Can Singapore wean itself off cheap foreign labour?
-
Originally posted by charlize:
Cheaper, better, faster is good.
Faster, Better and Cheaper Lagi good -
everything si wrong, always the word compete compete competition, and to alleviate the strees it induces they added the world 'fair' in front of it, and tell us we should view it 'positively', tell that to businesses. now since day 1 it started tehy created unrest among fellow sgreans, to have us build up the dog eat dog mindset as more and more redundant unwanted cheapo labor floods our couuntry. ask the question, beside what those people said we need them, look around and ask ourselves - do we really need them?
-
Originally posted by troublemaker2005:
everything si wrong, always the word compete compete competition, and to alleviate the strees it induces they added the world 'fair' in front of it, and tell us we should view it 'positively', tell that to businesses. now since day 1 it started tehy created unrest among fellow sgreans, to have us build up the dog eat dog mindset as more and more redundant unwanted cheapo labor floods our couuntry. ask the question, beside what those people said we need them, look around and ask ourselves - do we really need them?
Alas, life is tough.
Haiz.
-
All this talk about knowledge based economy is ridiculous because the bureacrats and politicians do not even know what a "knowledge-based" economy is, beyond waving it around like the latest buzzword on the street.
The only problem is that this buzzword has been waved around for so long, that no one really knows what it entails. And we will never ever match Sweden or Israel at the rate we are progressing.
-
Originally posted by Darth_Revan:
All this talk about knowledge based economy is ridiculous because the bureacrats and politicians do not even know what a "knowledge-based" economy is, beyond waving it around like the latest buzzword on the street.
The only problem is that this buzzword has been waved around for so long, that no one really knows what it entails. And we will never ever match Sweden or Israel at the rate we are progressing.
the govt never want to be the same as Sweden from the way they "manage" the country
-
Originally posted by Darth_Revan:
All this talk about knowledge based economy is ridiculous because the bureacrats and politicians do not even know what a "knowledge-based" economy is, beyond waving it around like the latest buzzword on the street.
The only problem is that this buzzword has been waved around for so long, that no one really knows what it entails. And we will never ever match Sweden or Israel at the rate we are progressing.
Funny how the words "knowledge based economy" have disappeared from their speeches in recent times.
Now it's only "cheaper, better and faster" ad nauseam.
-
Originally posted by fibytprsu:
the govt never want to be the same as Sweden from the way they "manage" the country
Sometimes, you wished your country was modelled after a Scandinavian country.
-
we can never shake off the indispensable need for foreign labour.....
starting with the need for domestic maids to construction workers....it is a development of an industrial economy into the so called knowledge economy...
-
Originally posted by charlize:
Sometimes, you wished your country was modelled after a Scandinavian country.
With Sg attitude, wouldn't last an year. -
Originally posted by Bio-Hawk:
With Sg attitude, wouldn't last an year.Why not?
-
Some low-skilled foreign labour can actually have a multiplier effect and can actually free the local middle and upper-middle skilled persons to move up the value chain.
Example :
Maid.
Let's say a maid come and work in Singapore.
When the maid work in a household, it frees up the wife, so that the wife can go out and work in the workforce.
So in this example, a maid results in a middle skilled person to better employ his / her skills.
Another example,
Let's say.....construction workers or janitors / cleaners...
When a company or a school or an organization employs construction workers, janitors, cleaners, that means these positions are filled and are taken care of, and are filled by usually inexpensive workers, which means that they can have the budget to employ the other positions such as accounts, admins, and so on, to be filled by middle skilled persons.
Let's say there is no cheap low skilled foreign workers.
Let's say all construction workers, janitors, cleaners, are local workers. It means higher wages, higher expenditures, and all other things being equal, that means the organizations and companies will have smaller budget leftover and smaller capability in filling and employing other positions in middle and upper-middle skilled positions.
Since Singapore's human development is actually quite good, since the educational standard is quite good, actually we can say the average worker in Singapore probably would be better off if they are employed in jobs which pays decently in middle skilled jobs. It would be better fit.
One way that we can make most people to enter the middle skilled jobs, is to sort of push them into it, and one way is to fill the lower positions, and this way it can free up both at the company level and at the individual level to open up more better jobs.
Makes sense ?
-
That's not the whole picture, Singapore has a lot of labour intensive industries that are being propped up by foreign workers because Singaporeans have long since moved on from there for various reasons. The only way for these industries to still be viable and stay afloat is to hire foreigners willing to accept lower wages.
Unfortunately this approach creates its own host of social and infrastructure problems. If I recall correctly back in the 90s the PAP expected the population to hit 5+ mil only in 2020 and planned the infrastructure accordingly. We are TEN years ahead of schedule if this is the case.
The problem is that with minister KPIs and pay rises pegged to short-term growth and GDP, the motivation for the incumbent will not be to plan for long term, sustainable economic policies but instead to keep meeting these numbers each and every year regardless of the other costs. It seems to me one of the consequences of such myopic planning is the reluctance to endure some painful economic restructuring to remake Singapore into a market that more productively exploits what locals are willing to do, and instead focuses on flogging whatever cash cows they have now even if these are not sustainable in the long run.
It’s not rocket science, there is no way locals can fight with giants like China and India in being cheaper, we simply can’t. It’s a fools errand. We should be capitalizing on our natural advantages and offering services and exploring markets that these global giants cannot easily compete. I don’t see the PAP really making steps in those direction except to blame Singaporeans for obviously not being daft enough to jump to their tune of being “cheaper, faster and better”. -
That's not the whole picture, Singapore has a lot of labour intensive industries that are being propped up by foreign workers because Singaporeans have long since moved on from there for various reasons. The only way for these industries to still be viable and stay afloat is to hire foreigners willing to accept lower wages.
Unfortunately this approach creates its own host of social and infrastructure problems. If I recall correctly back in the 90s the PAP expected the population to hit 5+ mil only in 2020 and planned the infrastructure accordingly. We are TEN years ahead of schedule if this is the case.
The problem is that with minister KPIs and pay rises pegged to short-term growth and GDP, the motivation for the incumbent will not be to plan for long term, sustainable economic policies but instead to keep meeting these numbers each and every year regardless of the other costs. It seems to me one of the consequences of such myopic planning is the reluctance to endure some painful economic restructuring to remake Singapore into a market that more productively exploits what locals are willing to do, and instead focuses on flogging whatever cash cows they have now even if these are not sustainable in the long run.
It’s not rocket science, there is no way locals can fight with giants like China and India in being cheaper, we simply can’t. It’s a fools errand. We should be capitalizing on our natural advantages and offering services and exploring markets that these global giants cannot easily compete. I don’t see the PAP really making steps in those direction except to blame Singaporeans for obviously not being daft enough to jump to their tune of being “cheaper, faster and better”. -
we should made more lethal malemine milk powerder. - that's what i call powderful
-
-
Is that a chicken, a ballsack or some mutant caused by the melamine?
-
Originally posted by alize:
Is that a chicken, a ballsack or some mutant caused by the melamine?
air flown cheap chicken -
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
That's not the whole picture, Singapore has a lot of labour intensive industries that are being propped up by foreign workers because Singaporeans have long since moved on from there for various reasons. The only way for these industries to still be viable and stay afloat is to hire foreigners willing to accept lower wages.
Unfortunately this approach creates its own host of social and infrastructure problems. If I recall correctly back in the 90s the PAP expected the population to hit 5+ mil only in 2020 and planned the infrastructure accordingly. We are TEN years ahead of schedule if this is the case.
The problem is that with minister KPIs and pay rises pegged to short-term growth and GDP, the motivation for the incumbent will not be to plan for long term, sustainable economic policies but instead to keep meeting these numbers each and every year regardless of the other costs. It seems to me one of the consequences of such myopic planning is the reluctance to endure some painful economic restructuring to remake Singapore into a market that more productively exploits what locals are willing to do, and instead focuses on flogging whatever cash cows they have now even if these are not sustainable in the long run.
It’s not rocket science, there is no way locals can fight with giants like China and India in being cheaper, we simply can’t. It’s a fools errand. We should be capitalizing on our natural advantages and offering services and exploring markets that these global giants cannot easily compete. I don’t see the PAP really making steps in those direction except to blame Singaporeans for obviously not being daft enough to jump to their tune of being “cheaper, faster and better”.Exactly! In other words, Veggie Bao,
As an owner of capital who decides what industry to invest in, why should I move on to a new industry if my unprofitable one is being subsidied by cheap labour?
If I have an incentive to choose the cheapest means of production, why should I invest in my employees if I can tap on an abundance of cheap labour?
Why should I invest in fixed assets if I can instead choose variable labour costs that are completely scalable in good times and bad?
-
I'm not sure about that, but my feeling and my instinct is, probably for some low-skill jobs, there is just not much room for improvement and not much room for innovation.
Let's take a look at concrete examples again.
Maid.
What can be done to improve and innovate on the position and jobscope of maids ?
Use robot vacuum cleaners ?
Like those circular robot thing that can automatically mop the floor ?
Yes it is possible, but then how about ironing, doing laundry, cooking, tidying up, etc.
Well possibly even those jobscpes can also be improved and innovated by using new gadgets, but still finally there needs to be a human user.
This human user, if we employ a maid, would free up the wife to have more free time.
So then the wife can go out and work in the workplace.
As a matter of fact, a household does not have to spend tens of thousands of dollars in new modern gadgets but can just spend a few hundred dollars per month to employ a maid, who would work with basic gadgets, and then, those jobscopes would be done and fulfilled, and not only that, but it frees up the middle skilled person, the wife, to enable her to better employ her skills for other jobs in the marketplace.
Now, let's say, for the others,
Construction workers, cleaners, janitors.
Same thing again.
I am convinced, it helps to achieve more results, there is more achievement, but not only that, there is some indirect benefits and influences.
Some middle skilled people would be bumped up.
Let's say a developer employ foreign low skilled construction workers.
Maybe that way it would enable the firm to engage better architects, can employ more accounts people, etc.
Let's say there is no cheap foreign labour.
What happens ? They would employ a smaller number of Singaporean construction workers, because they would be more expensive, and also they would have smaller number of employees working on accounts, admins, managerial positons, and they just would have a slower pace of growth overall too.
But I come back to this theme........that the average Singaporean, even the low educated Singaporen, probably still is better skilled than the low-skilled one from foreign countries.
Meaning, for construction work, probably even someone who is a school dropout in Singapore, is able to type in computers, maybe someone from Bangladesh cannot or has never even been on a computer.
So a low-skilled Singaporen worker, instead of him being a construction worker out in the sun toiling under the heat, maybe can work inside with aircon, typing some accounts or data entry on the computer.
So this is what I mean.
There is some kind of indirect effect when the low skilled positions are filled by outsourcing.
Most significant in my mind is the maid example.
I dont understand why Singapore government doesnt want to encourage more maids. Lately they even introduce exam testing for maids. Thats like the stupidest idea ever. Why have these obstacles and disincentives ? Because maids actually not only will have a positive impact on the marketplace and the economy, I am convinced it works both-ways, it also affects the household too. It will encourage more babies, because obviously maids help in alleviating household chores.
So we see, for the lowest of the low skilled position, maid, it actually positively influence both the economy and the household / private area.
So I dont think it is easy to dismiss cheap foreign labour.
To my mind, cheap foreign labour is a resource and a enabler. It is something we have to understand further and deeper.
Let's look at history.
Why did some countries flourish in the past ?
Some countries flourish because they have slaves and they have colonies.
Because they have slaves and colonies, they have massive extra labour, resources, more achievement, and so their own people can be bosses, can be living comfortable lives. They have massive material wealth.
So we need to understand this.
Cheap foreign labour is the 21st century way of "colonizing" or "using slaves" not really like the past but the basic principles are the same.
-
Originally posted by Veggie Bao:
I'm not sure about that, but my feeling and my instinct is, probably for some low-skill jobs, there is just not much room for improvement and not much room for innovation.
Let's take a look at concrete examples again.
Maid.
What can be done to improve and innovate on the position and jobscope of maids ?
Use robot vacuum cleaners ?
Like those circular robot thing that can automatically mop the floor ?
Yes it is possible, but then how about ironing, doing laundry, cooking, tidying up, etc.
Well possibly even those jobscpes can also be improved and innovated by using new gadgets, but still finally there needs to be a human user.
This human user, if we employ a maid, would free up the wife to have more free time.
So then the wife can go out and work in the workplace.
As a matter of fact, a household does not have to spend tens of thousands of dollars in new modern gadgets but can just spend a few hundred dollars per month to employ a maid, who would work with basic gadgets, and then, those jobscopes would be done and fulfilled, and not only that, but it frees up the middle skilled person, the wife, to enable her to better employ her skills for other jobs in the marketplace.
Now, let's say, for the others,
Construction workers, cleaners, janitors.
Same thing again.
I am convinced, it helps to achieve more results, there is more achievement, but not only that, there is some indirect benefits and influences.
Some middle skilled people would be bumped up.
Let's say a developer employ foreign low skilled construction workers.
Maybe that way it would enable the firm to engage better architects, can employ more accounts people, etc.
Let's say there is no cheap foreign labour.
What happens ? They would employ a smaller number of Singaporean construction workers, because they would be more expensive, and also they would have smaller number of employees working on accounts, admins, managerial positons, and they just would have a slower pace of growth overall too.
But I come back to this theme........that the average Singaporean, even the low educated Singaporen, probably still is better skilled than the low-skilled one from foreign countries.
Meaning, for construction work, probably even someone who is a school dropout in Singapore, is able to type in computers, maybe someone from Bangladesh cannot or has never even been on a computer.
So a low-skilled Singaporen worker, instead of him being a construction worker out in the sun toiling under the heat, maybe can work inside with aircon, typing some accounts or data entry on the computer.
So this is what I mean.
There is some kind of indirect effect when the low skilled positions are filled by outsourcing.
Most significant in my mind is the maid example.
I dont understand why Singapore government doesnt want to encourage more maids. Lately they even introduce exam testing for maids. Thats like the stupidest idea ever. Why have these obstacles and disincentives ? Because maids actually not only will have a positive impact on the marketplace and the economy, I am convinced it works both-ways, it also affects the household too. It will encourage more babies, because obviously maids help in alleviating household chores.
So we see, for the lowest of the low skilled position, maid, it actually positively influence both the economy and the household / private area.
So I dont think it is easy to dismiss cheap foreign labour.
To my mind, cheap foreign labour is a resource and a enabler. It is something we have to understand further and deeper.
Let's look at history.
Why did some countries flourish in the past ?
Some countries flourish because they have slaves and they have colonies.
Because they have slaves and colonies, they have massive extra labour, resources, more achievement, and so their own people can be bosses, can be living comfortable lives. They have massive material wealth.
So we need to understand this.
Cheap foreign labour is the 21st century way of "colonizing" or "using slaves" not really like the past but the basic principles are the same.
At the rate technology is growing, we might just need Siri only next time.
-
Originally posted by Veggie Bao:
I'm not sure about that, but my feeling and my instinct is, probably for some low-skill jobs, there is just not much room for improvement and not much room for innovation.
Let's take a look at concrete examples again.
Maid.
What can be done to improve and innovate on the position and jobscope of maids ?
Use robot vacuum cleaners ?
Like those circular robot thing that can automatically mop the floor ?
Yes it is possible, but then how about ironing, doing laundry, cooking, tidying up, etc.
Well possibly even those jobscpes can also be improved and innovated by using new gadgets, but still finally there needs to be a human user.
This human user, if we employ a maid, would free up the wife to have more free time.
So then the wife can go out and work in the workplace.
As a matter of fact, a household does not have to spend tens of thousands of dollars in new modern gadgets but can just spend a few hundred dollars per month to employ a maid, who would work with basic gadgets, and then, those jobscopes would be done and fulfilled, and not only that, but it frees up the middle skilled person, the wife, to enable her to better employ her skills for other jobs in the marketplace.
Now, let's say, for the others,
Construction workers, cleaners, janitors.
Same thing again.
I am convinced, it helps to achieve more results, there is more achievement, but not only that, there is some indirect benefits and influences.
Some middle skilled people would be bumped up.
Let's say a developer employ foreign low skilled construction workers.
Maybe that way it would enable the firm to engage better architects, can employ more accounts people, etc.
Let's say there is no cheap foreign labour.
What happens ? They would employ a smaller number of Singaporean construction workers, because they would be more expensive, and also they would have smaller number of employees working on accounts, admins, managerial positons, and they just would have a slower pace of growth overall too.
But I come back to this theme........that the average Singaporean, even the low educated Singaporen, probably still is better skilled than the low-skilled one from foreign countries.
Meaning, for construction work, probably even someone who is a school dropout in Singapore, is able to type in computers, maybe someone from Bangladesh cannot or has never even been on a computer.
So a low-skilled Singaporen worker, instead of him being a construction worker out in the sun toiling under the heat, maybe can work inside with aircon, typing some accounts or data entry on the computer.
So this is what I mean.
There is some kind of indirect effect when the low skilled positions are filled by outsourcing.
Most significant in my mind is the maid example.
I dont understand why Singapore government doesnt want to encourage more maids. Lately they even introduce exam testing for maids. Thats like the stupidest idea ever. Why have these obstacles and disincentives ? Because maids actually not only will have a positive impact on the marketplace and the economy, I am convinced it works both-ways, it also affects the household too. It will encourage more babies, because obviously maids help in alleviating household chores.
So we see, for the lowest of the low skilled position, maid, it actually positively influence both the economy and the household / private area.
So I dont think it is easy to dismiss cheap foreign labour.
To my mind, cheap foreign labour is a resource and a enabler. It is something we have to understand further and deeper.
Let's look at history.
Why did some countries flourish in the past ?
Some countries flourish because they have slaves and they have colonies.
Because they have slaves and colonies, they have massive extra labour, resources, more achievement, and so their own people can be bosses, can be living comfortable lives. They have massive material wealth.
So we need to understand this.
Cheap foreign labour is the 21st century way of "colonizing" or "using slaves" not really like the past but the basic principles are the same.
If your employer has no incentive to pay you more than a slave or invest in you more than in a slave (because he can always hire a "slave"), you become a slave.
-
Who ?
The average local worker ?
I dont think they compete directly.
If it is true that there is direct competition, obviously we should see more local construction workers and maids.
But the reality is, there are very few local construction workers and maids.
So what does that mean.
I think we should not assume like that.
That is wrong logic.
I think the average local worker probably benefits from low skilled cheap foreign workers, directly and indirectly, from the examples I have given above.
-
In the US Civil War, the North won because it was heavily industrialized.
The North won because the harsh climates there killed slaves quickly. It was costly to replace slaves so bosses relied on workers instead, who were able to build up their skils and provide a foundation for industrial growth.
In the South, good weather meant slaves could work on plantations. There was little incentive for slave owners to move into another industry.
Even without the war, the South would have become an exporter of raw materials or cheap and simple goods, ie a poor neighbour compared to the North.
This allowed the rich Southerners to live like kings, atop a vast empire of poor slaves. This is very familiar here in Singapore and is indeed what you are suggesting.
-
I think maybe it is oversimplification because the North-South civil war and their industrial disparity maybe has many different complicated factors dont you think ?
Anyways, it is difficult to just discuss about conceptual topics without concrete examples.
Maybe, you can think up of a few concrete examples in the real world, like I tried to do, and then mention them ?
Then it will be easier to discuss..........
-
looks like the government is following private sector of outsourcing their operations and business to boost their profits, due to high wage costs in their country and outsourcing to low wage countries like India, China, Phillipines etc, to boost bottom line.
sure some sectors are having difficulty recruiting locals, but is the government opening up a floodgate of aliens to spore to all sectors as well? even banks and call centres have a lot of aliens manning the call centre, so is this sector also having difficulty recruiting locals? I dun think so. the floodgates are already opened, so what can you do, except for casting your vote for the opposition comes election day.