Posts: 3,474
Threads: 95
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation:
17
Quote:This is life.Sad
No one gets left behind? Yea right.....Rolleyes
Someone always gets left behind.
Yeah! The "poor" will always be with us. How much and how willing a society to share some of the goodies with them reflect us all. i am a shame i have not done much even i am more blessed than many of the "poors"
NB:-
"The Poors"-
Each of us may define the poors differently. i may be one of the poor if define by a millionaire.
WB:-
1) Rule # 1, do not lose money.
2) Rule # 2, refer to # 1.
3) Not until you can manage your emotions, you can manage your money.
Truism of Investments.
A) Buying a security is buying RISK not Return
B) You can control RISK (to a certain level, hopefully only.) But definitely not the outcome of the Return.
NB:-
My signature is meant for psychoing myself. No offence to anyone. i am trying not to lose money unnecessary anymore.
Posts: 2,113
Threads: 19
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
5
29-09-2013, 11:30 AM
(This post was last modified: 29-09-2013, 11:32 AM by freedom.)
defense and police are not socialism benefit. Before there is socialism or capitalism, there has been defense and police. It's a function of government.
socialism benefit is such as unemployment benefit, retirement benefit, healthcare benefit, etc.
In Singapore, there is almost none. Singapore is the best capitalist in the world. That's why Singapore, such a small country can produce a lot of wonders.
As for the riches vs the poors. I have seen the riches work more than one job before they become rich. But a lot of the poors don't even try to work a few jobs to improve their lives. So should the riches help the poors in that sense?
Posts: 763
Threads: 18
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation:
18
(29-09-2013, 11:30 AM)freedom Wrote: defense and police are not socialism benefit. Before there is socialism or capitalism, there has been defense and police. It's a function of government.
socialism benefit is such as unemployment benefit, retirement benefit, healthcare benefit, etc.
In Singapore, there is almost none. Singapore is the best capitalist in the world. That's why Singapore, such a small country can produce a lot of wonders.
As for the riches vs the poors. I have seen the riches work more than one job before they become rich. But a lot of the poors don't even try to work a few jobs to improve their lives. So should the riches help the poors in that sense?
Perhaps we should help all the poor, if they doesn't want to help themselves, at least we have tried. The playing field will never be level but it should not be such a handicapped that a system become closed. I am not taking about entitlement type of help like free tuition, but perhaps shelter from abusive or dyfnctional families must be available and easily known to all, and such services reach out to the vulnerable by the grassroots. Similar while I don't believe in unemployment benefits, we should reach out to ppl who want to work but are disabled or discriminate against. We should not stop extending help simply because they might be some underserving of our help.
life goes in cycles, predictable yet uncontrollable; just like the markets, but markets give you a second chance
Posts: 2,113
Threads: 19
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
5
the real vulnerable ones are mostly taken care of by the society already. The rest, I would say, not.
In real life, I have not seen a man who wants to work, but can't find a job. Most complaints are about dream job, not job.
Well, every one wants to have a dream job, why should only the poors ask for it?
Posts: 3,474
Threads: 95
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation:
17
Any who wants to work should have a job. Yes can the job sustain at least his board and lodging. No matter how simple and humble his may be. Maybe for his food and not lodging?
So why countries have minimum wage for a job?
What are the pros and cons?
i think Malaysia and HK just have minimum wage recently.
Why they can and we couldn't?
i think minimum wage means no "escape"(cheap labour) for employers anymore.
Ha! Ha!
WB:-
1) Rule # 1, do not lose money.
2) Rule # 2, refer to # 1.
3) Not until you can manage your emotions, you can manage your money.
Truism of Investments.
A) Buying a security is buying RISK not Return
B) You can control RISK (to a certain level, hopefully only.) But definitely not the outcome of the Return.
NB:-
My signature is meant for psychoing myself. No offence to anyone. i am trying not to lose money unnecessary anymore.
Posts: 3,176
Threads: 630
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation:
26
I think the recent discussions are far off-topic already. Aren't they ? Please stay on track. Thanks.
Specuvestor: Asset - Business - Structure.
Posts: 3,474
Threads: 95
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation:
17
29-09-2013, 02:22 PM
(This post was last modified: 29-09-2013, 02:26 PM by Temperament.)
Quote:Before there is socialism or capitalism, there has been defense and police. It's a function of government.
Unquote:
No i disagree.
Before there is Gov., there is clan or community living. And out of necessity of survival of the clan or tribe, there are defence and police.
Even now a very huge country like China, remote villages may have their own "defence and police".
"SHAN GAO WANG TI YUAN", Chinese saying is not for nothing. There is real wisdom in it.
Ya! let's go back why we should buy or sell or hold SMRT.
i won't touch SMRT now. Don't ask me why? i just simply know i should not buy SMRT now.
(29-09-2013, 02:22 PM)Temperament Wrote: Quote:Before there is socialism or capitalism, there has been defense and police. It's a function of government.
Unquote:
No i disagree.
Before there is Gov., there is clan or community living. And out of necessity of survival of the clan or tribe, there are defence and police.
Even now a very huge country like China, remote villages may have their own "defence and police".
"SHAN GAO WANG TI YUAN", Chinese saying is not for nothing. There is real wisdom in it.
Ya! let's go back why we should buy or sell or hold SMRT.
i won't touch SMRT now. Don't ask me why? i just simply know i should not buy SMRT now.
WB:-
1) Rule # 1, do not lose money.
2) Rule # 2, refer to # 1.
3) Not until you can manage your emotions, you can manage your money.
Truism of Investments.
A) Buying a security is buying RISK not Return
B) You can control RISK (to a certain level, hopefully only.) But definitely not the outcome of the Return.
NB:-
My signature is meant for psychoing myself. No offence to anyone. i am trying not to lose money unnecessary anymore.
Posts: 34
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2013
Reputation:
0
Contrary to popular beliefs, if min.wage is implemented in SG, the people tt would benefit most is not Singaporean, it will be the foreigners. Think abt e bulk of low wage industries, (construction, ship building, service such as retail, cleaner, F&B) these sectors are either pre-dominated by foreigners, due to cost pressure & job scopes attach to it. Raising current wage say $4/hr to $6/hr or even $10/hr, will not attract SG ppl to do but more foreigners to to it. Since from a biz point, I needa increase e work to cover my costs (b4 I concede defeat & fold e biz if I cant make profit), so who will e biz hire? A sg ppl, likely age 40+ (due to ageing population? younger ppl bulk r probably in other office sectors since they r more preferred also), leaving our low skilled, senior SG ppl vs younger, low skilled foreigner? Biz will still tk e foreigner, since they r tougher, could do more.
Even if foreigner is not allowed to takeup e higher min.wage jobs, e natural effect will simply by higher inflation, since higher cost, same productivity simply leads to higher price (inflation) or folding of uncompetitive biz (creative destruction?), e individuals still get hurt unless they innovate tru productivity like machinery or work more to earn more...
Levelling e field is impossible w min.wage, increasing productivity is e key, but I mus admit, biz will always take easy way out. So more pressures could be applied say levy on hiring of foreigners (but maybe not across e board, esp.sectors like cleaner, ship building & construction which need foreign labours since locals wont do them). 2 tiers levy will be hard to implement, so e current local to foreign ratios could be played alittle to hopefully achieve e intended effect. Some carrots like grants should be into more across e board instead of dominated among a handful of bigger bizs in SG. A newsletter sharing on productivity, could be shared among all active entities via ACRA instead of e current NTUC, SNEF...etc. which favours their members bizs, but left out e varied non-members SMEs.
In short, I m not into min.wage, I think its a fanciful concept like welfare benefits, taking care of e poor, disabled etc. tt sound good but economically disaster to maintain over long term. I m more of e protestant ethics type, u work to earn your keep.
Lastly, tot this thread is abt SMRT? But lately it seems to be on Macro, economics, workforce topics? Possible to create a topic on tt, & maybe bring bk e SMRT discussion here? 
(29-09-2013, 02:10 PM)Temperament Wrote: Any who wants to work should have a job. Yes can the job sustain at least his board and lodging. No matter how simple and humble his may be. Maybe for his food and not lodging?
So why countries have minimum wage for a job?
What are the pros and cons?
i think Malaysia and HK just have minimum wage recently.
Why they can and we couldn't?
i think minimum wage means no "escape"(cheap labour) for employers anymore.
Ha! Ha!
Posts: 336
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation:
7
SMRT is getting interesting. Wisdom of the crowd is saying don't touch it. Well in investing staying with the crowd might not work.
Posts: 1,767
Threads: 14
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
15
I agreed. Minimum wage do not reflect reality and in fact will raise the cost of living. And when that happens, the most impact is still the poorest. Foreigners who come to SG to work as long the terms and conditions are agreed upon, when they return to their home country they are still better off.
|
Homepage
PR Newswire
