KARTer 2nd Gear November 18, 2011 Share November 18, 2011 (edited) Singaporeans feel (rightly so) that each succeeding generation should enjoy a better lifestyle as the economy grows. Instead, young couples are getting smaller flats in further-flung areas with fewer amenities, even as the quality of flats has risen. Small and limited land size could be part of the reasons for this. If for spg's limited land size, we need 6m pple to support the economy which in turn supports the survival and living standard of the same 6m, how many more pple we need to maintain both? If we increase the populaiton to 8m, we need an economy to feed the additional 2m added to the original 6m.... is it a case of the dog chasing its own tail? or the add'l 2m is needed to increase the wealth of the 1%? while the size of the 99% increases but the standard of living of them decrease..... the 1% gains and increases the size of their wealth at the expense of the decline of the well being of the 99% (work harder but getting less in return) I am no econmomist and therefore have no answer. Is the vital link in changing the 99:1 to say 75:25 (ie reducing the GAP) a formula / policies which distribute wealth in a more equitable way? Do we want to see MRT trains and buses filled to the roof and the roads are used by only a few S500, 750, Ferraris etc? There are some dramatisations here, but what we will see in the near future may not be too far from it. Or is it a case of "It cant be helped".... maybe. http://imcmsimages.mediacorp.sg/CMSFileser.../1811PPP064.pdf Edited November 18, 2011 by KARTer ↡ Advertisement Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiadaw 6th Gear November 18, 2011 Share November 18, 2011 No one I asked can confidently tell me that they think their children will have better quality of life then themselves when they moved to the society to work in a couple of decades time in Sunny Singapore. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KARTer 2nd Gear November 18, 2011 Author Share November 18, 2011 No one I asked can confidently tell me that they think their children will have better quality of life then themselves when they moved to the society to work in a couple of decades time in Sunny Singapore. but we always hear promises from someone they will make sgp a better place...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiadaw 6th Gear November 18, 2011 Share November 18, 2011 but we always hear promises from someone they will make sgp a better place...... Swiss standard of living. Maybe he mean we can enjoy eating chocolate, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good-Carbuyer 1st Gear November 18, 2011 Share November 18, 2011 Singaporeans feel (rightly so) that each succeeding generation should enjoy a better lifestyle as the economy grows. Instead, young couples are getting smaller flats in further-flung areas with fewer amenities, even as the quality of flats has risen. Small and limited land size could be part of the reasons for this. If for spg's limited land size, we need 6m pple to support the economy which in turn supports the survival and living standard of the same 6m, how many more pple we need to maintain both? If we increase the populaiton to 8m, we need an economy to feed the additional 2m added to the original 6m.... is it a case of the dog chasing its own tail? or the add'l 2m is needed to increase the wealth of the 1%? while the size of the 99% increases but the standard of living of them decrease..... the 1% gains and increases the size of their wealth at the expense of the decline of the well being of the 99% (work harder but getting less in return) I am no econmomist and therefore have no answer. Is the vital link in changing the 99:1 to say 75:25 (ie reducing the GAP) a formula / policies which distribute wealth in a more equitable way? Do we want to see MRT trains and buses filled to the roof and the roads are used by only a few S500, 750, Ferraris etc? There are some dramatisations here, but what we will see in the near future may not be too far from it. Or is it a case of "It cant be helped".... maybe. http://imcmsimages.mediacorp.sg/CMSFileser.../1811PPP064.pdf I believe the children already being robbed by the GRC=Gangsters-Rob-Children. Only the Elites' chldren are spared from such modern slavery. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good-Carbuyer 1st Gear November 18, 2011 Share November 18, 2011 but we always hear promises from someone they will make sgp a better place...... Speaking many-many, working little bit. You may be aware that the Elites only work mainly for themselves Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tjkbeluga 5th Gear November 19, 2011 Share November 19, 2011 A lot of ppl tend to overlook something, external factor that is occurring ourside our country. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KARTer 2nd Gear November 19, 2011 Author Share November 19, 2011 (edited) A lot of ppl tend to overlook something, external factor that is occurring ourside our country. external factors affect everyone, but not every country has its is children tied to downhill slopes.... harder work, lower standard of living Edited November 19, 2011 by KARTer Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonTan 2nd Gear November 19, 2011 Share November 19, 2011 No one I knew with young kids are not worrying about their kids future in Singapore. Most regretted not buying more properties when it was cheap for their kids. How can the future generation support the expensive cars and housing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
I-LOVE-CARS 1st Gear November 19, 2011 Share November 19, 2011 (edited) Singaporeans feel (rightly so) that each succeeding generation should enjoy a better lifestyle as the economy grows. Instead, young couples are getting smaller flats in further-flung areas with fewer amenities, even as the quality of flats has risen. Small and limited land size could be part of the reasons for this. If for spg's limited land size, we need 6m pple to support the economy which in turn supports the survival and living standard of the same 6m, how many more pple we need to maintain both? If we increase the populaiton to 8m, we need an economy to feed the additional 2m added to the original 6m.... is it a case of the dog chasing its own tail? or the add'l 2m is needed to increase the wealth of the 1%? while the size of the 99% increases but the standard of living of them decrease..... the 1% gains and increases the size of their wealth at the expense of the decline of the well being of the 99% (work harder but getting less in return) I am no econmomist and therefore have no answer. Is the vital link in changing the 99:1 to say 75:25 (ie reducing the GAP) a formula / policies which distribute wealth in a more equitable way? Do we want to see MRT trains and buses filled to the roof and the roads are used by only a few S500, 750, Ferraris etc? There are some dramatisations here, but what we will see in the near future may not be too far from it. Or is it a case of "It cant be helped".... maybe. http://imcmsimages.mediacorp.sg/CMSFileser.../1811PPP064.pdf A certain someone still say we need 900k more FT, sigh, my future in SG is that is why i wan migrate Edited November 19, 2011 by I-LOVE-CARS Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watwheels Supersonic November 19, 2011 Share November 19, 2011 Singaporeans feel (rightly so) that each succeeding generation should enjoy a better lifestyle as the economy grows. Instead, young couples are getting smaller flats in further-flung areas with fewer amenities, even as the quality of flats has risen. Small and limited land size could be part of the reasons for this. If for spg's limited land size, we need 6m pple to support the economy which in turn supports the survival and living standard of the same 6m, how many more pple we need to maintain both? If we increase the populaiton to 8m, we need an economy to feed the additional 2m added to the original 6m.... is it a case of the dog chasing its own tail? or the add'l 2m is needed to increase the wealth of the 1%? while the size of the 99% increases but the standard of living of them decrease..... the 1% gains and increases the size of their wealth at the expense of the decline of the well being of the 99% (work harder but getting less in return) I am no econmomist and therefore have no answer. Is the vital link in changing the 99:1 to say 75:25 (ie reducing the GAP) a formula / policies which distribute wealth in a more equitable way? Do we want to see MRT trains and buses filled to the roof and the roads are used by only a few S500, 750, Ferraris etc? There are some dramatisations here, but what we will see in the near future may not be too far from it. Or is it a case of "It cant be helped".... maybe. http://imcmsimages.mediacorp.sg/CMSFileser.../1811PPP064.pdf If you want to quote figures pls support it with facts and not your assumption. Even based on your assumption you had left out issues like aging population. 6million ppl consists of old folks, men, women and children, old folks and children contribute less to the economy, the actual number of ppl contributing to the economy are far less dan the 6 million you had assumed. The aged population also need a place to stay, if everyone wants big floor space for their flats sgp do not have enough land mass to sustain the demand. It's not dramatisation, it's just that your assumption do not make logical sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
I-LOVE-CARS 1st Gear November 19, 2011 Share November 19, 2011 No one I knew with young kids are not worrying about their kids future in Singapore. Most regretted not buying more properties when it was cheap for their kids. How can the future generation support the expensive cars and housing? The solution is to migrate..heard NZ still taking in SGreans Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KARTer 2nd Gear November 19, 2011 Author Share November 19, 2011 If you want to quote figures pls support it with facts and not your assumption. Even based on your assumption you had left out issues like aging population. 6million ppl consists of old folks, men, women and children, old folks and children contribute less to the economy, the actual number of ppl contributing to the economy are far less dan the 6 million you had assumed. The aged population also need a place to stay, if everyone wants big floor space for their flats sgp do not have enough land mass to sustain the demand. It's not dramatisation, it's just that your assumption do not make logical sense. my posts hardly make sense to some........................ 6m or 8m or whatever ar figure of speech, if you need to drill down to the closest headcount, that's the politicians' job, here just raise awareness Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watwheels Supersonic November 19, 2011 Share November 19, 2011 (edited) my posts hardly make sense to some........................ 6m or 8m or whatever ar figure of speech, if you need to drill down to the closest headcount, that's the politicians' job, here just raise awareness If your post don't make sense, you are misleading ppl lor? Oh, 6million is just a figure of speech? So you do not take it at heart when our minister's salary gradually reach that figure too? Do you know what you are saying or not? . . . . . What am I doing anyway....waste time sia. Edited November 19, 2011 by Watwheels ↡ Advertisement Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In NowRelated Discussions
Related Discussions
The Big Read: Understanding why millennials and Gen Zers feel the way they do about work
The Big Read: Understanding why millennials and Gen Zers feel the way they do about work
Disciplining children or child abuse?
Disciplining children or child abuse?
Himakajima: The Japanese island with one traffic light that only turns green once a year
Himakajima: The Japanese island with one traffic light that only turns green once a year
No basis for employers to cut pay if flexi-work does not affect productivity: Gan Siow Huang
No basis for employers to cut pay if flexi-work does not affect productivity: Gan Siow Huang
Instead of four-day work weeks, maybe we should be talking about 10-month work years
Instead of four-day work weeks, maybe we should be talking about 10-month work years
KInderland Child Abuse
KInderland Child Abuse
Extend retirement age? Maybe it's time to think about that from another perspective
Extend retirement age? Maybe it's time to think about that from another perspective
Investing money for kids
Investing money for kids