positive economic news onslaught ...

[Parchiao]

Basically, yes, that'd be it.

But I'm not arguing whether the economy is good or bad. My argument is ONLY about whether or not personal pay has a direct link with the economy. And the answer is clear, no.

Logic is on my side, I tell you the norm so it is not ludicrous. Your reasoning is that it is not necessarily so, which is true, but then that makes your use of "ludicrous" seem absurd.

Regardless of whether the discussion is about whether the economy is related to your pay or the other way around, either way is true because it is the norm. This is ecnomics 101, it is true in books, it is true in real life.

Your argument by using the minority as an example does not deny the right of the majority to relate their pay to the economy. We all know it because we actually experience it.

I am suspicious that you are just some kid who don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Silence Sky]

Basically, yes, that'd be it.

But I'm not arguing whether the economy is good or bad. My argument is ONLY about whether or not personal pay has a direct link with the economy. And the answer is clear, no.

Hi;
Our pay is made up of few components.
1) We are compensated for our time.
2) We are compensated for our skills.
3) We are given allowance.
4) We are given 13th month and variable bonus.
5) We are given annual increment.

When the economy is good:
1) We have more OT and increase our take home pay.
2) We can share the company profits in terms of bonuses.
3) We have bigger increment when our industry outlook is positive.
4) When we are in a sunset industry we can hope over to another rising industry offering better pay. It is easier to do so when the economy is robust and expanding.

I would say, we can’t dislodge our pay from the state of our economy.
No matter my industry is doing well or not, when the overall economy is good, we all are having a 1.5% hike in CPF contribution.

 

[theonlyone]

Gentlemen: I think both sides are correct.
We could probably have a consensus here, if we try using the famous distribution factor 80/20 to explain the problem.

If our economy consists of 10 people, we created and add $1000 to our GDP. If we divided it equally among the 10 people, each of us will collect $100. In this case, everyone feel that we have a fair share in the rising economy.
But in reality, wealth is never distributed equally and it never will.
2 people will share $800 and the other 8 people share the remaining $200.
Although the economy is good but the level of satisfaction among the 10 people is different. That is why, we have this problem here.

Well said. Even if we distribute the wealth equally today among all singaporeans. 50 years later, we'll be back to current state of "elites and commoners". It happens in all society. Because capabilities and goals differ. Some will splurge the new found wealth on luxury, some on upgrade, some on wellbeing, some on education, some will invest the money... So why complain the other person is making more money? Just admit that you are not as lucky and/or not as capable.

 

[night86mare]

Logic is on my side, I tell you the norm so it is not ludicrous. Your reasoning is that it is not necessarily so, which is true, but then that makes your use of "ludicrous" seem absurd.

Regardless of whether the discussion is about whether the economy is related to your pay or the other way around, either way is true because it is the norm. This is ecnomics 101, it is true in books, it is true in real life.

Your argument by using the minority as an example does not deny the right of the majority to relate their pay to the economy. We all know it because we actually experience it.

I am suspicious that you are just some kid who don't know what you are talking about.

CLASSIC Ad hominem syndrome.

Go on with the personal attacks, I refuse to lower myself to your level. In short, I would question if you've read the part about me saying that perhaps I was going overboard in using the word ludicrous. But then, I do think I do not need to waste my time since you are obviously spending more time coming up with possibilities as to who I am and where I come from instead of thinking about what I'm saying.

It is not a minority example. My line of argument is as simple as the idiom that a SINGLE sparrow does not signify spring. Sweeping statements should be refuted as and when they are present, because it tends to convey misinformation and give the people reading it the wrong impression.

 

[night86mare]

Hi;
Our pay is made up of few components.
1) We are compensated for our time.
2) We are compensated for our skills.
3) We are given allowance.
4) We are given 13th month and variable bonus.
5) We are given annual increment.

When the economy is good:
1) We have more OT and increase our take home pay.
2) We can share the company profits in terms of bonuses.
3) We have bigger increment when our industry outlook is positive.
4) When we are in a sunset industry we can hope over to another rising industry offering better pay. It is easier to do so when the economy is robust and expanding.

I would say, we can’t dislodge our pay from the state of our economy.
No matter my industry is doing well or not, when the overall economy is good, we all are having a 1.5% hike in CPF contribution.

Never said we should.

I stress once again, that there is no direct link between pay and economic situation, ie. you can't expect your pay to rise whenever the economy is announced to be improving or vice versa. Which is what the original poster who generated this argument misunderstood - he said that because of the announcements that economy is improving, he finds it ridiculous that his pay didn't increase. I see this line so much on Singaporean sites that I guess I felt like speaking up against it. I suspect that the other dude (par jiao isit) is entirely taking my statement out of context, and is taking the argument far too personally. Therefore, after my last reply to him, I shall not exactly partake in this discussion any further.

Salman Rushdie once said this:

At Cambridge University I was taught a laudable method of argument: you never personalise, but you have absolutely no respect for people’s opinions. You are never rude to the person, but you can be savagely rude about what the person thinks.

Now that is what I call mature discussion, and what I would love to see more of in any forum here. You and I are practising this, I guess, but if others are not, I do not find any need to take offense because there is no point (no, I'm not doing an holier-than-thou attitude here, it's just my principle in life after many similar encounters).

On the side, I find it extremely shocking that it is possible to end off a supposedly logic-based post with a supposedly accidental "wonder aloud" statement that I am a kid. Being young is not an offense, nor does it give me any disadvantage or put me in an awkward position to comment on matters such as this. What is more ludicrous than my use of the word ludicrous is the double standards applied by many of our countrymen. They wax lyrical about the lack of freedom of speech, and try to shut obvious "younger" people (relative, I suppose - there are 40 year old men who act like 2 year olds, and 10 year kids who behave like 30 years olds) by nothing more than the sheer weight of their perceived experience.

 

[Parchiao]

Salman Rushdie has a fatwa hanging around his neck, so I reckon he would make such a statement as a plea to others to divert the attention to his works rather than to himself. Proof, read his writings to your friends on the topic of the religion he blasphemised, those who believe, let's see what kind of reaction you get, read them the quote and call them immature, see what kind of reaction you will get. The context of his quote can be described as one to save himself, not to justify maturity. If he cannot understand how sacred a religion can be, his thoughts are of questionable value.

You are a kid, too young to know understand what it was like in the last recession, I don't see how wrong it is to describe you as one in this context.

 

[night86mare]

Salman Rushdie has a fatwa hanging around his neck, so I reckon he would make such a statement as a plea to others to divert the attention to his works rather than to himself. Proof, read his writings to your friends on the topic of the religion he blasphemised, those who believe, let's see what kind of reaction you get, read them the quote and call them immature, see what kind of reaction you will get. The context of his quote can be described as one to save himself, not to justify maturity. If he cannot understand how sacred a religion can be, his thoughts are of questionable value.

You are a kid, too young to know understand what it was like in the last recession, I don't see how wrong it is to describe you as one in this context.

Total hogwash.

Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses was published in 1988.

That statement was made in 2005, almost SEVENTEEN years after the publication of the book which led to the death threats made against him.

I reiterate once again, being a kid is of no consequence in this discussion. I would view my thoughts and ideas, as well as methodology of argument (cold, hard logic as opposed to tantrum throwing and name calling) to be far more mature than you, whether I have been through any recession, war, ah mao ah kao ah beng fights or not.

You obviously love making sweeping statements, there is no point engaging in any semblance of proper discussion with you. Good day.
[And can I say: OWNED? Or PWNED?]

 

[azul123]

Total hogwash.

Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses was published in 1988.

That statement was made in 2005, almost SEVENTEEN years after the publication of the book which led to the death threats made against him.

I reiterate once again, being a kid is of no consequence in this discussion. I would view my thoughts and ideas, as well as methodology of argument (cold, hard logic as opposed to tantrum throwing and name calling) to be far more mature than you, whether I have been through any recession, war, ah mao ah kao ah beng fights or not.

You obviously love making sweeping statements, there is no point engaging in any semblance of proper discussion with you. Good day.
[And can I say: OWNED? Or PWNED?]

I think you fail to see what Parchiao wrote, don't know whether it is deliberate or not, but please read again will you? put aside that you are trying to win an argument.

Salman Rushdie got a backlash of his life for what he said was his opinion.. he has little or no religious knowledge to qualify what he wrote in fact it was blasphemy in the eyes of religious scholars.

So don't you think Salman Rushdie would write something to counter the fatwas against him? at least his targets would be to the "freedom of speech" audience.

Anyway, the topic is there was so much positive spin recently that economy was doing well...

Do you think so? let's hear what you think on the topic not whether pay is linked with economic porgress and what not... that is a sidetrack issue.

../azul123

 

[Parchiao]

Total hogwash.

Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses was published in 1988.

That statement was made in 2005, almost SEVENTEEN years after the publication of the book which led to the death threats made against him.

All the merrier, substatiates my point doesn't it? The death threats have still not been revoked, the fatwa is still applicable today as it was when it was first issued.

Secondly, civil servants' bonus, yes, roughly linked. But once again, the time lag still exists, shrug.

Here is where you contradict yourself. One moment you say yes, next you say no. Bonuses form part of your compensation, same for increments. Even our former PM has explicitly mentioned before that civil service compensation is linked to the performance of the country's economy when he announced higher bonuses on the basis of the economy performing better (not like as if it is something already unknown to us). Maybe you should tell him how ludicrous his logic is shouldn't you?

Ludicrous vs Kid. Pot calling the kettle black.

Maybe you should pick up a book on economics and start reading through it now, after you have progressed to the undergraduate stuff, come back and thank me for giving you this advise. :sweatsm:

 

[night86mare]

I think you fail to see what Parchiao wrote, don't know whether it is deliberate or not, but please read again will you? put aside that you are trying to win an argument.

Salman Rushdie got a backlash of his life for what he said was his opinion.. he has little or no religious knowledge to qualify what he wrote in fact it was blasphemy in the eyes of religious scholars.

So don't you think Salman Rushdie would write something to counter the fatwas against him? at least his targets would be to the "freedom of speech" audience.

Anyway, the topic is there was so much positive spin recently that economy was doing well...

Do you think so? let's hear what you think on the topic not whether pay is linked with economic porgress and what not... that is a sidetrack issue.

../azul123

Dude, would you say something 17 years after a book of yours caused you to receive death threats? Is there any point, 17 years down the road? 17 years can start a family, build a career - it's a long time.

I think I already mentioned somewhere that it remains to be seen. Outlook looks bright so far. But then again, from the economist's perspective (depending on which side you take), this is probably short-lived, as Singapore is relatively limited by many factors, such as a lack of a niche area thus far (well, we had them but they're gradually losing out) and little developmental room in today's context. Simple as that.

Sidetrack issue? Everytime Singapore's economy is mentioned, I see about 8 posts immediately regarding their personal pay not increasing when the economy is good, blah blah blah. It's high time we stopped such methods of thinking. Do I have a point?

We all love to take the higher moral ground and complain. Whether it is indeed so easy to see things in an objective light, and maintain a balanced view of all things alike, remains in question.

 

[night86mare]

All the merrier, substatiates my point doesn't it? The death threats have still not been revoked, the fatwa is still applicable today as it was when it was first issued.

Here is where you contradict yourself. One moment you say yes, next you say no. Bonuses form part of your compensation, same for increments. Even our former PM has explicitly mentioned before that civil service compensation is linked to the performance of the country's economy when he announced higher bonuses on the basis of the economy performing better (not like as if it is something already unknown to us). Maybe you should tell him how ludicrous his logic is shouldn't you?

Ludicrous vs Kid. Pot calling the kettle black.

Maybe you should pick up a book on economics and start reading through it now, after you have progressed to the undergraduate stuff, come back and thank me for giving you this advise. :sweatsm:

You obviously have not read any of what I have written clearly. I, on the other hand, take whatever you write seriously, though I'm beginning to doubt whether I should, since the mutual respect is not there - it's a one way traffic street.

Yeah yeah, and Salman Rushdie's still alive. But that's a null issue, it's like saying that a cancer patient finds out that he's got cancer in 1988, and then he goes for treatment in 2005! Perfect logic there, you know. I mean, perhaps the guy has a extremely delayed reaction that extends to 17 years, but shouldn't we give him the benefit of the doubt seeing how his works are at least remotely thought-provoking?

Let me reiterate my points on the links between personal pay and our economy:

1) There are almost zero links, and they are few and far between. A rough relationship MAY be established in select cases, but even such relationships are not a direct proportion type - ie. there is a time lag between the economic situation IMPROVING and one's personal pay actually increasing at all. Then what, ST Index go up --> your personal pay go up isit? No right, not unless you're a speculator.

2) I have mentioned that you are taking my argument out of context to serve your own means. Look at the very first statement I quoted. Now look at what you're saying now. It's simple. And in fact, if you put it back into context, your argument above regarding PM announcing this or that (amusing, one moment you seem to be on the side that the economic situation is not as glorious as it's painted out to be, and we should not believe the government; and the next you are quoting the government! GO DOUBLE STANDARDS!).. Simply refutes the very first post that our dear errant forumer made which sparked off this whole load of discussion, ie. he's saying that he doesn't see his pay increasing even though the economic situation is improving based on announcements.

Enough said. There will be no more from me regarding this matter; if I ever emigrate it will NOT be because of any governance issues per se, but rather the climate that Singaporeans themselves are generating - an extremely, extremely negative one which seeks misery, not happiness in life.

Out, for now. (Incidentally, you keep mentioning qualifications despite my imploration not to do so. So you have read Economics in university? From what you write here, my dear forumer, I sincerely doubt so.)

 

[kitkat]

Enough said. There will be no more from me regarding this matter; if I ever emigrate it will NOT be because of any governance issues per se, but rather the climate that Singaporeans themselves are generating - an extremely, extremely negative one which seeks misery, not happiness in life.

Alot of countries have their similarity, though there are some minor differences. The grass will always look greener at the other side. I see no point in you using "the climate that Singaporeans themselves are generating". I spend half of my life oversea and still reside aboard frequently, and when some Singaporeans make such statements, it seem that they know little about other countries and the long term viability of residing with assumption that the cause (of their misery) is due to "Singaporeans themselves are generating - an extremely, extremely negative one which seeks misery, not happiness in life." which they think other countries do not have.

It is largely boil down to themselves and unable to handle the situation context correctly.

 

[night86mare]

Alot of countries have their similarity, though there are some minor differences. The grass will always look greener at the other side. I see no point in you using "the climate that Singaporeans themselves are generating". I spend half of my life oversea and still reside aboard frequently, and when some Singaporeans make such statements, it seem that they know little about other countries and the long term viability of residing with assumption that the cause (of their misery) is due to "Singaporeans themselves are generating - an extremely, extremely negative one which seeks misery, not happiness in life." which they think other countries do not have.

It is largely boil down to themselves and unable to handle the situation context correctly.

I have not made any comparison, if you noticed.

It was simply a general and.. frivolous statement, if a country's general climate with regards to certain aspects of life, like line of thought and attitude in general, is not generated by the people, then what is it generated by? The wind?

I am going overseas soon, will be able to see for myself; I only know that in many other places, people are able to laugh at themselves. I do not see this aspect in Singapore. Perhaps it is me, I won't know, I could be possibly much more idealistic; I only know that it is immensely ironic that there are numerous complaints about the perceived lack of freedom of speech (yet so many supposedly dangerous statements are made on online forums everywhere), while the people who complain squash anyone who disagrees with them with nothing more than claims of superior experience, age, etc.

Like I said, does it matter if you have been overseas? Does it matter if I have an economic degree? This is the Internet, for all I know you could never have been anywhere else but Singapore, but claims are always easy to make with the screen of anonymity. Which is why they should be taken out of the equation entirely!

 

[theonlyone]

Fatwa or religious blasphemy aside, I do agree with that quote. You can disagree with the person's opinion but there is no need to get personal.

On the point of economy, generally, there is a correlation between one's pay and the economy. Positive economy will put a positive spin to most things (stock mkt rise, people become more optimistic, domestic spending increases etc) thus most people will expect to see a rise in pay. The key word is majority. Some will not as there will always be exception.

However, many sectors are contributing to the economy. Some are not doing so well. If those who are in the sectors who are stagnating and moving out of Singapore, pay may even decrease even if economy on the whole improves (some sectors is contracting). Eg. those serving the overseas market seems to much better then those doing only local biz.

So for those who are complaining, you've got to ask yourself some tough questions. If your company is not doing well, is it because of poor mgt, lousy boss who can't make enough money or refuses to share the profit with the staff or other factors. If you can't take it, why stay? Are you refusing to move out of your comfort zone? Or are you not marketable that's why you couldn't leave?

No one owes anyone a living although the govt is expected to take good care of its citizen. In my opinion, Singaporean are well taken care of. They have become too pampered and have too high an expectation of everything. They have begun to treat many luxury items as necessity. Of course there are those in genuine poverty (not relative poverty) but I believe it exists in every society/country and in Singapore, the numbers are still ok.

Most of the cases I've encountered so far is perceived poverty (or relative poverty) where people are unhappy why some elites (and so few of them) are earning so much. In a capitalist society, there is no other ways. Using the 20-80 rule, 20% of the people will be capable of keeping the 80% of the wealth. But most importantly, we need them to keep the wealth here. These people are the most mobile and they are sought after by other countries as well.

In Singapore, it is hard to starve to death. Opportunities are abundant and mostly it is fair. Whether you can make it or make it big depends on your hard work, capability and luck.

 

[azul123]

Fatwa or religious blasphemy aside, I do agree with that quote. You can disagree with the person's opinion but there is no need to get personal.

Then anyone can say what they like without having any merit to their words and put down one religion against another, there is going to be some repercussions whether we like it or not.

In this case, it put a stop to Salman ever trying to do anymore mischief. Imagine if it was your religion and others putting it down without having any kind of knowledge... I don't think that will go down well with you.

../azul123

 

[azul123]

Dude, would you say something 17 years after a book of yours caused you to receive death threats? Is there any point, 17 years down the road? 17 years can start a family, build a career - it's a long time.

Did you keep track of it? How did you know that it was not ongoing thing for all this while? Is he still living in hiding... then it must be still ongoing.

If you are guessing... then so am I.

../azul123

 

[night86mare]

Did you keep track of it? How did you know that it was not ongoing thing for all this while? Is he still living in hiding... then it must be still ongoing.

If you are guessing... then so am I.

../azul123

He has made numerous public appearances since 1988, I have seen photos of him.

Once again, misinformation is bad for you, me and the whole world. I do not wish to bring religion into this. Let it end here, you have your religious views which were supposedly disputed by his book (banned here, incidentally), I suppose, which is why you are taking it all too personally and focusing more on THIS instead of the TOPIC, which you told me to do. Just do some self-reflection and you might find a little hypocriscy working its magic here and there.

 

[night86mare]

On the point of economy, generally, there is a correlation between one's pay and the economy. Positive economy will put a positive spin to most things (stock mkt rise, people become more optimistic, domestic spending increases etc) thus most people will expect to see a rise in pay. The key word is majority. Some will not as there will always be exception.

Indeed, case in point: I used the word PERSONAL PAY, and economy.

Pay on a bigger picture scale is a lot more different. At least you have gotten my point, I hope.

No one owes anyone a living although the govt is expected to take good care of its citizen. In my opinion, Singaporean are well taken care of. They have become too pampered and have too high an expectation of everything. They have begun to treat many luxury items as necessity. Of course there are those in genuine poverty (not relative poverty) but I believe it exists in every society/country and in Singapore, the numbers are still ok.

Precisely, and once again, just like the admin in Clubsnap has to maintain a fine thin line between freedom of speech and mature discussion, every government has to maintain their policies' balance between welfarism and overdoing it.

Can you say for sure if the government implements XXX policy for XXX income group, all in that income group deserves it? Me, I would feel that the man who has been retrenched from a high position due to company cutting cost, and having 3 children to feed deserves aid more than the man who refuses to work from day 1, and sits on his ass complaining that he can't find no job. In short - Aesop said it best. Life (sic god) only helps those who help themselves.

If only we can be a little more objective. Life will become a lot easier to live, is it not?

How do you put it - if your stomach is not filled, would you have time, let alone energy to complain? I'm not saying that we have reached the pinnacle of whatever potential Singapore holds, there's still room to improve nonetheless.. But while looking at the fault lines (real or not), we should also count our blessings.

 

[Deceased]

Haizz...Lunar New Year 2nd day only
still arguing who is right and wrong.

Lunar New Year don't argue too much.
Drives away fortune god.
Whole year bad luck ah.....

Wanna argue also wait until Day 4.
These 3 days of lunar new year must remain peaceful.

PEACE.

:lovegrin: :sweatsm: :lovegrin:

 

[azul123]

He has made numerous public appearances since 1988, I have seen photos of him.

Once again, misinformation is bad for you, me and the whole world. I do not wish to bring religion into this. Let it end here, you have your religious views which were supposedly disputed by his book (banned here, incidentally), I suppose, which is why you are taking it all too personally and focusing more on THIS instead of the TOPIC, which you told me to do. Just do some self-reflection and you might find a little hypocriscy working its magic here and there.

And giving misinformation is also bad... taking it too personally? I couldn't care less what happens to him, now if I went after him that is taking it too personally, he is still around... so, Muslims have not taken it too personally... don't believe all that you read, hear and see from the media.

../azul123