Government determined to increase population to 7 mil in 2030.

specuvestor Wrote:I disagree with d.o.g that population growth is a simple problem.

I did not say that population growth is a simple problem.

I said that the government does not want to increase the birthrate badly enough to take radical steps.

Increasing the birthrate and growing the population are 2 different things. They are related but not the same.

^^ the government is all powerful, but like thefarside mention, they "cannot force you to breed', at least not in a democracy

Cost drivers from childcare to housing to transport are part of the equation but pull factors like values and lifestyles are others. When our leaders focus too much on the bottomline, how we see our values and "returns" of children starts to change.

In the long run, citizens bred within the country will always be more advantageous to those imported when we consider cultures and rootedness. Some others call it "soul" or how we know other people are Singaporeans when we meet them overseas. Or why I prefer local analysts rather than regional analysts to understand idiosyncrasies.

Like I posted elsewhere, I also think FTs are not an issue if they have a stake in the country ie convert to citizens. We are a country of immigrants. But immigrants with a stake in Singapore's future calling ourselves Singaporeans, not because of tax incentives etc.

What defines a country? Why call ourselves Singaporean? What are Singaporeans?

Is Japan on a doom path? Already one decade of low or no growth, plus a severe disaster. Are they changing the policy to allow more immigrants? If their government do that, I think it will topple immediately.

How about Sweden and Norway? It's population is also aging rapidly. Low birth rate, despite favourable policies encouraging childbirth. Did they mass import?

Oh I see, they are big countries. They have natural resources. They have a big domestic market. we are small. We depend critically on the outside world to survive. Ya right.

> I said that the government does not want to increase the birthrate badly enough to take radical
> steps

Between import and locals have more children give more incentives, they choose the easier route.

The radical move may mean go back to 1 person work, 1 person care for family. 2 person work full-time in a highly stressed country, is very hard to have 2 or more kids. Stress is a big fertility killer, and the wife now places more emphasis on work success than child caring.

Closely linking to birth rate is the % of singlehood. There will be no child birth(at least in Singapore context) if there is no marriage.

http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/themes/...f2012a.pdf

Quote:Singlehood rates have risen over the years. Among citizens
aged 30-34 years, the proportion of singles was higher in 2011 (44.2%
for males and 31.0% for females) compared to 2001 (33.5% for males
and 22.3% for females) (Chart 4).

Obviously, housing, salary and mismatch in educational levels may have impacts on singlehood.

There is no statistics on the income level versus birth rate. If there is, it will give some indications on whether $$$ is the prime factor in lower fertility rate.

---

(29-01-2013, 06:33 PM)violinist Wrote: Is Japan on a doom path? Already one decade of low or no growth, plus a severe disaster. Are they changing the policy to allow more immigrants? If their government do that, I think it will topple immediately.

But that does not mean that they are not having a declining population problem or they are not worried. It is just that immigration cannot solve their problem even if they want to.
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/bl...ulati.html

(29-01-2013, 06:33 PM)violinist Wrote: How about Sweden and Norway? It's population is also aging rapidly. Low birth rate, despite favourable policies encouraging childbirth. Did they mass import?

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN
Both countries are fine. Both countries' TFR is 2.0. The population will decline at a very very slow pace.
A little import of immigrants will solve the problem.

(29-01-2013, 06:39 PM)Contrarian Wrote: > I said that the government does not want to increase the birthrate badly enough to take radical
> steps

Between import and locals have more children give more incentives, they choose the easier route.

The radical move may mean go back to 1 person work, 1 person care for family. 2 person work full-time in a highly stressed country, is very hard to have 2 or more kids. Stress is a big fertility killer, and the wife now places more emphasis on work success than child caring.

My opinion is Government is blatantly showing its refusal to provide incentives on giving locals more childcare incentives. I believe the subsidy numbers must be much more than their quick fix mass import solutions. Afterall, we are a nation that cannot touch its reserve unless under dire circumstances.

Apparently, 2008 Great Recession was dire enough to touch the reserves, providing enough incentives for locals to give birth isn't.

Expats love Singapore!

In the past, my foreign colleagues alway commented that WE singaporean work too long hours and easily manupulated to do work...

Expats managers love to work here, because they can get promoted easily !!

Now I know there are many ways to make $$$, need not suffer under those constraints anymore.

We should put priority to your family, kids and brotherhood friends.

Population at least 6M by Year 2020 is inevitable...Should you buy/sell your properties? Its very obvious now...

(29-01-2013, 06:33 PM)violinist Wrote: What defines a country? Why call ourselves Singaporean? What are Singaporeans?

Is Japan on a doom path? Already one decade of low or no growth, plus a severe disaster. Are they changing the policy to allow more immigrants? If their government do that, I think it will topple immediately.

How about Sweden and Norway? It's population is also aging rapidly. Low birth rate, despite favourable policies encouraging childbirth. Did they mass import?

Oh I see, they are big countries. They have natural resources. They have a big domestic market. we are small. We depend critically on the outside world to survive. Ya right.

They think the foreigners that they bring in won't grow old ?

(29-01-2013, 07:20 PM)arthur Wrote:

(29-01-2013, 06:39 PM)Contrarian Wrote: > I said that the government does not want to increase the birthrate badly enough to take radical
> steps

Between import and locals have more children give more incentives, they choose the easier route.

The radical move may mean go back to 1 person work, 1 person care for family. 2 person work full-time in a highly stressed country, is very hard to have 2 or more kids. Stress is a big fertility killer, and the wife now places more emphasis on work success than child caring.

My opinion is Government is blatantly showing its refusal to provide incentives on giving locals more childcare incentives. I believe the subsidy numbers must be much more than their quick fix mass import solutions. Afterall, we are a nation that cannot touch its reserve unless under dire circumstances.

Apparently, 2008 Great Recession was dire enough to touch the reserves, providing enough incentives for locals to give birth isn't.

The Government probably believes that cost of radical measures hinted by d.o.g to increase birth rates are too high and probably too uncertain in its eventual outcome.

In addition, the effectiveness of such measures to increase birth rate would only bear fruit in only 1 1/5 decades when the babies become adults and become economically productive.

Importing immigrants of working age and with the necessary education/experience would be of immediate and direct economic value.

Yes, it is a conservative way to solve the so called problem.

How will this affect our property prices? 100K foreigners joining every year!

(29-01-2013, 07:56 PM)LionFlyer Wrote:

(29-01-2013, 07:20 PM)arthur Wrote:

(29-01-2013, 06:39 PM)Contrarian Wrote: > I said that the government does not want to increase the birthrate badly enough to take radical
> steps

Between import and locals have more children give more incentives, they choose the easier route.

The radical move may mean go back to 1 person work, 1 person care for family. 2 person work full-time in a highly stressed country, is very hard to have 2 or more kids. Stress is a big fertility killer, and the wife now places more emphasis on work success than child caring.

My opinion is Government is blatantly showing its refusal to provide incentives on giving locals more childcare incentives. I believe the subsidy numbers must be much more than their quick fix mass import solutions. Afterall, we are a nation that cannot touch its reserve unless under dire circumstances.

Apparently, 2008 Great Recession was dire enough to touch the reserves, providing enough incentives for locals to give birth isn't.

The Government probably believes that cost of radical measures hinted by d.o.g to increase birth rates are too high and probably too uncertain in its eventual outcome.

In addition, the effectiveness of such measures to increase birth rate would only bear fruit in only 1 1/5 decades when the babies become adults and become economically productive.

Importing immigrants of working age and with the necessary education/experience would be of immediate and direct economic value.

Yes, it is a conservative way to solve the so called problem.