BTO flat buyers face longer wait amid labour and supply strains

I do agree with the productivity part.

Although I'm not a trained economist, I feel that the whole labor market is inter-linked in that if a cleaner is to get $5k/month, the supervisor will say he deserves $8k/month, engineers will say he deserves $10k/month, etc? So the whole economy will become uncompetitive?

Compare Australia and US to China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Indonesia and Dubai and what do you see in construction productivity? Now think deeper again and compare on number of high rise building in terms of density between the countries. What do you think again?

It is easy to say that we can increase productivity in theory. But have u tried lifting the steel pipes on a crane to assemble a building before?

(18-03-2013, 10:58 PM)mrEngineer Wrote: Compare Australia and US to China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Indonesia and Dubai and what do you see in construction productivity? Now think deeper again and compare on number of high rise building in terms of density between the countries. What do you think again?

It is easy to say that we can increase productivity in theory. But have u tried lifting the steel pipes on a crane to assemble a building before?

No doubt, it is always easier said than done from someone not doing the work.

I'm not sure what the comparison is suppose to yield as it is totally out of my domain. Looking up BCA there is a paper about productivity and it mentions Finland having a very high construction productivity due to pre-fabrication; which means standardization and therefore a trade-off with aesthetic.

(18-03-2013, 05:47 PM)egghead Wrote: I do agree with the productivity part.

Although I'm not a trained economist, I feel that the whole labor market is inter-linked in that if a cleaner is to get $5k/month, the supervisor will say he deserves $8k/month, engineers will say he deserves $10k/month, etc? So the whole economy will become uncompetitive?

Which makes me wonder about the parallels between the situation now and the situation persisting during the early eighties. Would we see a repeat of 1985 too?

I make this point only to illustrate that it is not as simple as "if we offer $5,000/month, we can solve the problem of citizens not wanting to take up construction jobs".

Hi egghead,

The main reasons why Singaporeans are not willing to work as construction workers is because it is not viable to do do. The wages of construction workers are artificially depressed due to the vast amount of FW being brought in. When you have plenty of workers available, it is a employer's market, and the employers dictate the wages.

I am sure that if we have a wage system for the construction workers that is similar to other developed countries, I am sure that Singaporeans will be fine working as a construction worker, and not a office worker. From my experience, I know of plenty of technicians who chose to remain as technicians because they do not want to be an engineer and work in the office. They are hands on type of people. Luckily for these technicians, their pay aint that bad ($2500+/mth without overtime). however, if they are paid only $800/mth, they will most likely be an engineer, where they will be paid $3000/mth. Not because they want to, but because they need to.

Now, talking about improving productivity. MP Kwah has actually been encouraging the construction industry to improve their productiviy by giving them examples and such in his blog. Unfortunately, the media chose to overlook such blog post, and instead focus on more juicy stories such as HDB prices that are mentioned in his blogs. In one of his blog post, he gave a few examples where looks were not compromised for efficiency.

Hence, when developers say that they need more FW to build things fasters, all I got to say is "C’est des conneries!".

(19-03-2013, 01:25 PM)egghead Wrote: I make this point only to illustrate that it is not as simple as "if we offer $5,000/month, we can solve the problem of citizens not wanting to take up construction jobs".

(19-03-2013, 01:25 PM)egghead Wrote: I make this point only to illustrate that it is not as simple as "if we offer $5,000/month, we can solve the problem of citizens not wanting to take up construction jobs".

Obviously 5k/mth is NOT ATTRACTIVE at all. This is the reason why they cant get people to do construction jobs. The stingy construction companies must offer 15k/mth to solve the problem.

Our PAP gov. had been talking about improving productivity for many years. I remember they announced in parliament to spend about $4.5 BILLION few years ago to help corporate oto increase productivity. At that time even president's approval was sorted as there was a need to dig into the reserve. That was the time when our loss $$$ billion in failed investment in Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sach...... So much money had been spent! Where is the increase in productivity? I cannot help but feel that the $$$ was used to covered up the loss investments instead.

(19-03-2013, 06:27 PM)propertyinvestor Wrote:

(19-03-2013, 01:25 PM)egghead Wrote: I make this point only to illustrate that it is not as simple as "if we offer $5,000/month, we can solve the problem of citizens not wanting to take up construction jobs".

Obviously 5k/mth is NOT ATTRACTIVE at all. This is the reason why they cant get people to do construction jobs. The stingy construction companies must offer 15k/mth to solve the problem.

If the "stingy" construction companies must offer minimum $15K/month for their staff, at the end of the day, the properties price must be $10k+ psf, rather than $1K+ psf.

(19-03-2013, 09:44 PM)CityFarmer Wrote:

(19-03-2013, 06:27 PM)propertyinvestor Wrote:

(19-03-2013, 01:25 PM)egghead Wrote: I make this point only to illustrate that it is not as simple as "if we offer $5,000/month, we can solve the problem of citizens not wanting to take up construction jobs".

Obviously 5k/mth is NOT ATTRACTIVE at all. This is the reason why they cant get people to do construction jobs. The stingy construction companies must offer 15k/mth to solve the problem.

If the "stingy" construction companies must offer minimum $15K/month for their staff, at the end of the day, the properties price must be $10k+ psf, rather than $1K+ psf.

Why must property prices be so much higher if salaries go up?

How about overpaid executives getting paid less and the front line workers getting paid more?

Oh wait...I bet the executives are going to say they work very hard and are worth a lot more than the frontline workers and staff...

Maybe the construction workers are not very motivated to be productive because the bosses have no intentions of rewarding workers or staff for improved productivity.

It looks like we have ourselves a modern form of feudalism, where the lords expect the serfs to work long hours in return for a pittance and gratitude for the lord's protection in 'job security'.