Printable View
Interesting input AK thanks. Singapore always struck me as a strange choice to use as an example of anything. Having been to China, all over SE Asia and S Asia it’s a bit different to many countries
I’ve only just looked at the numbeo link. There’s no way for the majority of the population wages are in the top ten in the world
No I've never been to Singapore DT. As for it being a strange choice to use as an example, I didn't choose it, Mossdog did. I just thought it was rather amusing that it was being portrayed as some kind of low wage hell hole that we would descend into if the Tory Brexiteers got their way. It is clearly anything but. I'm sure there are income inequalities but interestingly the median gross monthly income is $4,437, which clearly suggests that a large part of the population is well off not just a select few. Perhaps you wouldn't like all aspects of Jacob Rees Mogg's Singapore but if we're going to link countries to politicians then I think you might prefer it to Jeremy Corbyn's Venezuela.
One other point, as I said earlier Singapore's life expectancy is the third best in the world. So presumably it must be more than a select few who have access to their first class healthcare system?
I suspect Mossdog was only repeating what I’ve seen elsewhere re Singapore - I’m not interested enough to go looking for who first brought it up. I always refer to Singapore as Asia Lite (in terms of tourism); the city is remarkably clean and orderly
I’ve not been to Venuzuela and find Corbyn’s cheap red ties nearly as off putting as Trump’s over length cello taped monstrosities. The guy has never been the same since they told him to cut his hair
Life expectancy is mainly a function of public health infrastructure (clean water supply, etc.) rather than medical care. That's the "clean and orderly" thing that DT mentions. Singapore has installed good infrastructure (easier in a small country), and eliminated malaria, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
One of my best customers is in Singapore and I've worked a lot around the Far East between 2000 and 2010.
The myth about Singapore is the duty free point.
Yes technically they have got rid of import duty as they don't charge the WTO tariffs.
However they have a 7% Goods and Services Tax and that is levied on almost all imports. There are some exceptions, such as imports in to designated free trade zones, but those are warehousing or manufacturing areas, so it simplifies say components coming in for manufacturing and then being re-exported, or it delays the GST tax being paid until the goods cross over in to the main customs territory.
That would be akin to us setting up free ports post Brexit, duty free areas where a manufacture could set up, make their goods and export the finished goods without many of the hassles typically involved and only when passing finished goods in to the domestic market, would a tax charge be made.
When it comes to low paid migrant workers, this is common place in South East Asia. In Hong Kong many families had a maid, usually from the Philippines and lots of migrant workers do the menial jobs.
Is it so different over here? We have crop pickers in Lincolnshire as the locals don't want to do it. I've seen several fish processing plants in my current industry, in Fort William, Shetland and one on Benbecula and they all rely on migrant workers because our local workers aren't prepared to work in that cold, smelly environment for £8 per hour.
Whilst it isn't the migrant workers at fault, an effect is that the resident low-paid / low-skilled workers are also affected.
Their standard of living, ability to get a higher rate per hour and/or more working house are affected, because the going rate for these jobs is held back by the almost unlimited supply of labour.
So the whole thing is a bit of a red herring. There are minor differences, mostly cultural, but most developed economies have so far failed to get deal with the issue of the low paid workers in their societies.
I thought you were retired Witton. What are you into now then? Footwear for salmon?
Repeating myself here, but this really pisses me off. That is the key reason for many (rightly angry) people voting the way they did. The UK Goverment, is betraying it's own people. They have not solved this issue becasue they don't want to. The abuse of workers due to a combination of zero-hours contracts along side low wages is criminal. The goverment won't fix it becasue it would increase business costs and we the middle classes, are too selfish to pay more for our lettuce, fish etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Will a shortage of Polish workers, result in a wage increase/improved working conditions, to make the bottom rung of British workers want to do these type of jobs? With unemployment so low, even with EU migration, I am not convienced it will.
Personally I can see the mumber of Polish workers on UK farms being no different in 10 years time, but just more paper work (and costs) involved in getting them the permissions to take up the jobs.
I started in footwear 1983 and that ended around 2011.Quote:
Originally Posted by Derby Tup
I started in lifejacket related marine safety in 2010, there was a brief overlap.
I'm not sure it's because they don't want to.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
I think it's because those making policy are so detached from the real world these days.
How many have actually employed people? How many have been skint trying to survive off a 30 hour week on minimum wage, reliant on in-work benefits?
Most of the issues can be addressed through the tax system. The Treasury has the levers, just doesn't know how to use them.
It wouldn't need to increase business costs.
If I've said this before I apologise.
The mininim wage is the best example I can give of the mindset of politicians.
They argue over who introduced it, who has increased it more, who will increase it more in the future. But this is not in line with reality.
If I'm an Aldi shelf-stacker on a 25 hour contract earning £8 an hour getting an extra 50p an hour is worth £12.50 gross.
If I can move to a 30 hour contract though it is worth £40 gross, without any hourly rate increase.
The typical life of such as employee is finding out on a Wednesday what my shifts are next week. Typically it would be 5 shifts of 4-6 hours, with hardly a weekend off.
They could be from 6:00am in the morning to 10:00pm in the evening.
That random nature of the shifts and regularity of them means I can't top up my hours with a 2nd job.
It also means that I still have to make 5 trips to and from work even though I'm part time.
The main reason for all these part-time contracts is the way employers NI is structured. It kicks in at £163 pw and at a rate of 13.8%.
As an employer I know that. I know that I can employ 2 x 20 hours at £8 and pay ZERO NI and pay 1 x 40 hours and pay £21.66 in NI.
Keeping a lid on low-paid workers hours can save 7% off the labour cost of these basic jobs.
Do the MPs know this? They should.
So make Employers NI Flat Rate on all pay as a rate that is revenue neutral for the Treasury at say 8%.
That way employers aren't hit.
But then if they lose staff, they can offer extra hours to the current staff, longer shifts.
The company saves on training, the staff earn more money, the Treasury pays out less in-work benefits and may even take some extra tax and NI.
It would be a simple policy, with lots of upsides and no real downsides.