• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Hazel Poa: Mah repeats same old trick on base year selection for his statistics

SNAblog

Alfrescian
Loyal
Joined
Mar 9, 2009
Messages
1,489
Points
0
Pls help disseminate this article to other forums. Thanks.

Minister+for+National+Development,+Mr+Mah+Bow+Tan+3.jpg


http://hazelpoa.blogspot.com/2010/04/statistics-on-house-prices.html

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Statistics on House Prices

Another graph from the Minister for National Development to show that house prices have not outstripped income growth. Another careful selection of base year. This time it is 1995. The graph is presented despite the absence of 1996 income data, resulting in an incomplete and rather odd looking chart. [ Cannot find another appropriate base year is it? ]

Sigh. I could of course as someone suggested show the charts of all the different base years, most of which would show the Resale Price Index (RPI) increasing more than the median household income(MHI) , but I fear that would make me appear rather juvenile. Many netizens already know the truth. As others have already pointed out, using all the others years from 2000 to 2008 as base years would show RPI increasing faster than MHI. This can be easily proven if challenged.

And, judging from the fact that the chart presented by M for ND is a since-1995-but-minus-data-for-1996-due-to-lack-of-info chart, I will hazard a guess that using 1998 and 1997 as base years would similarly show RPI outstripping MHI. Reasonable guess you think?

And for those who clamour for longer years of data, Lucky Tan has a chart going back to 1990.

But enough of charts. My intention when I blogged about the misleading chart was to show that there are many ways of interpreting and presenting statistics. Charts for 2000, 2001 and 2006 were chosen as examples to illustrate that point, not to advocate them as suitable base years. We need to look at data more holistically. Statistics should be used to understand, not to justify.

In fact, there are more problems with the comparison of RPI vs MHI apart from the base year:

1) Other netizens have pointed out that the RPI does not take into account the differences in sizes of the same flat type over the years. As flats get smaller over the years, the price in terms of per-square-foot (psf) basis increases by more than that indicated by the RPI.

2) According to the Department of Statistics:
“Household income from work refers to the sum of income received by all working members of the household from employment and business but excludes the income of domestic helpers. For statistical purpose, a household refers to a group of persons living in the same dwelling unit and sharing common living arrangements. A household may comprise related or unrelated members. Resident households are households headed by Singapore citizens or Permanent Residents. This category includes employed households and households with no working person.”

This would mean that household income would increase without any increase in individual wage levels under the following circumstances:
a) More households with both husband and wife working
b) More working children staying with parents for longer periods due to later marriages or no homes of their own
c) Later retirement
d) Relatives without homes of their own moving in
e) Renting out of rooms to other working adults. The incomes of the tenants are included in the household income as well according to the above definition.

All of these make it difficult to understand the people’s pain if we merely look at RPI vs MHI. In fact, this creates a vicious cycle whereby if prices increase, making homes more unaffordable, we will have more people crammed in each household therefore pushing up the household income, which then seemingly justify the higher prices!

Hopefully DOS will start to release / collect data on median income for individuals and use that for comparison instead. DOS currently publishes data on average income of individuals, but average values can be skewed by extremes and hence would not be ideal.

I am happy to read that HDB will be looking at shortening the waiting time for new flats by moving away from the BTO scheme. Much of the frustrations of home buyers arose from the fact that waiting time for new flats is too long and prices of resale flats are too high, making them feel sandwiched between a rock and a hard place. The long waiting time also channels demand towards resale flats, applying upward pressure on prices. If this can be done, it will make the lives of many young couples easier.
 
Last edited:
he wants evrybody daft! ... he tinks evrybody's daft! ... :o
 
the reason why mah was insistently forced into parleement by his godfather lau lee was mah small in stature is the BIGGEST MONEY SPINNER for the pap. that is, this dwarf has all the warped ideas to milk every peasants dry and bleed them into anaemic condition.

if u put this shortie in a single ward, i can bet he would be voted out in a jiffy!

pls recall mah vs late JBJ. the latter won hands down!
 
Years ago, before the prices of new flats were pegged to those of resale flats, the PAP effectively created a floor price for housing in Singapore. With HDB flats effectively used as a floor price, all other housing were priced higher than HDB flats. While these prices were low the impact on home buyers was not so great; housing was still truly affordable and homes could be fully paid for in 10 or at most 15 years.

What Floor Price theory dictates is that soon a surplus of homes will be put out in the market by private developers. This is theory that is immovable. Private developers could earn supernormal profits as their prices could always be above HDB prices and people would still demand for private homes. As expected, a surplus of private homes is created and yet prices are still above HDB prices, the floor price.

As years went by the HDB started pegging the prices of new flats as a percentage of resales flats. As if things wern't silly enough with a floor price, this single act would inevitably increase home prices astronomically almost overnight.

What this single act did was to create a cycle of ever increasing home prices. Private developers will always price above the floor price and as the floodgates to foreigners oppened up to allow them to purchase homes here, it was inevitable that even HDB resales prices would increase as a result. This is to be expected even without foreigners as Singaporeans would not sell their private homes below HDBs floor prices.

In short, HDB's policies created a situation where home prices will continually increase at a rate which cannot be supported by wage increases which are tied to global shifts. Our home policies are very much centered on local conditions, floor pricing created by HDB and the number of new flats created by HDB.

As HDB resale prices increased so did prices of new HDB flats. This cycle is vicious and will continue for as long as the government pegs prices of new flats to those of resale flats.

This model of pricing new flats to resales flats will in a short time create a scenario where a large number of Singaporeans will be priced out of the home ownership market.

The HDB model of pricing relies heavily on the use of CPF to make mortgage payments and this inevitably destroys the pensions of Singaporeans.
Add to this the fact that PAP ministers have their salaries pegged to GDP and you can again see why the PAP government has no incentive at all to correct this problem.

Singaporeans must be told of the disastrous path where the PAP has put them onto. Singaporeans must realise that this path evenif good in the short term, will lead to a situation where their own children will not be able to afford their own homes and they themseves may not have sufficient funds for retirement.Singaporeans must realise that someone has to do something and that the PAP is the last group of people to want to do anything about it.

Singaporeans have to decide how serious this situatin is today and that things will get worse very fast as the influx of FTs has exacerbated the problem exponentially.

Singaporeans have to vote for their future and those of their children. All we need is to vote out 44+ PAP ministers in the next election. The civil service will still function as per normal. The major difference is that policies will now be more centered towards the needs and wants of the population instead of a group of men.

Vote for Change
Merdeka from PAP
Merdeka for Singapore
 
Shortie Mah really proves the saying "short men most cunning" correct.
 
he wants evrybody daft! ... he tinks evrybody's daft! ... :o

He's smart enough to know that not all are daft. But he also knows that all he needs is for a simple majority to be daft. That's the uphill battle that opposition members are fighting. The majority is still with him.
 
Back
Top