S'pore PMET unemployment / Job Woes

[dreamybear]

Comforting to know that finding a job at age 49 is still possible in a tough environment, albeit putting in a lot of upgrading efforts. Hopefully, the pay is not too bad.

--------------------
PMET unemployment in Singapore continues to climb
3 October 2019

SINGAPORE — Jeremy Ho* (not his real name) began his job hunt even before receiving his retrenchment notice in June, having heard about impending job cuts at the bank where he had spent six years.

But 20 applications and three interviews later, the 39-year-old remains jobless.

Ho is part of a growing group of Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMETs) that seem unable to break out of the retrenchment rut. According to the Ministry of Manpower’s (MOM) latest labour report, while retrenchments fell from 3,230 in the first quarter to 2,320 in the second, the number of PMETs who lost their jobs increased from 1,440 to 1,680, making them the bulk of those retrenched.

Nearly half of those told to go had a degree, and 70 per cent were over 40.

“PMETs continue to form a much larger share of retrenched workers compared to their proportion in the workforce,” said DBS senior economist Irvin Seah. PMETs made up 57 per cent of the resident workforce in 2018......

Part of the problem could be an expectations gap. Seah noted, "Most of them are white-collar, skilled workers who command a higher salary and have many financial and family commitments. They are looking for jobs that can support (their lifestyle), but (these) are not readily available anymore."......

That was the challenge James Ching, 41, faced after he resigned from his job as regional marketing director in the education industry last December. He had spent 17 years in marketing positions in both MNCs and the public sector, but eight months in, and despite help from recruiters, he remains jobless.

“I thought that one (interview) went well, but they …thought I wouldn’t be happy because the role was too junior,” he said.

Retraining, government support needed

That is not to say some PMETs haven’t been able to break out of the cycle.

Leonard Lau, 49, remained unemployed for nine months until he trained his focus on refining his resume and attending some $10,000 worth of courses on everything from management to bitcoin. He landed a position as a senior project manager at a telco, and then an MNC......

Read more : https://sg.news.yahoo.com/pmet-unemploym...45010.html

[Big Toe]

Times are changing, fast. The skills and experience in a lot of PMETs are no longer sought after in this current time and age.
Many youngsters want to be a Youtube star instead of a doctor/lawyer/pilot. Creating content and professional gaming IS a viable career choice.

The older set set of PMETs who are trained to follow process and rules are lost in this new area of growth, which demands flexibility and creativity. Or new skills that support the new digital world. There are still opportunities in traditional roles, but a lot of these are mostly stagnant or at best having very low growth. Even in car manufacturing, the traditional engine(and related) makers will be phased out as cars become electric/digital. One whole industry will be eliminated in time, it employs a very significant number of people in Germany.

And that is why we are here because the skills in evaluating businesses and running a business will ALWAYS be relevant and much sought after. And it is a fair game, how good one is will ALWAYS be reflected in investment returns over the longer term. At the end of the day, if there is a lot of value in the work you are doing, it matters very little what is happening in the job market.

[dreamybear]

And that is why we are here because the skills in evaluating businesses and running a business will ALWAYS be relevant and much sought after. And it is a fair game, how good one is will ALWAYS be reflected in investment returns over the longer term. At the end of the day, if there is a lot of value in the work you are doing, it matters very little what is happening in the job market.

Agree. I feel investing skills are also "portable", i.e. even if I were to migrate to another country, as long as I have access to the financial mkts / stock exchange I am familiar with, I can continue with what I am doing. However, I think it takes many years to achieve the inflection point(where one is sufficiently competent in estimating the intrinsic value of a company in different industries) in investing.

Nonetheless, unless one has huge capital, it is difficult to make a living purely via investing. I still think working in a reasonable paying job can earn a person more $, with CPF contributions / bonuses. esp in the first 10-20 years of one's career.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

No more laughing their way to the bank
Sat, Oct 12, 2019 - 5:50 AM

When Lim Cheng Kee, 49, was laid off from her risk and compliance job at Deutsche Bank in August 2018 after more than 10 years in the industry, it was a blow that she did not see coming. Hers was one of the more than 7,000 roles that the German lender had cut worldwide. "Hiring and firing seems quite common in the banking world but I just didn't expect it to happen to me so fast," she tells The Business Times. "I knew that roles like operations, back office and IT jobs are being outsourced to lower-cost countries, but I didn't think that risk and compliance would be on the chopping block.".....

More than one year on, Ms Lim is still taking on temp jobs such as book keeping - she is a trained accountant - and being a receptionist to keep busy.....

Adrian Choo, founder and CEO of Career Agility International, explains: "In today's world, let's face it - there is no such thing as job security. But this is especially so in banks.

"The banking landscape is evolving so fast - it's not that they are retrenching left, right and centre. They are evolving, reshaping themselves… while they may be cutting back in some areas like branches, they are hiring like crazy on the digital and tech side of things.".....

According to DBS group head of talent acquisition Susan Cheong, the bank used to typically receive between 4,000-5,000 applications from fresh graduates for its various programmes in Singapore. For 2018 and 2019, however, the number spiked to 7,000-9,000.....

Read more : https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/brunch/...o-the-bank

[AQ.]

And that is why we are here because the skills in evaluating businesses and running a business will ALWAYS be relevant and much sought after. And it is a fair game, how good one is will ALWAYS be reflected in investment returns over the longer term. At the end of the day, if there is a lot of value in the work you are doing, it matters very little what is happening in the job market.

Agree. I feel investing skills are also "portable", i.e. even if I were to migrate to another country, as long as I have access to the financial mkts / stock exchange I am familiar with, I can continue with what I am doing. 

Investing is also something which ages well i.e. the longer you've been investing, the more experience you've got and the more shenanigans/boom-bust/greed-fear you've seen. Avoiding doing stupid things is probably more important than doing extremely smart things.

This contrasts sharply with most paid employment. Employers hire you when young+energetic+cheap+relevant knowledge and discards you when old/sick/expensive/irrelevant. Loyalty is a thing of the past, if it exists ever. Being an employee is like an option - u better milk the upside while there's time value else there's nothing left when option expires.

[corydorus]

My saving started more than 15 years ago because I already felt that time my future is bleak if I am to lose my job as the role is specialize to the company and my future pigeon hole into it. And this saved money helps my investment.

.

[dreamybear]

Investing is also something which ages well i.e. the longer you've been investing, the more experience you've got and the more shenanigans/boom-bust/greed-fear you've seen. Avoiding doing stupid things is probably more important than doing extremely smart things.

This contrasts sharply with most paid employment. Employers hire you when young+energetic+cheap+relevant knowledge and discards you when old/sick/expensive/irrelevant..... Being an employee is like an option - u better milk the upside while there's time value else there's nothing left when option expires.

To be able to make such a sharp observation probably means you are an old hand. I may not be as experienced but having been a full time employee and an investor, I cldn't agree with you more. It's very wise words indeed, but one can only realise after one has been thru' those experiences.

That's why it's best to start investing as early as possible - I learnt to be better from making a lot of mistakes.

[karlmarx]

The attitude required to be a good investor -- one that outperforms the benchmark -- contrasts against those required for a good employee.

Probably the most common trait an employer looks for in an employee -- besides having the requisite skills to perform the job -- is unwavering compliance. This contrasts against an investor, whose most important trait, arguably, is critical thought.

Going by this reasoning, a good employee -- one who is unaccustomed to challenging authoritative perspective (such as an overly-optimistic outlook from the company, broker reports, blogger reports, etc -- will not likely make a good investor. While a good investor is unlikely to be well-received in the labour market.

But if one does not have a reasonably long and well-paying employment, one will not have the capital to be an investor. Yet, if you have spent so many years as a good employee, it is hard to imagine that the well ingrained attitude to comply can be reversed. So in theory, you can only be one or the other.

May be this is why are so very few 'good investors.'

[corydorus]

The attitude required to be a good investor -- one that outperforms the benchmark -- contrasts against those required for a good employee.

Probably the most common trait an employer looks for in an employee -- besides having the requisite skills to perform the job -- is unwavering compliance. This contrasts against an investor, whose most important trait, arguably, is critical thought.

Going by this reasoning, a good employee -- one who is unaccustomed to challenging authoritative perspective (such as an overly-optimistic outlook from the company, broker reports, blogger reports, etc -- will not likely make a good investor. While a good investor is unlikely to be well-received in the labour market.

But if one does not have a reasonably long and well-paying employment, one will not have the capital to be an investor. Yet, if you have spent so many years as a good employee, it is hard to imagine that the well ingrained attitude to comply can be reversed. So in theory, you can only be one or the other.

May be this is why are so very few 'good investors.'

An organization that rely on "unwavering compliance" will not last long.

From my experiences, management values employee that can challenge and articulate their points respectfully. They looks for employee that can "think" so that they are comfortable to delegate. Experience Management aren't stupid usually ..... that doesn't mean they will have to agree with each other. Once decision is made, follow as an organization decision. Most decision aren't 1 or 0 anyway. So both will works just who better.

.

[Big Toe]

I tend to somewhat agree with Karlmarx.
Excellent employees in an autocratic environment tend to fare very badly as an investor/boss.
Some jobs pay an extraordinary amount of money and comes with a nice title but the basic duties is comparable to that of a clerk.
Extremely Large European Multinationals usually have jobs like that. Once you pluck them from their office, these employees are completely helpless, close to useless. These are followers, followers are usually very bad investors.

Higher level employees/shareholders from small private local firms should fare better as they are used to solving issues, getting things done with little or no budget. More critical thinking is required here when survival of the company is at stake.

[karlmarx]

An organization that rely on "unwavering compliance" will not last long.

Indeed, some do not. But it is not so clear whether the alternate arrangement is ideal.

Companies in a free market that grow to be the top players which dominate its space is usually not managed by a democratic team where key decisions are put to a vote by the board or senior management. In such cases, key decisions are almost always made by 1 or 2 persons, who are the owners/founders. The board rubber stamps, and senior management follows their lead. Not usually because they people are inept, but because the decisions made by the owners/founders have thus far proved to be successful. Until they don't, that is.

And so, having key decisions made by few people cuts both ways.

Examples of such tightly-run companies that have so-far experience success include Walmart, Mars, McDonalds, Apple, and of course, Berkshire Hathaway. Failures include RIM, A&P, DKNY, and more recently, Forever 21. 

As much as your boss sounds like he is open to new ideas and suggestions, the fact is that most of those in their 'A game' already know what they plan to do. Perhaps they solicit ideas in hope of enhancing their own ideas, appearing to be a progressive employer, or to seek validation. The usual employee response will be to completely affirm, or affirm with suggestions for improvements. But to challenge the basis of your boss' idea? Never a good idea!