New towns, industries are being built, now what Singapore needs are new people

[Mista]

SINGAPORE — There are many new plans to build Singapore for the next generation, but the country first needs birth rates to rise so that the population can grow “a little bit”, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said on Thursday (Oct 10).

“We have so many plans for Singapore, in terms of new industries, new businesses, new schools, new opportunities, new towns to live in, new parks — a new society to be built for the next generation. And what we need are new people — our children,” Mr Lee told Nikkei Asian Review editor-at-large Takehiko Koyanagi at a dialogue held at the National University of Singapore.

Laying out the state of Singapore’s demographic challenge today, Mr Lee said that the population is growing slightly. Each year, there are around 35,000 Singaporeans born and 30,000 new permanent residents — out of which about 20,000 become citizens.

However, if the birth rates do not improve in four to five years, the population may start to decline, he said.

This means that Singapore could experience the same ageing population problem seen in Japan today, where one in three Japanese are seniors, within the next 15 to 20 years.

“Our challenge is that one-third of young people do not marry very soon even until their mid-30s,” Mr Lee said, adding that Singaporeans typically do not have children before marriage.

The two-thirds that do marry have an average of two children per couple, which is still not enough to achieve the replacement rate for the whole population.

The event was organised by the Japan Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Singapore to celebrate the 50th anniversary of its founding. During a 40-minute panel discussion, Mr Lee and Mr Takehiko touched on various topics, including the global economy as well as Singapore and Japan’s societies.

Both countries are grappling with a low birth rate problem. While this is attributed to a lack of childcare services in Japan, the issue in Singapore is that mothers today, being more educated, wish to have careers, Mr Lee said.

“And if they are working, they have to assess the impact on their careers and whether they can manage their children while at work at the same time.

“Many mothers do, but some feel that this — I can well understand — is not easy to achieve.”

Singapore has tried to make it easier for working mothers through flexible work arrangements, and putting in place a good infrastructure in infant care, preschool and daycare, so that the mother can return to her career a couple of months after childbirth, Mr Lee said.

Good schools and employment opportunities, as well as affordable housing, will allow people to see that there is a future for their children, he added.

“In Singapore, nearly everybody books and buys a public HDB (Housing and Development Board) flat before they set up their family… And then they may not live together (for a while) until the flat is ready, and they hold their wedding then,” he said. “This is fine, we are able to provide... which is why young people are able to have kids.”

WHAT SINGAPORE CAN LEARN FROM JAPAN

Mr Lee noted that Japan enjoyed a confident economy and a stock market boom more than 25 years ago, but later suffered when its bubble burst.

Its economy has since stabilised, but Mr Lee said that the difficulty for Japan now is its ageing demographic that is causing the active workforce strength to shrink.

“Therefore, the overall gross domestic product doesn't look like it is going up, but actually (on a per capita basis), it is still okay. But there is a change in the mood of the country when that happens, and your towns, villages, you find it gets depopulated and, in fact, some of the villages are closing down,” he noted.

What Singapore can learn from Japan is how to adapt to an ageing society, because what is happening in Japan will eventually also occur here, Mr Lee said. He talked about various Japanese technologies that help older people to live better, such as appliances that make it easier for them to take baths.

Singapore can also learn from the adjustments that Japan has made to cope with its ageing workforce, such as how it is using technology to keep older workers productive, Mr Lee added.

Mr Takehiko then asked about Singapore’s efforts to increase birth rates, noting that the Government has been initiating matchmaking sessions with younger Singaporeans, such as blind dating.

Mr Lee replied, laughing: “I don't know whether they do blind dates (now), but they used to do many activities. Nowadays, we have outsourced this and we encourage it… some do blind dates, some do cruises to nowhere, some play games together, but I think they are useful.”

https://www.todayonline.com/singapo...lt-now-what-spore-needs-are-new-people-pm-lee

 

[Mista]

Some key points:
-Singapore's GDP per capita may be high, but compared to other global cities we still have room to improve
-Japan is doing not bad economically, as per-capita income continues to rise
-Technology is disrupting the job market
-India is sceptical about free trade because of the competition from Chinese exports
-It's presumptuous to tell another country which political system is better
-HK's unrest is bad for Singapore and the region

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Some key points:
-Singapore's GDP per capita may be high, but compared to other global cities we still have room to improve
-Japan is doing not bad economically, as per-capita income continues to rise
-Technology is disrupting the job market
-India is sceptical about free trade because of the competition from Chinese exports
-It's presumptuous to tell another country which political system is better
-HK's unrest is bad for Singapore and the region

So give us your take on the cause of Singapore’s situation since it applies to most of the developed world.


Is it that adults want to either exceed or maintain the standard of living they had as a child under their parents so less children is the solution. When I was growing up 3 kids were the norm now it is 2. Three just seems like an unneeded hassle.

 

[Mista]

So give us your take on the cause of Singapore situation since it applies to most of the developed world.


Is it that adults want to either exceed or maintain the standard of living they had as a child under their parents so less children is the solution. When I was growing up 3 kids were the norm now it is 2. Three just seems like an unneeded hassle.

The average here is 2 kids for married couples according to statistics, but the thing is a large percentage of woman are unmarried (30-40%+). In East Asia, having a child out-of-wedlock is deeply frowned upon, so those unmarried woman are basically out of the breeding pool. (It's around 2% in East Asia, while in some European countries more than half of children are born out-of-wedlock.)

You notice the TFR of Sweden/Iceland is similarly higher than Italy/Spain too?

2 children on average x 60% married woman = 1.2 child per woman

3 kids is may be too much of a commitment, but even so our TFR would rise only to 1.8 without a corresponding increase in marriage rate.

Another reason was that many young Singaporeans were perfectionists, Leong said. They wanted perfect careers and financial standing before starting a family, but Leong said there was “no perfect time”.

Young Singaporeans also perceived parenthood as the end of a “linear progression of life priorities”, in which they obtain a degree, secure a job, marry, find the perfect home, and only then consider having children.

https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/heal...pores-ivf-fertility-drive-symbolic-ultimately

I think that's true too. Singaporeans (and many young people in developed countries) are too perfectionists and plan too much.

"I plan to have a partner after my career is stabilised, I need to have a house before I get married, I want to have my first kid at age 30, I have to save for my kids' education, they have to go for music lessons etc etc."

There's no perfect time and life doesn't go as planned, sometimes you just have to YOLO. Previous generations have grown up just fine as well.

 

[war&peace]

The average here is 2 kids for married couples according to statistics, but the thing is a large percentage of woman are unmarried (30-40%+). In East Asia, having a child out-of-wedlock is deeply frowned upon, so those unmarried woman are basically out of the breeding pool. (It's around 2% in East Asia, while in some European countries more than half of children are born out-of-wedlock.)

You notice the TFR of Sweden/Iceland is similarly higher than Italy/Spain too?

2 children on average x 60% married woman = 1.2 child per woman

3 kids is may be too much of a commitment, but even so our TFR would rise only to 1.8 without a corresponding increase in marriage rate.



https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/heal...pores-ivf-fertility-drive-symbolic-ultimately

I think that's true too. Singaporeans (and many young people in developed countries) are too perfectionists and plan too much.

"I plan to have a partner after my career is stabilised, I need to have a house before I get married, I want to have my first kid at age 30, I have to save for my kids' education, they have to go for music lessons etc etc."

There's no perfect time and life doesn't go as planned, sometimes you just have to YOLO. Previous generations have grown up just fine as well.

As per standard English dictionaries, children born out of wedlock are called bastards

 

[Paul2]

Some key points:
-Singapore's GDP per capita may be high, but compared to other global cities we still have room to improve
-Japan is doing not bad economically, as per-capita income continues to rise
-Technology is disrupting the job market
-India is sceptical about free trade because of the competition from Chinese exports
-It's presumptuous to tell another country which political system is better
-HK's unrest is bad for Singapore and the region

Gross product is a bad metric. Median income is going down in a lot of places around the world with growing GDP, with USA being the best example.

I lived in Singapore for 2.5 years as an exchange student. At first, for a boy coming from a small town, it was mind blowing. But after those 2.5 years, and starting thinking for myself, I understood that Singaporean leadership greatly lacks confidence. "A timid Asian boy type" — as how they would say in America.

"A leader of the nation is not in position to seek adventures" — LKY often quoted, but I think this is exactly the opposite of what a leader has to do. Leaders are there to force the wheel of history to turn, not to stall it. They are to lead their nations to greatness. Biggest achievements in human history were made by nations moved by great nation-unifying passions. The human society, and material economy are beasts feeding on entropy, and the current Chinese leadership understands that.

 

[Mista]

"A leader of the nation is not in position to seek adventures" — LKY often quoted

Where did he say that?

I understood that Singaporean leadership greatly lacks confidence. "A timid Asian boy type" — as how they would say in America.

Singapore is a small country, what adventures are you talking about? You think other countries will even know of Singapore, much less take us as a model, if we are underperforming?

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Singapore is a small country, what adventures are you talking about? You think other countries will even know of Singapore, much less take us as a model, if we are underperforming?

Whenever there is a “top countries that..” thread here on PDF Singapore is usually in the top 5 so you don’t have to defend yourself. It’s all there for everyone to see.

 

[Mista]

Whenever there is a “top countries that..” thread here on PDF Singapore is usually in the top 5 so you don’t have to defend yourself. It’s all there for everyone to see.

He's saying that the Singapore leadership should learn from China and have greater ambitions in creating new human endeavors lol.

I know where he's coming from. Many locals as well have criticized the government for being too realistic or mercenary and overly concerned with our survival as a country, but the fact remains that we are a city-state in Southeast Asia which traditionally isn't friendly to ethnic Chinese; we are not Switzerland in a Europe with similar culture and shared prosperity. Excessive idealism can lead us to ruins.

IHT: First, we wanted to talk to you about Singapore's extraordinary growth. We'd also like your assessment of the broader political landscape, China, Southeast Asia, Japan and the United States.

Let's begin, if we could, with the Singapore model. How do you see it evolving in the next several years economically and politically? And what do you think are the challenges and opportunities and even threats for the next generation of leaders?

Lee Kuan Yew: First, to understand Singapore, you've got to start off with an improbable story. It should not exist . . . We haven't got the base, the space, the wherewithal. This is not Jamaica or Bahamas or Fiji. This is a little island strategically placed at the southernmost end of Asia connecting the sea routes between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific.

Suddenly, we're on our own. (After being ejected in 1965 from Malaysia which followed the end of British colonial rule.) We have to defend ourselves. We have to make a living without a hinterland. We've got to have a Foreign Ministry. It's one thing running Hong Kong under British or Chinese protection; it's another matter governing tiny Singapore. You have to build an army, navy, air force, control and command systems, early warning, AWACs in the sky and so on.

So, can we survive? The question is still unanswered. We have survived so far, 42 years. Will we survive for another 42? It depends upon world conditions. It doesn't depend on us alone.

If there were no international law and order, and big fish eat small fish and small fish eat shrimps, we wouldn't exist. Our armed forces can withstand an attack and inflict damage for two weeks, three weeks, but a siege? (laughs)

IHT: Not possible.

Lee Kuan Yew: Control of sea lanes? We'll just starve. So, it depends on whether there is an international environment which says that borders are sacrosanct and there is the rule of law. It's not just [a matter for the] United Nations Security Council. There's the U.S. Seventh Fleet, a Japanese interest in the Straits of Malacca, and later Chinese and Indian interests in the region, and therefore a balance.

So, these are imponderables. But what is absolutely essential is to survive, never mind the military and security side. More important is the economic prospects. We have to be very different from our neighbors. That was the first shock we had. Because we thought by joining Malaysia, we'd go back to the old Singapore. We would have a hinterland, a common market, and can develop import substitution industries like other countries. Now, we're off on our own with not the most sympathetic of neighbors. How do we live?

To begin with we don't have the ingredients of a nation, the elementary factors, a homogenous population, common language, common culture and common destiny.

We are migrants from southern China, southern India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, before it was divided, Ceylon and the archipelago. So, the problem was, can we keep these peoples together?

The basis of a nation just was not there. But the advantage we had was that we became independent late. In 1965, we had 20 years of examples of failed states. So, we knew what to avoid - racial conflict, linguistic strife, religious conflict. We saw Ceylon.

Thereafter, we knew that if we embarked on any of these romantic ideas, to revive a mythical past of greatness and culture, we'd be damned. So, there's no return to nativism. We have left our moorings. We're all stranded here to make a better or worse living than in our own original countries.

IHT: What you're describing now is the basis for the formation of the type of country and society that you formed. And also, then, the types of criticisms that come toward Singapore - the answers may lie in these same . . .

Lee Kuan Yew: The answer lies in our genesis. To survive, we have to do these things. And although what you see today - the superstructure of a modern city, the base is a very narrow one and could easily disintegrate.

We are not Venice. We are not Athens with wide open spaces and far away neighbors. We are part of a world which is globalized, cheek by jowl with teeming millions in the region, populating at fast speed (laughs), right?

IHT: Control of many things including information and openness is the area in which Singapore is most often criticized.

Lee Kuan Yew: Well, we are pragmatists. If, in order to survive, we have to open up a sector, we open it up. Because the best test - the yardstick is, is this necessary for survival and progress? If it is, let's do it.

I don't like casinos but the world has changed and if we don't have an integrated resort like the ones in Las Vegas - Las Vegas Sands - we'll lose. So, let's go. Let's try and still keep it safe and mafia-free and prostitution-free and money-laundering-free.

Can we do it? I'm not sure but we're going to give it a good try and we're going to keep our clean and green and safe reputation. That's the plan.

IHT: You and others have also talked about the need to open Singapore up a little bit more in the modern world of fast moving technology and information and communications.

Lee Kuan Yew: No other way.

IHT: No other way. But this is going slowly. Former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong talked about thinking and acting like revolutionaries. It was very hard to decree looseness and boldness. But is this a direction that you would like to go in?

Lee Kuan Yew: No, I think we have to go in whatever direction world conditions dictate if we are to survive and to be part of this modern world. If we are not connected to this modern world, we are dead. We'll go back to the fishing village we once were.

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/29/world/asia/29iht-lee-excerpts.html

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Gross product is a bad metric. Median income is going down in a lot of places around the world with growing GDP, with USA being the best example.

I lived in Singapore for 2.5 years as an exchange student. At first, for a boy coming from a small town, it was mind blowing. But after those 2.5 years, and starting thinking for myself, I understood that Singaporean leadership greatly lacks confidence. "A timid Asian boy type" — as how they would say in America.

"A leader of the nation is not in position to seek adventures" — LKY often quoted, but I think this is exactly the opposite of what a leader has to do. Leaders are there to force the wheel of history to turn, not to stall it. They are to lead their nations to greatness. Biggest achievements in human history were made by nations moved by great nation-unifying passions. The human society, and material economy are beasts feeding on entropy, and the current Chinese leadership understands that.

I think “median household income” is going down in the US and the gap between the richest and poorest is widening.

The reason is there are now more single person households and thus instead of two incomes there is one. This can skew the numbers and lead to false assumptions. I’m sure Singapore is seeing the same.

Two married white collar workers can pull in a lot of money widening the income gap tremendously compared to some average single blue collar worker.

Should we ban these people from marrying to lessen the income gap? Of course not.

Not the latest but you can see the trend

 

[Mista]

I think “median household income” is going down in the US and the gap between the richest and poorest is widening.

The reason is there are now more single person households and thus instead of two incomes there is one. This can skew the numbers and lead to false assumptions. I’m sure Singapore is seeing the same.

Two married white collar workers can pull in a lot of money widening the income gap tremendously compared to some average single blue collar worker.

Should we ban these people from marrying to lessen the income gap? Of course not.

View attachment 583943
Not the latest but you can see the trend

Well in East Asia singles usually live with parents until they are married, different from the West.

Singapore has been lucky that incomes have been growing and didn't stagnate but I'm not sure how long can we sustain it if the situation doesn't improve in other developed economies. We are not some special kid insulated from the rest of the world.

In SG we are constantly trying to re-skill our workers and adapt to changing job conditions through many initiatives, and indeed in many cases that improved our real wages. But can we keep up as technology accelerates?

Although workers could be worried about being replaced by robots, Mr Lim said Panasonic "shows us that while technology may replace some jobs, it can also create new and better ones".

Even as Panasonic's operation has become more manpower lean, it did not retrench local workers, but instead retrained them to work alongside robots, noted Mr Lim.

Retraining benefits workers, he said, adding that Panasonic's retraining of its local staff has resulted in a 35 per cent jump in the median salary over the last five years.

Inequality is a global problem as less skilled workers are losing leverage against technology, and technological disruption is only going to accelerate. Even the jobs of doctors are getting threatened by deep-learning machines. And inequality is going to manifest in other social issues and erupt, like Brexit or recently in Hong Kong.

For the US specifically, I think it also has to do with your healthcare system as well. Health premiums have been sucking out what could otherwise been wage increases. GDP growth in the US has been higher than most other developed economies for the past decade.

The US spends a total of 17% of GDP on healthcare, while in SG it's around 4.5%.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?most_recent_value_desc=true

10:40

 

[Paul2]

He's saying that the Singapore leadership should learn from China and have greater ambitions in creating new human endeavors lol.

I know where he's coming from. Many locals as well have criticized the government for being too realistic or mercenary and overly concerned with our survival as a country, but the fact remains that we are a city-state in Southeast Asia which traditionally isn't friendly to ethnic Chinese; we are not Switzerland in a Europe with similar culture and shared prosperity. Excessive idealism can lead us to ruins.

IHT: First, we wanted to talk to you about Singapore's extraordinary growth. We'd also like your assessment of the broader political landscape, China, Southeast Asia, Japan and the United States.

Let's begin, if we could, with the Singapore model. How do you see it evolving in the next several years economically and politically? And what do you think are the challenges and opportunities and even threats for the next generation of leaders?

Lee Kuan Yew: First, to understand Singapore, you've got to start off with an improbable story. It should not exist . . . We haven't got the base, the space, the wherewithal. This is not Jamaica or Bahamas or Fiji. This is a little island strategically placed at the southernmost end of Asia connecting the sea routes between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific.

Suddenly, we're on our own. (After being ejected in 1965 from Malaysia which followed the end of British colonial rule.) We have to defend ourselves. We have to make a living without a hinterland. We've got to have a Foreign Ministry. It's one thing running Hong Kong under British or Chinese protection; it's another matter governing tiny Singapore. You have to build an army, navy, air force, control and command systems, early warning, AWACs in the sky and so on.

So, can we survive? The question is still unanswered. We have survived so far, 42 years. Will we survive for another 42? It depends upon world conditions. It doesn't depend on us alone.

If there were no international law and order, and big fish eat small fish and small fish eat shrimps, we wouldn't exist. Our armed forces can withstand an attack and inflict damage for two weeks, three weeks, but a siege? (laughs)

IHT: Not possible.

Lee Kuan Yew: Control of sea lanes? We'll just starve. So, it depends on whether there is an international environment which says that borders are sacrosanct and there is the rule of law. It's not just [a matter for the] United Nations Security Council. There's the U.S. Seventh Fleet, a Japanese interest in the Straits of Malacca, and later Chinese and Indian interests in the region, and therefore a balance.

So, these are imponderables. But what is absolutely essential is to survive, never mind the military and security side. More important is the economic prospects. We have to be very different from our neighbors. That was the first shock we had. Because we thought by joining Malaysia, we'd go back to the old Singapore. We would have a hinterland, a common market, and can develop import substitution industries like other countries. Now, we're off on our own with not the most sympathetic of neighbors. How do we live?

To begin with we don't have the ingredients of a nation, the elementary factors, a homogenous population, common language, common culture and common destiny.

We are migrants from southern China, southern India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, before it was divided, Ceylon and the archipelago. So, the problem was, can we keep these peoples together?

The basis of a nation just was not there. But the advantage we had was that we became independent late. In 1965, we had 20 years of examples of failed states. So, we knew what to avoid - racial conflict, linguistic strife, religious conflict. We saw Ceylon.

Thereafter, we knew that if we embarked on any of these romantic ideas, to revive a mythical past of greatness and culture, we'd be damned. So, there's no return to nativism. We have left our moorings. We're all stranded here to make a better or worse living than in our own original countries.

IHT: What you're describing now is the basis for the formation of the type of country and society that you formed. And also, then, the types of criticisms that come toward Singapore - the answers may lie in these same . . .

Lee Kuan Yew: The answer lies in our genesis. To survive, we have to do these things. And although what you see today - the superstructure of a modern city, the base is a very narrow one and could easily disintegrate.

We are not Venice. We are not Athens with wide open spaces and far away neighbors. We are part of a world which is globalized, cheek by jowl with teeming millions in the region, populating at fast speed (laughs), right?

IHT: Control of many things including information and openness is the area in which Singapore is most often criticized.

Lee Kuan Yew: Well, we are pragmatists. If, in order to survive, we have to open up a sector, we open it up. Because the best test - the yardstick is, is this necessary for survival and progress? If it is, let's do it.

I don't like casinos but the world has changed and if we don't have an integrated resort like the ones in Las Vegas - Las Vegas Sands - we'll lose. So, let's go. Let's try and still keep it safe and mafia-free and prostitution-free and money-laundering-free.

Can we do it? I'm not sure but we're going to give it a good try and we're going to keep our clean and green and safe reputation. That's the plan.

IHT: You and others have also talked about the need to open Singapore up a little bit more in the modern world of fast moving technology and information and communications.

Lee Kuan Yew: No other way.

IHT: No other way. But this is going slowly. Former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong talked about thinking and acting like revolutionaries. It was very hard to decree looseness and boldness. But is this a direction that you would like to go in?

Lee Kuan Yew: No, I think we have to go in whatever direction world conditions dictate if we are to survive and to be part of this modern world. If we are not connected to this modern world, we are dead. We'll go back to the fishing village we once were.

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/29/world/asia/29iht-lee-excerpts.html

This line of thinking is very characteristic of people with colonial education "Be a good boy, get into boarding school, don't stick out, do some sports to impress the college principal, and befriend a good attorney... you can't get more than you be given."

Were I to hear his famous speeches in sixties, I would've though of him as the greatest Chinese leader alive, but hearing that in 200X felt him doing himself a disservice.

In the time when I was there, to me, and much of brighter Singaporeans around me his speeches sounded very big, too big, and exceeding the magnitude of his persona.

You know how society works, leaders who speak big, but are not doing big don't command much respect, and people don't listen to them. He lived in the shadow of his earlier, brighter self for the second half of his career, and when he started fading, he, to the greatest regret, did not have the resolve to stop. When he descended to "sharp hatchet" tirades, it was painful to watch.

Singapore is a small country, what adventures are you talking about? You think other countries will even know of Singapore, much less take us as a model, if we are underperforming?

My thinking is this "If you throw a middle of the road socialist on just any country, sit still, and wait for 20 years, it will do well." On that point, I can very much agree with you that he did the "sit still" part very well — you don't dream of spaceships when you haven't got running water yet. He did the basics well.

My general impression of Singapore's history from eighties to 2009 was as if there was reluctance moving forward, or even fear, but it was not coming from the populace (which I felt wanted that strongly,) but from the government, and much from "cultural programming" left by the previous leader.

And when the late 200X came, and it finally hit everybody "Waaah! A new historical era is upon us," it came to the realisation of this:

IHT: No other way. But this is going slowly. Former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong talked about thinking and acting like revolutionaries. It was very hard to decree looseness and boldness. But is this a direction that you would like to go in?

It's much easier to weed out boldness, and temerity out of a great man, than make small men be bold, and ambitious. The later just looks funny. It's like a diaosi couch potato dads trying to teach their sons how to be the next badass Genghis Khans in line through personal example.

This is what is happening in the West now. The see "Big Scary Chinaman" on the horizon and they start running all kinds of development initiatives, incubators, leadership programs, like as if all those "new age entrepreneurs" jokes worth anything.

It's hard to inspire a nation for great feats when your leaders are small men. American role models are no longer the revolutionaries, and frontiersmen. All their elites are now lawyers, bond peddlers, rentier investors, Gateses, Kardashians... Now, imagine some of those jokes who are so fat that they float telling American youth of blood, and sweat, and ambition... And this is what is actually happening there now.

 

[Paul2]

Inequality is a global problem as less skilled workers are losing leverage against technology, and technological disruption is only going to accelerate. Even the jobs of doctors are getting threatened by deep-learning machines. And inequality is going to manifest in other social issues and erupt, like Brexit or recently in Hong Kong.

I can't be as confident as you saying this. I worked in OEM manufacturing since I was 16, I am 28 now (and I started my career in your country.)

My experience is that lesser skilled workers are mostly loosing their jobs to other, cheaper, lesser skilled workers, not computers. We have quite ordinary assembly line workers getting $1000-$1500 a month back in Shenzhen because those have substantial training.

You see more job losses to automation in white collar sector actually: junior lawyers and paralegals, accountants, marketing kids, sales support people, actuaries, brokers of all kind, bank clerks, day traders, secretaries. When their function as such is replaced with something cheaper and better, there is no road back. Now you can do a job of a guy whom you would be paying $100k 10 years ago, or even a whole room of them, with a single mouse click, like with writing accounting papers, or preparing sales leads by sifting through metres long rolodexes (CRM systems.)

The reason is there are now more single person households and thus instead of two incomes there is one. This can skew the numbers and lead to false assumptions. I’m sure Singapore is seeing the same.

Well, not only rich people do marry, you know.

It's not only me pointing to growing GDPs with stagnant incomes. I think out of all intellectuals, it was your bohemian elites who have been screaming about that the loudest, so refute them first.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

10:40

This is exactly why High Deductible Health Plans (HDHP) have become common (vs Health Maintenance Organization - HMO's) in the last 5 years.

Here's a typical scenario:
HMO: $900/month for coverage = $10,800/yr down the drain (even if you didn't go to the doctor once). Pretty much unlimited coverage with maybe a $10 fee per incident. This is the healthcare coverage the man above is complaining about in his ~2012 video.

HDHP: $200/month for coverage but a $7500 deductible ($2400/yr down the drain with a potential for $9900 max down the drain if you have some serious issue). Normal doctor checkups are covered 100%.

So if you look at the HDHP above you can see how it solves his main gripe. People can go have their regular services..BUT if they want MORE they will have to pay out of their pocket the next $7500 dollars before the insurance starts paying. So where do the people get the $7500? Well you are supposed to put the difference a month you save ($900-$200=$700/mo*12=$8400 into a special medical tax-free savings account to pay the deducible if needed).

So if you don't have any issues..you save $8400/yr which will pay if you have a disaster NEXT year.

https://www.hfma.org/topics/news/2018/08/61762.html
High-Deductible Plans Surge: CDC
Aug 29, 2018

Enrollment in HDHPs reached 47 percent of the commercially insured, pre-Medicare population in 2018, representing a 3.3-percentage-point increase from 2017.