I make a rough guess that 50% of the working population will be sufficient to produce the goods to meet the basic needs of the population for food, shelter, clothing, health and education, including the manufacturing industries that are needed to support the basic industries.
If the work is shared fairly among the working population, it is possible (based on my guess) for each person to work 4 hours a day to contribute their share of the work and to receive an income that is sufficient for a decent standard of life.
In this environment, there is no need for a person to worry about inability to find a job. There is no need for them to work more than is needed, and in the process deprive another person of their right to a job.
It is possible for people to work longer than the minimum hours, so that they can accumulate savings for the future, or additional income to raise a family or to engage in leisure, social or religious activities. These are optional activities that come after the person has the security of a job.
It is possible for society to mandate a wider scope of the basic needs, to include raising a family or involved in culture or religion. The cost of these activities can be borne by society collectively, and expand the pool of work that needs to be done.
My ideas are influenced by the need for social justice and the need for society to set the norms for its future (instead of the "me first" attitude of individualism). However, my concept still relies on the mechanics of the market to ensure that the people can choose the suitable work based on their interest and skill and that the remuneration can be based on supply and demand, but determined holistically.
Tan Kin Lian
That's a good one. I always wonder why do people have to be so competitive; why do we have to be each others throat all the time; why do we need so many FT's to make it worse; why do our leaders need to accumulate tens of millions to prevent themselves from becoming corrupted; why do we need F1 or Casino; why do we have to so frantically try to use up all the resources provided my the mother earth; why can't we just live in moderation and enjoy what we have.
ReplyDeletePlease allow me to add a global perspective to this.
ReplyDeleteIn the past, there were natural barriers to entry which made it quite difficult for business to cross national boundaries. The recent advances in technology (internet, telecommunications, low cost air travel) have greatly eroded these natural barriers. Hence unlike in the past where only huge MNCs could afford to operate across borders, nowadays we find even SMEs operating an international business.
The consequence of this is that instead of solving the problem above at the national level, you have to increasingly solve the problem at a GLOBAL level.
If you implement social justice policies which restrict business or raise business cost, business would do the math and relocate if they find that it is no longer cost effective to operate in your country.
If you look at the problem globally, there are far more educated people than there are jobs. This is because even the poorest and most illiterate person in Africa knows that the way out of poverty is through education.
If a person in China and a person in Singapore have the same talent and skills, then in the long run there is no reason why the person in Singapore should earn more and have a better life simply because he was fortunate enough to be born in Singapore.
For business, it is also not really an option to try to be patriotic and keep the jobs in Singapore. If you did while your competitors went out to find the lowest cost inputs, then all that the business will end up achieving is losing to their competitors and eventually go bankrupt.
The mantra of magically raising the productivity of Singapore workers to justify higher wages is also a myth. If you can do something to raise productivity in Singapore, why can't other countries do the same? Unless Singapore workers are mutants with X-men like special powers, it would be safe to assume that whatever we can do, others can do it too.
In my view, these are problems with no practical operational solutions. The best that we can do is to help the disadvantaged in our society with safety nets and appropriate welfare distribution. can lose $50 billion in "strategic" investments, spend $100 million to host the 1 week APEC summit yet we refuse to give social welfare receipiants an extra $50 to $100.
It is blatantly obvious that we can do much more to help the poor in Singapore without raising any taxes if we simply re-prioritise our national objectives.
it sounds like a socio-capitalist society. you would always be assigned jobs and if you work more you earn more. there will be less crimes as well since many crimes happened due to jobless.
ReplyDeleteOver the past few years I have come to seriously question the fundamentals of what each person as an individual needs;
ReplyDelete1) Roof over your head that you own
2) Food
3) Education
4) Healthcare
So with all the advances in technology and communication which are supposed to make our life easier; how come it has become such a struggle just to provide oneself with the basics?
We are clearly moving in the wrong direction; 30 years ago the average middleclass family could survive on 1 income; Nowadays you need 2 incomes to support the average middlclass family. "Progress" has brought with it a heavy price.
Mr Tan, though your idea sounds very noble, but it does seems very backward and communist...
ReplyDeleteTime has changed and people look forward not backward and reminise over old times.
If we live in a agriculture type of community, it may be possible but we live in a country without resources except the people who work hard and with talent.
ReplyDeleteTo me, the way the country competes is fine but the social policy on those left behind is less than desirable.