Will minimum wage laws work here?

[notical]

You saw a very small part of the MNC leh, a cog in the machine.

if the mnc sold a part of its business away, and that sold portion immediately "overquota" of foreigners so can only hire locals and needed to get some foreigners to leave?

the evidence speaks for itself, i don't need to "see".

 

[Scrabby]

If there's minimum wage.. how many jobs will be "outsourced" to nearby JB?

Eg cleaning companies, repair, maintenance

Will it be a good move to setup sdn bhd companies there with a JHK partner?

How many will go JB for meals if our CPI spike up?

 

[NTB2DO]

No what I'm trying to say is the incentives will keep those poorly paid old folks contended with low pay.

Above $1100 income and their silver support scheme of up to $750 can be taken away.
The extremely poor folks are paid quarterly and are given some pocket money in some where.

So the poor folks will not vote this system away unless the WP can see what's buried deep in the foundation and promise that these foundations will stand solid for any changes that they propose.

Also btw:

$1000 = $5.68/hr
$1200 = $6.82/hr
$1500 = $8.52/hr

I use $1000 to $1500 because these wages offer the most incentives to the employer in term of rebate under the SEC.

$1000 offers the most incentives to the poorest bunch because they might be eligible to the silver support scheme for up to $750/quarter.

$1200 salary, the incentives is less so in the end the take home amount won't differ a lot from $1000.
To the employer, $1200 gets the maximum rebates for employers under the Special Employment Credit scheme. For elderlies, they are best to be paid this amount.

$1500 employees get a bit more from the salary and CPF, but again no longer eligible for the silver support scheme of up to $750/quarter.
Although the employer don't earn higher amount from the SEC rebate, they earn by reducing the corporate taxes as they pay higher salary.
If you offset everything, giving $1500 salary may give the employer even more kickbacks and earning than giving $1000/$1200 depending on the employee's age.


The above schemes were introduced by Tharman, and smartly done. At least money is returned to the people. HSK for the past few years introduced nothing, only tweaking Tharman's system here and there. Until he was kicked to do the Covid19 packages.
If want to redo the system, save the tax payer money, sure.
Take away all the rebates and see how those old folks survive with zero income.

WP's propose $1300 as min wage which is $7.38/hr.
It's not really better or worse to the current situation, the amount is neither here or there. So I don't think it will gather a lot of support unless PAP compliment by adjusting the qualifying eligibility for the schemes mentioned above.

Instead the main problem is will this create a minimum wage requirement for domestic workers and bangla and cause all cost to increase? Don't forget that many elderlies need caretakers to assist their later life.

Thanks for taking the trouble to explain in such great details. (Frankly it seems rather complex, takes me a while to understand the mechanism. )

As per your suggestion, yes, govt could compliment by adjusting the qualifying eligibility for the schemes to offset the perceived loss of income (in the form of assistance) received by the low wage workers.

As for the domestic workers and bangla.. frankly I'm not sure how we are gonna resolve this.. But, as I've mentioned, as cheap labour supplier countries gradually progress economically, it's a matter of time before we have to pay higher wages to hire such workers.. Plus, I was wondering, there are many developed countries who need not rely on cheap domestic workers and bangla as much as we do.. yet their cost of living is not much higher than ours - considering that SG is already among the most expensive cities to live in.. Perhaps we could take a look at how they made it, emulate and tailor it to suit our needs?

 

[nit3ex]

Progression as one society is needed.

 

[Ubi-Warrior]

Why wouldnt that be the case now?

Sent from An Alternative Viewpoint On Life using GAGT

 

[Scrabby]

Why wouldnt that be the case now?

Sent from An Alternative Viewpoint On Life using GAGT

Cos still affordable mah

 

[zplus]

Who benefits from min wage for Singaporean’s? How many are we talking about?

Who will get the most pain?

Will MNCs (ie foreign investments) be heavily impacted (do they even hire these min wage workers)?

Btw I’m sure majority of the readers in EDMW are earning above min wage. The wage to survive in Singapore. If you are, then min wage is not meant for you unless you want to earn less and maybe live a minimalist lifestyle.



Edit: this is different from universal basic income btw.

 

[occifer]

nope i prefer being a PCW and spewing whatever comes into my head

Fox1 purposely bullshiatting.
He no heart one.

Sent from me using GAGT

 

[iceblendedchoc]

Poor people get more salary.
They can buy more things.
Everybody happy.

I am on maximum salary how does that help me?

 

[sharpsnapper]

80% of the seniors will not get Silver Support Scheme.


The Silver Support (SS) Scheme is meant to support the bottom 20% of Singaporeans aged 65 and above, who had low incomes through life and who now have little or no family support.

To identify this target group, three criteria are used in tandem - lifetime wages, housing type, and the level of household support.

To be eligible for Silver Support, you must be a Singapore citizen aged 65 and above, and must meet ALL of the following criteria:

Total CPF contributions of not more than $70,000 by age 55. Self-employed persons should also have an average annual net trade income of not more than $22,800 when you were between the age of 45 and 54.

Live in an HDB flat that is 5-room or smaller.

Not own, and not have a spouse who owns, a 5-room or larger HDB flat or private property or multiple properties.

Live in a household with a monthly income per person of not more than $1,100.

 

[sunzoner]

it might be harsh coming from me, but in some cases (not all) they deserve it due to their mindset.

for example, if a couple's household income is 3k, why did they have 3 kids? its not a matter of 'because we want more children', but instead a matter of 'can you afford what you want'. the society shouldn't have to pay for their 'wants' and mistaken viewpoint.

as another example, a document controller role can earn 2k+. if both the couple are working, why would the household income be below 4k? is it an excuse for one of the couple to not be working (such as looking after a kid when their parents can help out) instead of a legitimate reason?

if its about "foreign talents" causing such roles to be hard for locals to get, that's another issue

Old eugenic theory again...

 

[ghuathuatm]

because the pie isn't just 3 people - consumer, worker & business owner

the pie has more than 3 people. other parts of the pie are stuff like
- logistics
- product wastage
- electronic / water / utility bills
- management inefficiencies

minimum wage is just increasing the worker's slice of the pie.

it doesn't mean that just because you increase their slice of the pie you decrease the worker & business owner's slice. it's still possible to decrease wastage in other areas to maintain everyone's slice.

In the case of low waged workers, in Singapore there is also a case on remittance outflow which dilute the consumption pie

 

[Xeservico]

if the mnc sold a part of its business away, and that sold portion immediately "overquota" of foreigners so can only hire locals and needed to get some foreigners to leave?

the evidence speaks for itself, i don't need to "see".

Are we talking about minimum wage or your personal problems? Don't take out your frustration on the poor.

 

[cal127]

friend....what money come from maybe what if something? very easy to anyhow pull figures out of the air

govt coffers is 1 big account. they don't allocate money based on where the money was taxed from.

every single cent inside there comes from us....1 way or another.

workfare already in place....means some tax monies already allocated into this. meaning everybody already chipping in to help the lower wage workers in SG.

but now you have people wanting employers to tank all the damage themselves while arguing against workfare because(socializing costs and privatizing profits argument).

employers are paying market price for the labor....no force was used on the employee to take up the job.

by arguing for minimum wage. you are employing force on the employer to pay their employees more for YOUR OWN BELIEF while doing NOTHING on your own part.

i'll admit that even workfare relies on taxation(force). but at least that allocation of tax money is agreeable with me.....so i don't mind that scheme at all.



so the best thing you all(pro minimum wage people) can do....is to lead the way....and pledge a portion of your salary to help the low wage workers that you CLAIM to care so much for.

you don't even need a law to do that....you can just ownself go donate to some auntie clearing up tables since you so FIRMLY BELIEF IN your cause right?

otherwise all this is just virtue signalling.

empty talk....only want others to help fund your own beliefs.

That's flawed. The point is, workers who contribute enough of a margin more than $12 an hour (based on my example) value in value will be fine. Businesses will pay them because the exchange will be worth it. Workers less productive than that will not be employed, because companies won't be able to afford to take the loss. They will be replaced through automation, or the work flow will be redesigned to eliminate the need for those jobs. Something will be done so the business isn't losing money and survive. That's the natural evolution. The businesses that don't figure it out will go out of business. SME bosses who pass those costs directly to customers, or want the same thing you're claiming customers should do are just being greedy or lazy.

If we do have a moral obligation to help low income workers, whatever measures taken to help need to actually help. They can only do so if they operate within reality. However, it will fall on deaf ears since the feel good emotional anti-SJ caricatures will still have the majority of folks condemning a rise in salary and not caring about the consequences. In any case, those who want the $12 minimum could help, if it doesn't get implemented, by tipping.

 

[evildoer]

Folk love talking about other peoples pay and saying how low it should be....

Sent from An Alternative Viewpoint On Life using GAGT

well if the masses are willing to accept the price increase for a mini wages for the lower income.. then would be great.. the the best scenario.. company do not suffer.. they get their minimum wages

But it's still very much depend on industries... maybe in food/beverages industries even the cost pass down to the consumer.. that doesn't increase a lot...

For example

Let's say a condo of 100 unites 1:1 share, MCST need 3 cleaners for daily maintenance.. if the wages for the cleaners were 900.. that will be more than $1200 increase for 3 cleaner factoring the cpf ...So lets say unit will have to $14 More for conservancy charges.. and that's for cleaning..

 

[G0dblessyou]

same old thing...

have or not also got their pros and cons.

Every policy has its pros n cons


LOOK AT BIGGER PIC, IS IT BETTER NOT to has or to has min salary/wage

 

[liteScribble]

what other resources?

the only resources govt have is land.

which to increase its value, is to import more population which the citizens is against it.

and even land, we dun have a lot left.....

want UBI? need to convert to citizen in oil-rich countries lor....

you do have your points. But just because it hasn't been implemented in non oil rich countries doesn't make it impossible.

Resources we can draw could be from using the nations reserves to stick in some investment. Guess we could even take more from the top.

Spread the wealth a bit more.

Everyone works hard and played their part in building the nation. It's time everyone gets to enjoy some of the nation's success and keep on hustling.

 

[liteScribble]

No what I'm trying to say is the incentives will keep those poorly paid old folks contended with low pay.

Above $1100 income and their silver support scheme of up to $750 can be taken away.
The extremely poor folks are paid quarterly and are given some pocket money in some where.

So the poor folks will not vote this system away unless the WP can see what's buried deep in the foundation and promise that these foundations will stand solid for any changes that they propose.

Also btw:

$1000 = $5.68/hr
$1200 = $6.82/hr
$1500 = $8.52/hr

I use $1000 to $1500 because these wages offer the most incentives to the employer in term of rebate under the SEC.

$1000 offers the most incentives to the poorest bunch because they might be eligible to the silver support scheme for up to $750/quarter.

$1200 salary, the incentives is less so in the end the take home amount won't differ a lot from $1000.
To the employer, $1200 gets the maximum rebates for employers under the Special Employment Credit scheme. For elderlies, they are best to be paid this amount.

$1500 employees get a bit more from the salary and CPF, but again no longer eligible for the silver support scheme of up to $750/quarter.
Although the employer don't earn higher amount from the SEC rebate, they earn by reducing the corporate taxes as they pay higher salary.
If you offset everything, giving $1500 salary may give the employer even more kickbacks and earning than giving $1000/$1200 depending on the employee's age.


The above schemes were introduced by Tharman, and smartly done. At least money is returned to the people. HSK for the past few years introduced nothing, only tweaking Tharman's system here and there. Until he was kicked to do the Covid19 packages.
If want to redo the system, save the tax payer money, sure.
Take away all the rebates and see how those old folks survive with zero income.

WP's propose $1300 as min wage which is $7.38/hr.
It's not really better or worse to the current situation, the amount is neither here or there. So I don't think it will gather a lot of support unless PAP compliment by adjusting the qualifying eligibility for the schemes mentioned above.

Instead the main problem is will this create a minimum wage requirement for domestic workers and bangla and cause all cost to increase? Don't forget that many elderlies need caretakers to assist their later life.

thanks for the explanation. appreciate the effort! =)

 

[liteScribble]

well if the masses are willing to accept the price increase for a mini wages for the lower income.. then would be great.. the the best scenario.. company do not suffer.. they get their minimum wages

But it's still very much depend on industries... maybe in food/beverages industries even the cost pass down to the consumer.. that doesn't increase a lot...

For example

Let's say a condo of 100 unites 1:1 share, MCST need 3 cleaners for daily maintenance.. if the wages for the cleaners were 900.. that will be more than $1200 increase for 3 cleaner factoring the cpf ...So lets say unit will have to $14 More for conservancy charges.. and that's for cleaning..

Im totally for helping the more needy..

What im more concern about is, as the cost (say hawker food) will most likely be passed on to the consumers.. the needy will also need to eat there.. thus getting min wage may not actually give them more purchasing power.

 

[evildoer]

Im totally for helping the more needy..

What im more concern about is, as the cost (say hawker food) will most likely be passed on to the consumers.. the needy will also need to eat there.. thus getting min wage may not actually give them more purchasing power.

Someone had work out a calculation .. if no organisation are take advantage of this ... the increment are only for Mimi Wages and nothing else.. a bowl of noodles or meal are only extra 33 cents a meal... have that for a month 3 meal.. (31x3x33) that about $30.69 Cents for meal budget and they are getting extra $100 , so not really that bad.. . then not much impact for them they will be enjoying their mini wages ..