COVID-19: Retrenchments

[Ct3833]

2 minutes ago, Throttle2 said:

Its true not joking. 

Office boy not so easy job.

Ok. I will apply for it, I will be  happy like a bird with 3k a month.😀😀

[Throttle2]

5 minutes ago, Ct3833 said:

Ok. I will apply for it, I will be  happy like a bird with 3k a month.😀😀

You are no Boy

M uayhahhahahahahaha

even i apply also cant get

Edited August 31, 2020 by Throttle2

[inlinesix]

Quote

Parliament: MOM to look at beefing up resources to tackle unfair hiring practices, says Tan See Leng

https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/parliament-mom-to-consider-beefing-up-resources-to-tackle-unfair-hiring-practices-minister

[Ct3833]

10 minutes ago, inlinesix said:

https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/parliament-mom-to-consider-beefing-up-resources-to-tackle-unfair-hiring-practices-minister

Have meh ? CCS said dont have woh. 😀😀

We have foreigners..sorry forumers  here said not true also.

Edited August 31, 2020 by Ct3833

[inlinesix]

7 minutes ago, Ct3833 said:

Have meh ? CCS said dont have woh. 😀😀

We have foreigners..sorry forumers  here said not true also.

He did not say have le.

He said "We certainly would look at beefing up the resources."

[Ct3833]

2 minutes ago, inlinesix said:

He did not say have le.

He said "We certainly would look at beefing up the resources."

.

Haha wah you👍.so like WATCHLIST  lah. Different but same same.

[Yewheng]

 

 

This is a good read.. It also sad to see how far off we are from what it is to have a true good governance is, what it is a true good society is.. 

[Kangadrool]

Just watch lor. Watch the list, dun need to do anything....

[Volvobrick]

8 hours ago, Voodooman said:

I am also not anti immigration, we are an immigrant society and we need to replace ourselves via calibrated imports, taking the best from Asia and rest of the world. 

And it is not just driving, high rise littering and general littering are back. Of course locals are also guilty but we kanna hammered by LKY for years, so we are more guai.  

Most littering are done by locals.  You can claim bad influence, but instead of ganging up together to rid the problem, they join in the littering.

Last week I saw someone (local of course) in the estate throwing cigarette butt right outside his own house when I was jogging past. I scolded him, cos he lives there so can't be anonymous, so kuai kuai pretended to pick up the litter.

Singapore is dirtier than most cities in China (even tier 4 ones) cos the govt is sleeping.  Don't even need to compare with Japan or Taiwan.  It is a symptom of how most things here have deteriorated, while those in ivory towers still think we are superior to other countries like in the 80's or 90's.

 

[Volvobrick]

17 minutes ago, Yewheng said:

 

 

This is a good read.. It also sad to see how far off we are from what it is to have a true good governance is, what it is a true good society is.. 

Please No lah - I have been telling ask my kid not to be stupid and listen to the politicians.  And I always have my own add-ons when going through the Singapore history lessons.  Just use the vote to make the politicians work for us.  Even if it's Kennedy hor!

 

[Volvobrick]

7 hours ago, Mkl22 said:

For me, there should also be a clamp down on perpetual PRs. We  are a small state and cannot afford to have PRs remaining forever PRs. To me a PR is the road to citizenship. sooner or later need to convert.
Also disagree with policy of allowing PR to buy hdb and lumping of citizen/PR together. 

PR scheme is ok, provided they work and pay taxes. Once no longer pay taxes, sorry, time to revoke the PR so they do not strain our health care and other resources.  They can enjoy their retirements in their home countries, instead of using our tax money to take care of them in their retirement years.  Meanwhile, reduce the subsidies for various services further, to just a little above normal foreign workers.

 

[Yewheng]

28 minutes ago, Volvobrick said:

Please No lah - I have been telling ask my kid not to be stupid and listen to the politicians.  And I always have my own add-ons when going through the Singapore history lessons.  Just use the vote to make the politicians work for us.  Even if it's Kennedy hor!

 

That's the problem, because politicians scared to lose vote and thus implement more and more of socialist policy to win people vote. The problem is that these socialist policies are the one that causes all the economic and social problem. When we keep hear about trade off, like pritam Singh even talked about trade off that even if it cause in increase cost of living and we still must try for the benefit of less well of individuals? Does it make sense? All these are because of politicians just want to win people vote where unintended consequences they also don't care as long as win people vote that count.. Haiz.. 

 

https://mothership.sg/2020/08/pritam-leader-opposition-speech-summary/

This part it contradict right? Greater help should be offered for those who need it the most even if it means there is price to pay in terms of higher cost for end consumer? Doesn't those who need help the most are also the end consumer? So how does rising prices help those who need help the most? In fact those that need help the most are the one that if price increase, will affect them the most. 

 

The rest of pritiam Singh speech not too bad except this part. 

Edited August 31, 2020 by Yewheng

[ToyotaShuttle]

2 hours ago, Yewheng said:

That's the problem, because politicians scared to lose vote and thus implement more and more of socialist policy to win people vote. The problem is that these socialist policies are the one that causes all the economic and social problem. When we keep hear about trade off, like pritam Singh even talked about trade off that even if it cause in increase cost of living and we still must try for the benefit of less well of individuals? Does it make sense? All these are because of politicians just want to win people vote where unintended consequences they also don't care as long as win people vote that count.. Haiz.. 

 

https://mothership.sg/2020/08/pritam-leader-opposition-speech-summary/

This part it contradict right? Greater help should be offered for those who need it the most even if it means there is price to pay in terms of higher cost for end consumer? Doesn't those who need help the most are also the end consumer? So how does rising prices help those who need help the most? In fact those that need help the most are the one that if price increase, will affect them the most. 

 

The rest of pritiam Singh speech not too bad except this part. 

Give 1k to "those who need it" and everyone pay $10 more (including the fellas who receive 1k). They are still up 990.

Where's the contradiction? You didn't understand that?

[Yewheng]

4 hours ago, ToyotaShuttle said:

Give 1k to "those who need it" and everyone pay $10 more (including the fellas who receive 1k). They are still up 990.

Where's the contradiction? You didn't understand that?

It's you who don't understand. 

If you put it that give 1k to those who is the most in need, everyone pay 10 dollars. Is this one time off or permanently? There is a big difference between one time off and permanently. Plus if give money to those who need the most, end up the economy will become less productive as there would have people would choose the easy way out to get money and just don't want to work. So the rest of the people going to subsidies for those who just keep depending on government? Is this sustainable? For you reply Everytime I post, I feel that your thinking is actually just quite on the surface and not really think of the consequences, on what others will do in relation to what government implelemt, what businesses will do in relation to what government implement. These are very important factor. 

 

There is another very important factor. Not everyone is willing to pay more to fund the less well off. I mean why should they? They might feel they worked very hard to earn the money. So it is their right to keep it. Politicians cannot be like always thinking that oh have to take money out from the rich and fund the poor. Like that the poor will always be poor and some even become too dependent on government that they feel entitled like everyone owes them a living. You want a society to become like this? 

Edited August 31, 2020 by Yewheng

[Philipkee]

37 minutes ago, Yewheng said:

 

 

7 hours ago, Yewheng said:

 

https://mothership.sg/2020/08/pritam-leader-opposition-speech-summary/

This part it contradict right? Greater help should be offered for those who need it the most even if it means there is price to pay in terms of higher cost for end consumer? Doesn't those who need help the most are also the end consumer? So how does rising prices help those who need help the most? In fact those that need help the most are the one that if price increase, will affect them the most. 

I just read the speech. I think he meant certain jobs that are paid very low and perhaps people practicing these should be paid more even if the end user has to pay more.

Off hand I can think of cleaners.  Cleaners should be paid more even if users (people buying meals etc) should end up paying more (as long as companies are not taking advantage to increase costs without increasing salaries of cleaners).

A subtle hint that there should be minimum wage across the board, especially the lower paid jobs.

That's my thinking cos the previous paragraph was talking about jobs and to protect their wages so it seems like he is continuing from there.

Singapore should also raise the value of the work of the Singapore tradesmen by regulating who can practice such a trade, and also enabling them to earn a wage that is protected from undercutting by the unqualified.

Singh also said that greater help should also be offered for those who need it most, even if this means that there is a price to pay in terms of higher costs for the end consumer.

Edited August 31, 2020 by Philipkee

[Yewheng]

42 minutes ago, Philipkee said:

 

I just read the speech. I think he meant certain jobs that are paid very low and perhaps people practicing these should be paid more even if the end user has to pay more.

Off hand I can think of cleaners.  Cleaners should be paid more even if users (people buying meals etc) should end up paying more (as long as companies are not taking advantage to increase costs without increasing salaries of cleaners).

A subtle hint that there should be minimum wage across the board, especially the lower paid jobs.

That's my thinking cos the previous paragraph was talking about jobs and to protect their wages so it seems like he is continuing from there.

Singapore should also raise the value of the work of the Singapore tradesmen by regulating who can practice such a trade, and also enabling them to earn a wage that is protected from undercutting by the unqualified.

Singh also said that greater help should also be offered for those who need it most, even if this means that there is a price to pay in terms of higher costs for the end consumer.

It's a zero sum gain.. 

 

Coz you see it is the value of the output that determine the market price. If government keep thinking of increasing wages of those very low wage workers without increasing the value of output (not the force type of increasing value of output aka pwm model). Then the businesses will earn less and might hire less of such workers. Yes some of these low wage workers might benefit, but there are some that will lose their jobs and become worst. 

 

If the argument is that consumer that buy the products / food to pay for the increase to pay for these low wage workers. Then aren't these low wage workers that received the pay increases will also need to buy products / food that they need, they will also see the price increase. How does it help? 

Edited August 31, 2020 by Yewheng

[Sdf4786k]

9 hours ago, inlinesix said:

He did not say have le.

He said "We certainly would look at beefing up the resources."

buzz word here is watchlist.. if dont look, how to watch ?

 

[Philipkee]

1 hour ago, Yewheng said:

 

If the argument is that consumer that buy the products / food to pay for the increase to pay for these low wage workers. Then aren't these low wage workers that received the pay increases will also need to buy products / food that they need, they will also see the price increase. How does it help? 

Actually no.  Cos if they get a $10 dollar increase in salary for a $0.10 increase in costs, they gain.

Example.  Let's say cleaner.

Normally customers pay $5 for a hawker meal.  Now they pay $6 dollars a meal cos of cleaning costs.  Let's say the cleaner gets  salary increment of $100 monthly as a result.  It is a zero sum game if the cleaner eats 100 hawker meal a month.  But in reality, likely not.  

But there is a bit of socialist thinking in the sense that maybe a person taking home $5000 a month can afford to take home $4900 a month after extra deductions so that a person taking home $1000 a month can now take home $1100. It seems like a handout in a way but that is what makes society human.

Otherwise we should ignore all the needy people because they are not contributing to society and giving them would be handouts and perpetuate a cycle of neediness.

Not saying you are wrong but there must be a balance and I think we are too skewed in one direction and now WP is trying to get society to move a little bit in the other direction.  I emphasise a little bit in the other direction.  Some people would have an all or nothing thinking.  Either fully in one direction or the other.  I think a balance is what is needed.