Employing PRCs: Mark Lee defends himself

[KKC007]

What charity? The PRC worker earning $800 and working 14 hours is helping me make money. The local worker demanding $1600 and wanting to work only 8 hours with MC at every opportunity will make me lose money. Who do I hire? Why should I hire to lose money?

And as a consumer, I don't want to pay 30% more on my food bill, thank you.

You are a slave driver.

 

[cass888]

You are a slave driver.

Do you see shackles on the workers' hands and feet? They are free to come and go anytime they want.

Demand and supply, nothing less.

 

[bryanlim1972]

That's the problem. They think that way and you encourage her. FTs do not work that way. And you actually WONDER why employers prefer FTs?

its because its the government's fault (tru their own success) that $200-300s won't matter much to the secretary.

$200 more a month is less than 50k in 20 years. tell me, what the fuck can 50k do for my retirement?

50k to the Ft on the other hand, translates into a plot of land and a house back home. so the FT will piah hard for this dream.

but the secretary piah so hard, get 50k, for fuck right? maybe in 20 years, 50k can only buy her a COE.

all the bosses don't get it, sitting in their herman millers... that there is no dream, no point, for the common worker to pursue. there is no motivation to earn the extra 50k over 20 years in Sg because you can't do squat with 50k in 20 years time. the common worker has no more hope, so she engages in mindless material consumption to distract herself.

if instead the firms and partners took somewhat less (say 25% less of the 10 zillion dollars they make), then the local staff can be paid more.

the short story, CAS8888: is that bosses and shareholders are indulging in excessive greed, seeking to exploit all resources to maximize their bottom lines, and using the veneer of a corporation as a moral excuse to justify their behaviour.

maybe you've been a boss/snr manager too long and have forgotten what it's like to eke out a living as a common worker.

 

[bryanlim1972]

But nodody is 'hitting the nail on the head', why blame the emplyer, the business people, the workers...it is the source of this, the government; whose multiplication of greed had escalated the costs.

To deflect you from seeing a clearer picture, they get this haolian scarefare lee, to give publicity to the fact that the SINkingporeans workers are to be blamed, for they are the lowest denomitor in society. What can they do, to defend themselves?, and get daily blasted left & right into a corner, and soo; in their own country; they will have no more corners to stand on. Maybe to die in the dul de sac!

there are 3 essential cost of business:
1. cost of goods
2. labour
3. rents

it is clear the government has decided - keep rents high and labour low.

high rents = high income = high value for property owners
lower labour = higher profits for biz owners.

in Singapore, who is the biggest owner of property and who is the largest employer of labour?

the Sg economy clearly has shifted towards favouring property and business owners.

the old PAP promise to protect the workers has clearly been abandoned. i wonder what changed the old man's mind.

 

[MarrickG]

Maybe we should ask the policy makers to declare their asset?

there are 3 essential cost of business:
1. cost of goods
2. labour
3. rents

it is clear the government has decided - keep rents high and labour low.

high rents = high income = high value for property owners
lower labour = higher profits for biz owners.

in Singapore, who is the biggest owner of property and who is the largest employer of labour?

the Sg economy clearly has shifted towards favouring property and business owners.

the old PAP promise to protect the workers has clearly been abandoned. i wonder what changed the old man's mind.

 

[bryanlim1972]

Maybe we should ask the policy makers to declare their asset?

and what will that achieve? assuming they declare and u find nothing, then it becomes a witch hunt and u look bad.

someone told me once, only ask questions u already know the answer to. think about it.

 

[cass888]

its because its the government's fault (tru their own success) that $200-300s won't matter much to the secretary.

$200 more a month is less than 50k in 20 years. tell me, what the fuck can 50k do for my retirement?

50k to the Ft on the other hand, translates into a plot of land and a house back home. so the FT will piah hard for this dream.

but the secretary piah so hard, get 50k, for fuck right? maybe in 20 years, 50k can only buy her a COE.

all the bosses don't get it, sitting in their herman millers... that there is no dream, no point, for the common worker to pursue. there is no motivation to earn the extra 50k over 20 years in Sg because you can't do squat with 50k in 20 years time. the common worker has no more hope, so she engages in mindless material consumption to distract herself.

if instead the firms and partners took somewhat less (say 25% less of the 10 zillion dollars they make), then the local staff can be paid more.

the short story, CAS8888: is that bosses and shareholders are indulging in excessive greed, seeking to exploit all resources to maximize their bottom lines, and using the veneer of a corporation as a moral excuse to justify their behaviour.

maybe you've been a boss/snr manager too long and have forgotten what it's like to eke out a living as a common worker.

The $$200-$300 is in addition to the $3,000+ she is already earning. Quite a tidy sum for someone with mere O levels, wouldn't you say?

Interesting you mention Herman Miller since this secretary in question was also sitting on one.

 

[Highfalutin]

there are 3 essential cost of business:
1. cost of goods
2. labour
3. rents

it is clear the government has decided - keep rents high and labour low.

high rents = high income = high value for property owners
lower labour = higher profits for biz owners.

in Singapore, who is the biggest owner of property and who is the largest employer of labour?

the Sg economy clearly has shifted towards favouring property and business owners.

the old PAP promise to protect the workers has clearly been abandoned. i wonder what changed the old man's mind.[/QUOTE]

The setting up of sammyboy.com 12 years ago!

 

[hockbeng]

there are 3 essential cost of business:
1. cost of goods
2. labour
3. rents

it is clear the government has decided - keep rents high and labour low.

high rents = high income = high value for property owners
lower labour = higher profits for biz owners.

in Singapore, who is the biggest owner of property and who is the largest employer of labour?

the Sg economy clearly has shifted towards favouring property and business owners.

the old PAP promise to protect the workers has clearly been abandoned. i wonder what changed the old man's mind.

Exactly!

Every dumbass here is focusing on the wrong ball.

The real greedy ones are the landlords. Their aim is to keep rents sky high so that they dont need to do any real work; then let the biz owners and the workers slit each others throats.

Sporeans plse wake up. Know who is your true enemy.

Workers wages can go up but prices can remain the same if rents fall!

 

[cass888]

the old PAP promise to protect the workers has clearly been abandoned. i wonder what changed the old man's mind.

The decay of UK and the rest of Europe. Look at what workers rights have done to what was once the centre of the empires ruling the world.

 

[Highfalutin]

the old PAP promise to protect the workers has clearly been abandoned. i wonder what changed the old man's mind.[/QUOTE]

The decay of UK and the rest of Europe. Look at what workers rights have done to what was once the centre of the empires ruling the world.

Which part of Europe are you talking about?

 

[heartlander]

apparently many of you have never taken an economics or management course in your lives. why should mark lee pander to singaporeans if they refuse to take those jobs at cheap rates? if he didn't hire those foriegn workers, there'd be nobody left to run his business. WOULD any singaporean want to take those jobs?

many simple minded people for some reason assume that if you kick the PRCs out then singaporeans would happily rush to take their jobs and everybody lives happily after. can you provide any proof that those low-skilled PRCs are in direct competition with locals for the low-paying jobs? think about how singaporeans have moved up the value chain because of education. nobody wants the low-skilled jobs anymore. this is just progress, but apparently some people still insist on thinking in simple terms.

 

[bryanlim1972]

The $$200-$300 is in addition to the $3,000+ she is already earning. Quite a tidy sum for someone with mere O levels, wouldn't you say?

Interesting you mention Herman Miller since this secretary in question was also sitting on one.

lets not obfuscate and stick to the facts: that we're talking about the secretary and other common workers' 'blackfaces' at having to do OT. their basic salary is not the issue here.

her basic salary will keep her a happy, shallow consumer but will not help her retire. yes, 3K is good for anyone with a diploma and below, but "good" by whose standards? all the big bosses out there should try an experiment and attempt to live on 3k a month for 3 months. i'm pretty sure most of them will blow their 3k budget within 2 weeks.

sidebar - i can't help if the firm has too much $ to blow on herman miller chairs for the common staff. but i'm sure the secretary would have preferred a $500 cash bonus and an ikea chair.

 

[bryanlim1972]

Exactly!

Every dumbass here is focusing on the wrong ball.

The real greedy ones are the landlords. Their aim is to keep rents sky high so that they dont need to do any real work; then let the biz owners and the workers slit each others throats.

Sporeans plse wake up. Know who is your true enemy.

Workers wages can go up but prices can remain the same if rents fall!

lets take this one step further - basically the government is the biggest landlord. so here's the nub of it:

if we allowed higher wages, means must compensate tru lower rents. this means putting money into the hands of the workers, and taking money out of the pocket of the landlords.

our government DOES NOT TRUST its own citizens. our government feels its better to put the money into the coffers of the state for the benefit of all, rather than to put the money into the pockets of the workers who will fritter it away on booze and sex (PAP mentality, not mine hor!)

anyway, this is the government our people have voted for. 66% trust the government, but the government does not trust the 66%! what a bitter irony

 

[bryanlim1972]

apparently many of you have never taken an economics or management course in your lives. why should mark lee pander to singaporeans if they refuse to take those jobs at cheap rates? if he didn't hire those foriegn workers, there'd be nobody left to run his business. WOULD any singaporean want to take those jobs?

many simple minded people for some reason assume that if you kick the PRCs out then singaporeans would happily rush to take their jobs and everybody lives happily after. can you provide any proof that those low-skilled PRCs are in direct competition with locals for the low-paying jobs? think about how singaporeans have moved up the value chain because of education. nobody wants the low-skilled jobs anymore. this is just progress, but apparently some people still insist on thinking in simple terms.

neoclassical theory is insufficient to explain social reality.

you should rephrase - nobody wants the low-skilled jobs anymore "coz they pay like shit and can't guarantee a good life for the worker after retirement"

if you are right, that "nobody wants low skilled jobs" because of "progress", then we should not see a single white construction worker in the developed and progress-ed countries. but yet there are so many white construction workers in USA, Canada and Australia to name a few. so your logic cannot be right, no?

 

[bryanlim1972]

The decay of UK and the rest of Europe. Look at what workers rights have done to what was once the centre of the empires ruling the world.

and so he swung to the polar opposite? is it a foregone conclusion that worker's rights led to the decline of europe? i'm not sure on that.

 

[cass888]

lets not obfuscate and stick to the facts: that we're talking about the secretary and other common workers' 'blackfaces' at having to do OT. their basic salary is not the issue here.

her basic salary will keep her a happy, shallow consumer but will not help her retire. yes, 3K is good for anyone with a diploma and below, but "good" by whose standards? all the big bosses out there should try an experiment and attempt to live on 3k a month for 3 months. i'm pretty sure most of them will blow their 3k budget within 2 weeks.

sidebar - i can't help if the firm has too much $ to blow on herman miller chairs for the common staff. but i'm sure the secretary would have preferred a $500 cash bonus and an ikea chair.

You don't get it. You get paid for the value of your work and how much you're worth to the employer not how much you need to survive or to buy a Gucci.

 

[Highfalutin]

Definition of a PAP apologist...they speak only from the Government's perspective to defend their collective interests.

Definition of an Anti-Establishment agitator....they speak to force the Government to face the plight of the masses.

 

[bryanlim1972]

You don't get it. You get paid for the value of your work and how much you're worth to the employer not how much you need to survive or to buy a Gucci.

And what is Fair Value for one's work? A lollipop man (ie traffic controller) construction worker in canada earns cnd 12-15 an hour and can buy a decent home in ulu-ville for less than 200k.

In a truly free market, if workers feel they cannot survive on, say less than 10 an hour, then no one will work for less than that. But if we open the doors to cheap foreign labour, then of course prevailing wages will be lowered.

You don't get it either, if the worker is unable to survive and be happy, then she won't take the job.yes the txtbook solution is to replace this ungrateful worker with a willing foreigner, but a country isn't a textbook is it?

You pay peanuts u get monkeys. And u expect ur monkeys to jump tru flaming hoops.

And no company pays u ur true worth, only enough to prevent u from jumping ship to a competitorm if ur a boss, u should know u only offer a raise when ur valued worker wants to quit.

And is a lawyer earning 5k for a single conveyancing matter producing more value for the economy than a teacher teaching a class of 40 for 3.5k a month?

 

[cass888]

And what is Fair Value for one's work? A lollipop man (ie traffic controller) construction worker in canada earns cnd 12-15 an hour and can buy a decent home in ulu-ville for less than 200k.

In a truly free market, if workers feel they cannot survive on, say less than 10 an hour, then no one will work for less than that. But if we open the doors to cheap foreign labour, then of course prevailing wages will be lowered.

You don't get it either, if the worker is unable to survive and be happy, then she won't take the job.yes the txtbook solution is to replace this ungrateful worker with a willing foreigner, but a country isn't a textbook is it?

You pay peanuts u get monkeys. And u expect ur monkeys to jump tru flaming hoops.

And no company pays u ur true worth, only enough to prevent u from jumping ship to a competitorm if ur a boss, u should know u only offer a raise when ur valued worker wants to quit.

And is a lawyer earning 5k for a single conveyancing matter producing more value for the economy than a teacher teaching a class of 40 for 3.5k a month?

You hit the nail on the head. An employer pays just enough so the employee doesn't quit. An employee works just hard enough so she doesn't get fired. What's your beef?

Problem is that our monkeys want to receive pay that is disproportionate to their value. And still refuse to jump through the hoop. Unlike the foreign worker who is willing to work twice as hard for half the pay.

Dollars and Sense.