skills that they want to hire cannot be found among the locals before they are allowed to employ foreigners. This will stop our over-reliance on foreign workers and help Singaporeans secure proper paying jobs. ‘Mr Gan Kim Yong: "The impact will be worse during a recession because employers are more likely to retrench low-wage workers who are drawing the minimum wage as they cannot adjust their wages." ’ Our low-income workers are already not able to make ends meet with their measly wages. Their lives are a living hell with many being evicted from heir flats making them homeless. Many see no way out and end their misery by committing suicide. Singapore sees an average of more than one person committing suicide every single day. Others turn to seeking free food at temples or grabbing unfinished meals left behind by patrons at hawker centres. Social services see many families unable to cope with low wages in an expensive economy. And how many out of desperation turn to loan sharks or a life of crime? Retrenched? They'd be happy if they survived while employed. ‘Mr Lim Swee Say: "While we allow a lot of foreign workers to enter Singapore, we've never done so at the expense of high unemployment in Singapore..." ’ How does one rebut propaganda like this? Be our Supporters: http://www.facebook.com/yoursdp
-
i support minimum wage. but first, topple the ruling regime then rule can be change.
-
Tho some of these labour Chiefs comments and speeches can sound childish and propaganda in a sense. I still do not support Mini Wage here.
-
I support mimim wage!
-
Originally posted by reyes:
i support minimum wage. but first, topple the ruling regime then rule can be change.
Simi lanjiao about toppling governments? First get a election started so we can detect an electoral fraud. -
How can a million dollar salaried minister understand what it's like to earn less than $4 an hour in those low wage jobs?
-
Minimum wage rule does not work.
If minimum wage is implemented,
7-11 employees will be cut.
Cleaners will be cut.
Childcare workers will be cut.
Traffic wardens will be cut.
And so on.
The ones who get cut are exactly the ones who are not earning much money and are actually vulnerable if they get cut.
I believe minimum wage rule is actually anti-progressive and anti-equality.
It crush the vulnerable people.
I believe minimum wage is misguided.
Let's support free market wage system if you care about equality and less rich-poor gap.
-
PAP is very pro-business. They always have this fear that companies will pull out and set up elsewhere. Then unemployment comes.
I find that PAP MPs cannot really think out of the box. They are confined within the areas that have been designated for them. For eg, this Heng says that minimum wage workers may become no wage workers in a recession, then have a law to prevent unjust termination or retrenchment of workers. Then again, they can't do that because according to them, companies will pull out when recession comes.
One thing for sure, the income gap will only continue to widen under PAP. Even if opposition takes over, I'm not sure if they can do much either.
Anyway, time for a change.....it's sickening to see the PAP MPs arguing and singing the benefits of their boss's brainchild.
-
I believe it is not a pro-business policy, but actually a pro social justice policy.
Government imposed floor or ceiling, always fail.
They create more harm than benefit.
This is a simple article on this matter :
Please everybody read, including the segment on "minimum wage"
It is short and easy to understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_floor
Everyone who is concerned about social justice and reducing rich-poor gap, should reject minimum wage regulation.
It is actually more heartless, in my opinion.
For example,
Lets say 7-11 employ two workers at one particular branch.
If I am not wrong they pay $3.50 an hour.
It is true it is peanuts only.
Now government say there is minimum wage of $7.
What happens ?
If this happens, some manager at the HQ will start calculating. Then he will see the Yishun branch is quiet, for example. So he cut 2 workers there to 1.
So it is true indeed for the worker who is retained, his well-being is increased. He is no longer paid peanuts of $3.50. His life is better.
But what happens to the other guy ?
So is this actually better for social justice and for reducing poverty ?
I believe sharing is better.
Although $3.50 is peanuts, but there are 2 people who get the money.
Which one is better ?
- two guys eat, each one eat half plate of rice, or
- one person eat one full plate of rice but the other person is not eating.
So if you are a parent and you are concerned about your children, will you give rice only to 1 child but let the other child starve, or you will divide the rice into 2? It is little and you feel bad, true. But it is better this way. Isnt it ?
So I believe anyone who want to impose a rule that everyone should have 1 full plate of rice at dinner table, is actually more heartless and cruel.
I am disappointed that there is an opposition party in Singapore who fail basic economics. They even use "cheem" terms such as "group think". This shows they are not stupid, but actually rather educated. So why do they still do this ?
I believe they are unwise and they just validate what MM Lee says. That opposition is not better, does not offer anything better, and is just opposing programs blindly for partisan politics and posturing, which harm public policy in Singapore. This is one particularly excellent example which illustrate it perfectly.
So disappointing.
-
well like i said, there can be laws to prevent unjust sackings. Then again, these laws are deemed unfriendly to businesses.
-
"Laws to prevent unjust sackings" such as ?
If a 7-11 manager sack one worker at Yishun branch, is this just or unjust ?
He can do this any time.
If there is too stringent laws to prevent companies to make decisions, this does not help the people either.
Stringent regulations is also a form of government interference in the marketplace. It is also harmful and it creates inefficiencies. It is crushing the vulnerable people again.
Pro-business is not necessarily anti-people. Pro-business is actually pro-people in most cases. It is a virtuous circle. It is not an antagonistic or opposite relationship.
-
Originally posted by Veggie Bao:
Minimum wage rule does not work.
If minimum wage is implemented,
7-11 employees will be cut.
Cleaners will be cut.
Childcare workers will be cut.
Traffic wardens will be cut.
And so on.
The ones who get cut are exactly the ones who are not earning much money and are actually vulnerable if they get cut.
I believe minimum wage rule is actually anti-progressive and anti-equality.
It crush the vulnerable people.
I believe minimum wage is misguided.
Let's support free market wage system if you care about equality and less rich-poor gap.
That really depends if the Minimum Wage set is above or below the equilibrium rate.
Most democratic countries have Minimum Wage laws to protect it's citizen from exploitation by businesses. Any business with the discretion to pay any worker what the business want, will always pay their workers the lowest. There is no scruples in business, at the end of the day, it's the bottom line that counts. The less any business pay to it's worker, the more profits it will have at the end of the day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_law
Why there is a need for Minimum Wage Laws?
It's due to the PAP's policy of inducing supply shocks by increasing the labour supply.
Why are they doing this?
Wage levels are always sticky downwards, to make Singapore more competitive, they suppress wages. Competitiveness is not all that good, if it screws with our lives or kick you in the balls.
This will only push down the living standards for low income earners. -
But what is the equilibrium level and how should it be calculated ?
If it changes from time to time, then should the minimum wage recalculated every year? It just cause more inefficiencies, inaccuracies, and unnecessarily politicized topic every year.
If the main cause is incoming labour from immigration,
Shouldn't the remedy be immigration-related also ?
But I believe this is another topic.
I believe immigration is not really meant to depress wages or improve competitiveness.
I believe it is related to birth rate.
This is a difficult issue which has no satisfactory solution.
Apparently the government has decided to take a strategic decision of using immigration, because baby bonus programme failed.
-
There are too many structured problems to solve in Sinkapore, mostly will inflict more pain to citizens, but that's because the gov wanted loyal educated dogs to follow them and also to fill up their coffers, too many things are wrong.
The opposition is using this plaform to show that they are concerned with bread and butter issues, this plaform is highlighted as it is a simple device and it will catches also the attention of low wage earners. some who still believe PAP. This is to sway some more votes to opposition.
High waged employees will not be overly bothered about this, it's not their concern.High waged employees have lots of bread, butter and even kaya.
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
That really depends if the Minimum Wage set is above or below the equilibrium rate.
Most democratic countries have Minimum Wage laws to protect it's citizen from exploitation by businesses. Any business with the discretion to pay any worker what the business want, will always pay their workers the lowest. There is no scruples in business, at the end of the day, it's the bottom line that counts. The less any business pay to it's worker, the more profits it will have at the end of the day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_law
Why there is a need for Minimum Wage Laws?
It's due to the PAP's policy of inducing supply shocks by increasing the labour supply.
Why are they doing this?
Wage levels are always sticky downwards, to make Singapore more competitive, they suppress wages. Competitiveness is not all that good, if it screws with our lives or kick you in the balls.
This will only push down the living standards for low income earners. Wow n Wow,
Beta said "That really depends if the Minimum Wage set is above or below the equilibrium rate."
Minimum wage is always set above the equilibrium wage so that workers will earn higher wage
Where got minimum wage is set below the equilibrium wage ie minimum wage sets below equilibrium wage means that workers will earn lower wage.
-
Originally posted by Seowlah:
Wow n Wow,
Beta said "That really depends if the Minimum Wage set is above or below the equilibrium rate."
Minimum wage is always set above the equilibrium wage so that workers will earn higher wage
Where got minimum wage is set below the equilibrium wage ie minimum wage sets below equilibrium wage means that workers will earn lower wage.
How YOU define the equilibrium rate? $3.50 an hour? The current rate does not mean it's an equilibrium price.
$3.50 may or may not be the equilibrium rate, with mass importation of foreign workers, where the labour supply is elastic, maybe $3.50 is already above the equilibrium rate.
-
Why folks bring up minimum wage?
It's because of late, they have found that their real wages are not rising fast enough to meet inflation.
It's not a problem of minimum wage, but more a problem of PAP's mass import of foreign labour to beggar thyself, strangely we heard of beggar thy neighbour policies, but beggar thyself policy is a new construct from PAP.
-
We should stop mass import of foreign workers... then we do not need minimum wage in place....
But the way its going, the need to implement minimum wage seems unavoidable. -
Why is it difficult to compete with those foreign workers?
They can squeeze 5-6 foreign worker to a rental room.
Can you squeeze 5-6 person to a room?
I don't mind being the 6th person if they all look like Liu Yifei or Zhang Ziyi.
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
Why is it difficult to compete with those foreign workers?
They can squeeze 5-6 foreign worker to a rental room.
Can you squeeze 5-6 person to a room?
I don't mind being the 6th person if they all look like Liu Yifei or Zhang Ziyi.
And they dun mind working 12 hours, 2 weeks 1 day off at SGD 800 or less.
-
Originally posted by Veggie Bao:
"Laws to prevent unjust sackings" such as ?
If a 7-11 manager sack one worker at Yishun branch, is this just or unjust ?
He can do this any time.
If there is too stringent laws to prevent companies to make decisions, this does not help the people either.
Stringent regulations is also a form of government interference in the marketplace. It is also harmful and it creates inefficiencies. It is crushing the vulnerable people again.
Pro-business is not necessarily anti-people. Pro-business is actually pro-people in most cases. It is a virtuous circle. It is not an antagonistic or opposite relationship.
Which is better; two people employed?
Just one person employed?
Or close shop, and no one employed?
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
How YOU define the equilibrium rate? $3.50 an hour? The current rate does not mean it's an equilibrium price.
$3.50 may or may not be the equilibrium rate, with mass importation of foreign workers, where the labour supply is elastic, maybe $3.50 is already above the equilibrium rate.
Please go back to revise your Economics 101 if you have forgotten how to set an effective minimum wage.
Please don't bring in economics theory to discuss minimum wage if you are not sure about the theory.
-
If your business needs 10 workers to operate 10 machines efficiently.
Will you employ another worker if labour cost are cheaper?
Will you retrench 1 worker because it cost more?
If the business close shop, then all the existing business will flow to the next competitor, which will hire more workers if he cannot keep up with the capacity.
This will only promote good business practices as it ensures that firms with efficient management processes take up all the businesses from those inefficient firms.
Survival of the fittest.
-
Originally posted by Seowlah:
Please go back to revise your Economics 101 if you have forgotten how to set an effective minimum wage.
Please don't bring in economics theory to discuss minimum wage if you are not sure about the theory.
Effective is not setting above the market clearing rate.
Setting anything above equilibrium rate only leads to deadweight loss.
Sorry, I am a noob in Economics.
-
If the equilibrium price of say apples is $1, you mean to tell me that it's effective to set the controlled price at $2?
That is your understanding of effective?