Employment Pass application process to be refined

[BBCWatcher]

Strong Eagle, the word "seems" has meaning, and you must give it meaning and weight if you are to succeed in reading comprehension. As in, in this case, in context, seems to voters. As it happens, I personally make/made no judgment here about either correlation or causation.

Here's exactly what I wrote:

"That said, most voters are not landlords. More voters work and earn salaries. Reducing the inflow of foreigners seems to be raising real wages among resident workers, at least for now." (Emphasis added.)

"Seems" means "appears to be." Seems to whom? Voters is the most obvious answer to that question in ordinary international English interpretation. You cannot assume "to me" (the writer). "To them" ("to voters") is a much more plausible, reasonable interpretation.

And if all that wasn't clear enough to you the first time, it certainly should have been when you asked a follow-up question and I succinctly answered. ("Whatever Singaporean voters think....not mine.")

This forum seems to be chock full of people actively looking for arguments and disagreements even where there are none in evidence. I'm really not sure why.

[Strong Eagle]

Strong Eagle, the word "seems" has meaning, and you must give it meaning and weight if you are to succeed in reading comprehension. As in, in this case, in context, seems to voters. As it happens, I personally make/made no judgment here about either correlation or causation.

Here's exactly what I wrote:

"That said, most voters are not landlords. More voters work and earn salaries. Reducing the inflow of foreigners seems to be raising real wages among resident workers, at least for now." (Emphasis added.)

"Seems" means "appears to be." Seems to whom? Voters is the most obvious answer to that question in ordinary international English interpretation. You cannot assume "to me" (the writer). "To them" ("to voters") is a much more plausible, reasonable interpretation.

See... that's more BS... you wrote in the first person that it "seems to be raising real wages". That's your estimate, not the voters... they didn't post here, did they? You did. One thing I judge about you... you will never admit to having ferked up, will you?

And if all that wasn't clear enough to you the first time, it certainly should have been when you asked a follow-up question and I succinctly answered. ("Whatever Singaporean voters think....not mine.")

Again, the opinion was clearly yours, not some abstract voter.

This forum seems to be chock full of people actively looking for arguments and disagreements even where there are none in evidence. I'm really not sure why.

This seems to be you... you blather then become defensive when someone calls you on your shit.

Ya know... if one person calls you an ass, you can probably blow it off. If ten people call you an ass, you might think about buying a saddle.

[ScoobyDoes]

Easy to find. Refer to points 7 and 8. Seven percent real wage growth (3% per annum for the past 5 years), and with broadly shared prosperity across income quintiles, is pretty darn impressive.

3% per annum ? Statistics, yes ?

Reality says otherwise.

In SME environment pay has gone down.

I agree completely......statistics can be used to say anything and there is a reality in the SME and retail environments that salaries are stagnant at least, reducing most likely.

SE is also correct, there is no direct causation between any increasing individual salary and a drop in FT numbers. It could be, that as the percentage of FT drops in relation to the workforce the balance of locals employees increases, therefore meaning that the balance of "total" salary expenses goes up for locals purely because ALL locals earn more compared to ALL foreigners as a percentage. True or not, I don't know but it's ......... statistics.

[ecureilx]

Easy to find. Refer to points 7 and 8. Seven percent real wage growth (3% per annum for the past 5 years), and with broadly shared prosperity across income quintiles, is pretty darn impressive.

3% per annum ? Statistics, yes ?

Reality says otherwise.

In SME environment pay has gone down.

I agree completely......statistics can be used to say anything and there is a reality in the SME and retail environments that salaries are stagnant at least, reducing most likely.

SE is also correct, there is no direct causation between any increasing individual salary and a drop in FT numbers. It could be, that as the percentage of FT drops in relation to the workforce the balance of locals employees increases, therefore meaning that the balance of "total" salary expenses goes up for locals purely because ALL locals earn more compared to ALL foreigners as a percentage. True or not, I don't know but it's ......... statistics.

It's now very common to see starting salary for IT support personnel, from 1,800 $, that's a great growth from the minimum 2k - and 2k was for fresh graduates.

Security ? Few years ago, starting pay was 4k gross. Now 2.5k gross. And for 2.5k you need to work 14 hours a day, 6 days a week. And since the base pay is low, your other benefits tagged to base pay drops.

FnB ? Excellent pay for experienced bar tender, from 2,000 $, which is a great growth from the average 2,500 + $ few years ago. And bosses will insist take home pay has gone up once you add in tips, though in reality it hasn't.

[ScoobyDoes]

It's now very common to see starting salary for IT support personnel, from 1,800 $, that's a great growth from the minimum 2k - and 2k was for fresh graduates.

Security ? Few years ago, starting pay was 4k gross. Now 2.5k gross. And for 2.5k you need to work 14 hours a day, 6 days a week. And since the base pay is low, your other benefits tagged to base pay drops.

FnB ? Excellent pay for experienced bar tender, from 2,000 $, which is a great growth from the average 2,500 + $ few years ago. And bosses will insist take home pay has gone up once you add in tips, though in reality it hasn't.

Need to be a little careful..... noting industries where "FT" are not involved or if they are, at management levels. Definitely, of course, in this case a reduction in FT numbers has no effect other than maybe F&B where a general reduction of customers may be seen.

What I see is O&G, Marine and Manufacturing where many foreigners are being and have already been laid off, or companies in general closing. The first to go are usually the foreigners so this increases the percentage of locals left working and whilst possibly at the same salary, the percentage of wages going to locals increases.

Of course, a lot of the local workforce are being laid off and we only need to listen to the government in parliament painting a very bleak current picture and worse short-term future one.

I did an interesting calculation last night since its Tax time..... I calculated my Income Tax as it would be in HK instead of here and worked out I'd save ~25% in my tax bill by being in HK. Obviously, there are differences between the two such that housing is cheaper here but cars, flights and electronics etc. are cheaper in HK. Plus and minus, the rest is fairly similar cost wise and then it comes down to a personal feeling about "lifestyle" or "standard of living".

[BBCWatcher]

See... that's more BS... you wrote in the first person that it "seems to be raising real wages".

Then you simply don't know what first person means, I'm sorry to say.

("I'm sorry to say" is first person.)

[Brah]

The first to go are usually the foreigners so this increases the percentage of locals left working and whilst possibly at the same salary, the percentage of wages going to locals increases.

^this

[calugaruvaxile]

I agree completely......statistics can be used to say anything and there is a reality in the SME and retail environments that salaries are stagnant at least, reducing most likely.

retail and SMEs don't exactly employ local workforce. bias: retail - phils, hawker - PRC, SMES - PRC, IT- indians.

the statistics are about sg wages. that's either larger companies, or agencies, etc. if fewer competition from foreigners => more money for locals. for how long, no idea. but it may make sense for some sectors

and the new rule is just pr. anything meaningful is foiled by "industry average"

[sundaymorningstaple]

Sorry, but you are wrong, wrong, wrong. Fully 70% of Singapores native workforce works for SMEs. This from the MOM. They may be certain sectors within the SMEs where it's true but across the board it's around 70%.

[BBCWatcher]

The government's wage data I cited include all employed residents (citizens and PRs). Yes, a great many residents work in small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

That said, that 70% figure appears to relate to the entire workforce, resident and non-resident (foreign). Here's an official source for reference. I haven't been able to find a breakdown indicating what percentage of the resident workforce is employed by SMEs, but it has to be a big number. (I agree with SMS on that point at least.) It could also be 70%.

[calugaruvaxile]

Sorry, but you are wrong, wrong, wrong. Fully 70% of Singapores native workforce works for SMEs. This from the MOM. They may be certain sectors within the SMEs where it's true but across the board it's around 70%.

possibly. as far as my experience goes, the service companies have a sg owner/boss (+ family) but the hands-on is done by non-sg. this is why i said that the smes don't really employ locals. in other words, the bulk of workforce i saw in pmes is not local. whether this means that the native workforce is outnumbered 3/1 or 4/1 by the foreign workforce, or if mom qualifies (family) owning a sme as working in it (i thought it's a different fiscal chapter altogether), or maybe whatever i saw were all exceptions, i do not know.

[calugaruvaxile]

That said, that 70% figure appears to relate to the entire workforce, resident and non-resident (foreign). Here's an official source for reference. I haven't been able to find a breakdown indicating what percentage of the resident workforce is employed by SMEs, but it has to be a big number. (I agree with SMS on that point at least.) It could also be 70%.

ah, well then this is a pretty different meaning of the 70%, SMS!! i fully agree that 70% of the TOTAL workforce i personally saw in sg are sme employees.

anecdotally, there is another statistics saying that those smes (employing 70% of the workforce) are only contributing as 20% of the total tax revenues (as company tax, not including the employees' own income tax), while the mncs (not sure how much they employ, as from the 30% left you must subtract the govt/public workplaces) contribute 80%.

i won't comment on this, but ...

[sundaymorningstaple]

It's hard to say. I don't know how many foreign nationals are hired by the biggest MNCs. One thing is for sure though, when the MNC start bailing out unemployment will skyrocket through the roof as a HUGE number of the SME directly support or supply the MNCs. How much of the 80% is, frankly, immaterial do the discussion.

[calugaruvaxile]

It's hard to say. I don't know how many foreign nationals are hired by the biggest MNCs. One thing is for sure though, when the MNC start bailing out unemployment will skyrocket through the roof as a HUGE number of the SME directly support or supply the MNCs. How much of the 80% is, frankly, immaterial do the discussion.

well, if the tax contribution of a company is small, it means low margins. if the company is small, i bet the allocations are quite small too, so are the operating costs. as i would not expect these companies to jeopardize their profits paying high wages, i suspect the salaries there are quite low. so 70% of the workforce is probably on low pay.

i would then guess that this continuous and aggressive campaign of promoting "singaporean core" should actually be targeting the mncs, not the smes (i always thought this is what the govt means). but it seems like the first in line are the smes, and this is something i don't understand.

[x9200]

It's hard to say. I don't know how many foreign nationals are hired by the biggest MNCs. One thing is for sure though, when the MNC start bailing out unemployment will skyrocket through the roof as a HUGE number of the SME directly support or supply the MNCs. How much of the 80% is, frankly, immaterial do the discussion.

well, if the tax contribution of a company is small, it means low margins. if the company is small, i bet the allocations are quite small too, so are the operating costs. as i would not expect these companies to jeopardize their profits paying high wages, i suspect the salaries there are quite low. so 70% of the workforce is probably on low pay.

I don't know about the tax contribution but I would rather expect they are paid better than the average. These are typically >20 employers companies, at least from my experience working for one of rather big manufacturing MNCs in Singapore. What MNCs offer to them are often big deals from an SME's perspective, not because the deal is that fantastic but because of the volume. Of course this is linked to the profit, but it is also linked to the SMEs resources - they have to have manpower to handle the volume.
All together, I think SMS is pretty correct in the paragraph above.