<TABLE id=msgUN cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD id=msgUNsubj vAlign=top>
Coffee Shop Talk - Brilliant solution to SG's demography</TD><TD id=msgunetc noWrap align=right>
Subscribe </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=msgtable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="96%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msg vAlign=top><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"> </TD><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgF noWrap align=right width="1%">From: </TD><TD class=msgFname noWrap width="68%">FreshBread <NOBR></NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate noWrap align=right width="30%">Sep-5 1:23 am </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT noWrap align=right width="1%" height=20>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname noWrap width="68%">ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (1 of 8) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft width="1%" rowSpan=4> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>2734.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>Singapore wants its people to have babies, the problem is, the people, or most of them anyway, either don't want them or can't afford. Can't afford, not so bad, government can give out tax rebates; don't want, a bit more difficult, there's only so much that advertising the fulfillment of parenthood can do.
Here's the plan: Set up what is effectively a nationwide orphanage in Singapore for the world's unwanted kids. We want kids, they want a home, put the two together and you have an optimal solution. Take in, say, 100 kids as a pilot, working this effectively up to the thousands or hundred thousands, whatever number is needed to boost the 'organic' -- meaning, born of Singaporean parents -- number of births up to the number of births the planners think Singapore needs to obtain that magic 2.1 fertility rate (or more).
Bring the kids up, in twenty years time, tada, you've got full-grown additions to the workforce, which is what all this ruckus is for.
Sure, there's some ideological problems, but these are easily addressed.
1. Kids won't be loyal to Singapore! -- Nonsense. If you think about it, nothing suggests that a child born organically to Singaporean parents will be any more loyal to Singapore. We've never had a problem with foreign talent, look at our table tennis team. The only difference is that we're going for early stage development, rather than taking them in at puberty. Further, we're giving these children, who originate from poor countries in horrible politico-economic states, a future. And we're bringing them up from 2 years or younger, which surely gives us enough time to educate them about where their loyalties should lie.
2. Why would Singaporeans want to bring up unknown children? -- The critique that foster parents will not love an adopted child only holds true with respect to a particular mother who may favor her organic spawn. That is the point of a nationwide facility: it feels no attachment to any particular child (like a school, in contrast to a teacher), and thus achieves equity.
3. How heartless to rear kids like cattle! -- Actually, baby-boomer policies are pretty much an indirect way of doing this. My way is actually better: the world has too many people by half, and we're really reallocating people from countries where there are insufficient resources, to a country where there are insufficient people. And its not like we're going to mistreat these children, we want them to be loyal, ethical, productive adults, and its in our every incentive to raise them like our own, with good nutrition, good education, and a fair amount of loving care.
4. Who'll pay for this monstrosity? -- The taxpayers, of course, via government sponsorship. If you think about it, the reason Singapore wants a decent-sized future working population is because its scared that the future healthcare needs of the current working population (us) will be too large for the future taxable base to support. Getting families to have more children is a very sneaky way of solving this -- its saying: you guys pay the cost of having the child now, we'll (or We the People) will reap the benefits of your child's addition to the tax base later. In contrast, with a national orphanage, the current taxpayers, who are the ultimate beneficiaries of the enlarged future workforce, pay for their upbringing. Its really just a different way of investing in your pension fund.
So I don't see any serious issues with my idea -- though I'm happy to debate, if not accept, any criticism -- save that people appear to take issue with the whole idea of raising kids as worker bees. But really, these people are missing the point of demographic policy. There's nothing left to do but to think of a name for my new facility. Given our penchant for acronyms, I suggest: NEST - Next Evolution in Singapore Training.
</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Here's the plan: Set up what is effectively a nationwide orphanage in Singapore for the world's unwanted kids. We want kids, they want a home, put the two together and you have an optimal solution. Take in, say, 100 kids as a pilot, working this effectively up to the thousands or hundred thousands, whatever number is needed to boost the 'organic' -- meaning, born of Singaporean parents -- number of births up to the number of births the planners think Singapore needs to obtain that magic 2.1 fertility rate (or more).
Bring the kids up, in twenty years time, tada, you've got full-grown additions to the workforce, which is what all this ruckus is for.
Sure, there's some ideological problems, but these are easily addressed.
1. Kids won't be loyal to Singapore! -- Nonsense. If you think about it, nothing suggests that a child born organically to Singaporean parents will be any more loyal to Singapore. We've never had a problem with foreign talent, look at our table tennis team. The only difference is that we're going for early stage development, rather than taking them in at puberty. Further, we're giving these children, who originate from poor countries in horrible politico-economic states, a future. And we're bringing them up from 2 years or younger, which surely gives us enough time to educate them about where their loyalties should lie.
2. Why would Singaporeans want to bring up unknown children? -- The critique that foster parents will not love an adopted child only holds true with respect to a particular mother who may favor her organic spawn. That is the point of a nationwide facility: it feels no attachment to any particular child (like a school, in contrast to a teacher), and thus achieves equity.
3. How heartless to rear kids like cattle! -- Actually, baby-boomer policies are pretty much an indirect way of doing this. My way is actually better: the world has too many people by half, and we're really reallocating people from countries where there are insufficient resources, to a country where there are insufficient people. And its not like we're going to mistreat these children, we want them to be loyal, ethical, productive adults, and its in our every incentive to raise them like our own, with good nutrition, good education, and a fair amount of loving care.
4. Who'll pay for this monstrosity? -- The taxpayers, of course, via government sponsorship. If you think about it, the reason Singapore wants a decent-sized future working population is because its scared that the future healthcare needs of the current working population (us) will be too large for the future taxable base to support. Getting families to have more children is a very sneaky way of solving this -- its saying: you guys pay the cost of having the child now, we'll (or We the People) will reap the benefits of your child's addition to the tax base later. In contrast, with a national orphanage, the current taxpayers, who are the ultimate beneficiaries of the enlarged future workforce, pay for their upbringing. Its really just a different way of investing in your pension fund.
So I don't see any serious issues with my idea -- though I'm happy to debate, if not accept, any criticism -- save that people appear to take issue with the whole idea of raising kids as worker bees. But really, these people are missing the point of demographic policy. There's nothing left to do but to think of a name for my new facility. Given our penchant for acronyms, I suggest: NEST - Next Evolution in Singapore Training.
</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
