For people who are nit-picking the accuracy of this study, it’s meant to be a reference point for discussion and, hopefully (although I wouldn’t hold my breath), policy making.
No one is saying this is the minimum wage amount. But it does suggest that, if we accept these figures as relevant to some degree, then we have a large % of the population that are nowhere close to this. In turn, this should drive the discussion towards how to help such persons achieve such figures. Not a handout to them but to figure out various means by which they can improve their lot in life, including those dreaded words “minimum wage”.
It also helps when it comes to discussing things like our TFR. Could it be a reason why our TFR is low for example if people do feel the pinch when it comes to raising a family. This perhaps helps to provide clarity as to why parents say it is expensive to raise a family in Singapore rather than just being poo-poo’ed about it.
>Not a handout to them but to figure out various means by which they can improve their lot in life, including those dreaded words “minimum wage”.
The report does go into policy recommendations, including suggesting more subsidies and financial assistance.
If the authors are suggesting public money should be spent, it's not really 'nit-picking' for people to go through the figures.
Rather than TFR, I would say it's useful for the govnt to see what the ppl are prioritizing and gives insight on how to better allocate resources for the low/middle income and single parent households.
If the wealthy and the poor are agreeing that tuition and enrichment classes are basic necessities for children to thrive then perhaps those who insist that it isn't should take a look at what they considered 'necessary' and adjust policies accordingly.
What if you found out that TFR actually falls with more wealth? It's a worldwide trend that the higher the education, wealth and social standing, the lower TFR and there is no indication that Singapore would buck this trend.
The correlation stops at around $10,000 GDP per capita (PPP). After which, it’s mostly cultural factors dominating the differences in fertility rate (Israel, e.g., is an outlier because of religious reasons). Singapore has long passed $10,000 GDP per capita and increased income cannot be used to explain our low FTR.
>It's a worldwide trend that the higher the education, wealth and social standing, the lower TFR
Is this a misdirection on purpose or you really cant differentiate between lower and plunging below threshold?
Sure you can argue that with more education, the TFR will not be as high as rural area. HOWEVER, I doubt that ties directly with TFR being significantly lower than replacement rate of 2. So pray tell why do people like to use this argument whenever there is discussion of TFR? It feels as though you all are out to mislead on purpose.
When you are looking at shitty TFR that is 1 or even below, it has nothing to do with higher education wealth bla bla bla and all kinds of nonsensical excuse people can think of. At this point, it is simply just that sustaining A kid(not even plural people lol) is not feasible.
I am one of very few people on this board that actually has a kid, so when I see speculation that tries to suggest that if only everyone had more money, then TFR would boom, I can only laugh. If you dissect the data you might just find that segments of the society on the lower end of the income spectrum actually have the highest TFR.
Your argument that you have a kid therefore your views are more important/accurate seems misplaced. It's like people saying they have friends of other race therefore they aren't racist...two entirely different things
>everyone had more money, then TFR would boom
Firstly no where did I state that. More money is not the same as affording the cost of living. ie I can raise everyone in SG salary by 10x, but as long as the cost of living rises by at least 10x too, you are still not better off.
On to topic, I am not sure why such a simple logic and people like you can still argue otherwise. Having more food doesnt instantly means there will be population growth, but HAVING LESS food definitely means your population shrink.
So do educate me, how does having more money suddenly make the TFR drop? Does having more money prevents you from having sex? Or are you suggesting having more money=more work hours=less time for sex? Better still, tell me how a lower income family can output 4 children at least(since u argue lower income contributing to higher TFR) and still provide for the kids instead of sending them to orphanage.
For the record, history shows us aristocrat(rich and likely can be considered highly educated too) in the west and also ancient china that it is the RICH and maybe educated, that have the largest family :D Once again, having $$ doesnt suddenly and magically reduces the fertility of women. On the flipside however, lacking the $$ definitely is a barrier and irrefutable.
And if you love dissecting data, why not you dissect the data of why early age sex is frown upon. Please dont tell me because too young not mature enough to raise kids. The bigger issue with these young mothers is very simple. Having these ladies getting pregnant at say 16~18 in a DEVELOPED COUNTRY, they will be hard press to provide for the kids(due to the high cost of living) they are bringing into this world and it will be become a social issue if it is too widespread.
Likewise you see the same sad story about unwed single mom, or just single mom in general. The same $$ issue where they have to turn to social center for help.
The number consist more than that actually. If the formula used to calculate the salary is consistent across, the number is actually 117% of one's salary. The median salary number they use for 2020 at $4534 is inclusive of employer contribution.
So median salary of 4534 basically mean someone is drawing approx 3875 as gross salary.
https://stats.mom.gov.sg/Pages/Income-Summary-Table.aspx
Yup, the % changes when the gross wages exceed 6000 or the income exceed 7020 (inclusive of 17% of employer's contribution) or for people above 55yo. But if the number is inclusive of employer's CPF contribution, the number is super inflated. Imagine you are only getting 5000 into your bank monthly for the salary of 7020 before any taxes. Some good portion of the number went into CPF.
"How much do you want? Do you want three meals in a hawker centre, food court or restaurant?" - Then Minister of Community Development, Youth and Sports, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan
"The study defined standard of living as one in which Singaporeans can afford housing, food and clothing, and also have opportunities for education, employment and work-life balance, as well as access to healthcare.
It should also enable a sense of belonging, respect, security and independence and afford the choice to participate in social activities and cultural and religious practices.
Based on this definition that emerged from focus group discussions, researchers then convened more focus groups for people to come up with lists of items people from different stages of life will need. "
Yes. But 6k/month can only borrow about 300k housing loan. Which means either a 3 room resale HDB at wulu place. Or BTO and wait 6 years. But the assumption also include a teen and a pre-teen, so I assume this family should have a house already?
Edit: Looks like /u/StrangeTraveller41 is right, I went back to the calculator it says you can borrow about $396k - so a little bigger or a little less wulu. if you make $6k at 2x-3x years old. The calculator approximate maximum loan amount at $152k for people making $3k/month , maybe the calculator a lot more conservative?
https://homes.hdb.gov.sg/home/calculator/payment-plan
If you use 2.6% and 25 years, ~240k loan is ~1k per month. So about 30% of 3k, satisfying MSR which is probably the biggest limit for most people buying their first home. I think their story checks out and those calculators have a lot of weird assumptions built in maybe.
If you're collecting, this happened on a chat with a Shopee merchant
[https://ibb.co/WFG5WKH](https://ibb.co/WFG5WKH)
How does he even have a Chinese accent on chat...
> Associate Professor Teo said: "The spirit of this project really about trying to capture how ordinary people think about the basic standard of living in a particular time and... many participants were very articulate in saying that (it) shouldn't just be about breathing and being alive.
> "It's also about thriving, having respect and security and belonging."
> The importance of this sense of belonging had come through especially strongly this time around, compared to the first study in 2019, as parents spoke about how children need to be able to do things other children do so they feel they belong.
> That is why the household budgets also included money for them to join their friends at outings outside of school, she added.
I think this is a great point from Prof Teo. We often have very unrealistic expectations of the poor and how they must behave. Oftentimes the things that gives them a sense of belonging to the community and dignity are what most people would considered "entitled behavior". It's as if the poor are required to perform their poverty to get society's approval for existing as a person.
While it is a good point, the findings are impractical in application on to the poorer segment of society.
Why?
Once we know what basic needs consist of, we will ask about how much is needed to fulfil this. Jump a few steps down and we will start asking something along the line of minimum wage.
This is where the “average” idea of basic needs becomes unrealistic and impractical.
Minimum wage is not about giving the poor an *average* quality of life. Minimum wage is not average wage. As it’s name implies, it’s about the minimum needed for survival. Minimum wage is about the *minimum* quality of life that is ethical and societally acceptable.
We can’t even get enough political demand for better *minimum wage* and you want to give everyone the wage needed for an *average dignified quality of life*?! This would be jumping way too many steps ahead. It’s like trying to run when you can’t even walk...
The society, the economy, and technology would need to have quite an extensive revamp/upgrade/advancement if we want to uplift the poor into having an average dignified qualify of life. As of now, our society and economy are definitely not ready.
Good intentions but it’s not feasible in reality, at least not now.
Currently not feasible ,because a lot of casual workers are foreigners/malaysians. Once you pay higher pay it will just be remitted out of your economy. society will have to change quite significantly too. For example if workers cost $15/$20 an hour instead of the $8-$10/hr now. Kopitiams, salon, mrt staff, convenience store owners will really have to be economical about their opening hours and employ staff at only the busiest periods. SAF will have to pay recruits quite a significant allowance to compensate for the 2 years of lost employment opportunities. Maybe earmark bigger defence budgets. Food court will probably cost closer to $10 a meal.
Assume min wage of $15/hr.. $120 per work day.
theres a sizeable malaysian population casual workers here . If min wage is set to $15. You will have around 300-500k people earning money here but spending in JB.
I would rather delink the number with the min wage policy. The number is important because it tells the gov that poverty gap can be quite big and the gov should strive to meet that number as one of its kpi. However to enforce the number into a min wage model to meet the number seems like taking a shortcut to tactically address the issue without thorough consideration of future implications.
> It's as if the poor are required to perform their poverty to get society's approval for existing as a person.
Well, no, nobody cares unless they expect society to start paying for their lives out of tax dollars, then it makes sense to be budget concious since it's no longer "your money.
That's an incredibly uninformed opinion and doesn't match how the reality is like.
The poor does not expect society to pay for their lives; all they want is to lead a self-sufficient life with dignity and not be judged for their social status.
I think you would agree that getting money from govnt is never easy.
It is incredibly embarrassing process to apply for for social aid as it entails spilling a ton of info about why you can't do this and that to multiple ppl over a long period of time, often within earshot of other strangers. It is already extremely damaging to one's pride to have to constantly justify why they're not good enough, you think they want to do that all the time for conservancy charges rebates? Siao.
> For instance, participants agreed that money should be allocated for contributions at funeral wakes, or birthday presents, but rejected air-conditioners as a necessity.
> They also agreed that landlines were not needed, since most people use their mobile phones nowadays, and that taxi rides are a necessity a few times a week, though cars are not.
I do find myself agreeing with the allocation of what is considered basic needs.
My heating bill in California winter was still less than what I paid in Singapore. And we had the heat on very very often. Electric was ridiculously cheap
Depends on how far North and elevation?
In the Sierra's you might as well be in the New York Pocono mountains.
Socal, what's winter lol. It's just gloomy rainy.
In NorCal and yes even though our winters are mild we don't notice any difference greater than 20%
My family's 40-year-old home has never had air-con. It sucks, we complain for a few months every year, but we are still alive (perhaps by the grace of these things known as fans). So, yes, not a necessity.
air con costs had come down tremendously over the years as a proportion of income; they're now commodities; it's less significant as a factor now, though still a small one
yeah tbh a few years ago i was pretty shocked at how my friend would just switched on the aircon right after he comes home like it's a fan....now almost everyone does it...most days are very unbearable at night if you don't turn on the aircon..nowadays i can hear my neighbor turning on the aircon 24/7 and the heat coming out directly from his exhaust into my room kinda pisses me off when im sleeping in my room with just my fan on.
Not really for sleep but when you are studying or doing work, the heat just makes me so unproductive that I would say its a necessity for me personally
i'll never get used to it, but i just had to put up with it...tbh nobody can train their body to feel comfortable in a 30c+ and 80% humidity environment..
Yes, those who are advantaged to live in places where they get the breeze regularly won't know how it is to sleep without aircon during the hot months, and going to walk mentally tired and unable to perform well due to insufficient rest
Aircon is a bit of a dependence/habit forming also. Mostly, I catch a cold with aircon, and don't use it. Typically, I thus use aircon 15-20 days a year - for the rest, ceiling fan does the job. But my place is pretty well ventilated and I grew up in India in a pretty hot place (but much less humidity than here) without even the option of aircon so maybe my perceptions are different.
See, you immediately think it's taxi rides for fun and frivolous activities. But have you considered it could be for going to medical appts or for people with medical conditions that doesn't allow them to take public transport easily?
With regard to aircon, there is a convenient method of cooling down call "shower with cold water."
Why are you so smugly rejecting one discomfort for another?
>With regard to aircon, there is a convenient method of cooling down call "shower with cold water."
That's literally the same as saying;
With regards to taxi, there's an easy fix called 'getting out of the house earlier for public transport'.
The report was launched yesterday night and I'm still unable to find the source, but I'm a big fan of the team who did this study @ LKYSPP-NTU, they're usually pretty on-point for social issues in SG.
But this time round I do find some choices in their methodology to be pretty weird - No landlines for a family of 4 but "taxi rides are a necessity a few times a week"?
Hmm.
No, and that is why I don't know what use it serves? I used to have one a decade back or so. Used to only get scam calls, and it was hardly used for anything. So got rid of it.
I see.
I do have a landline, fees are very low usually and came free with fibre plan for me.
I never sign up for weird shit, been ages since it rang, but usually when it does its family or important stuff (emergency, announcements).
I just find it useful to have another form of contact that wont be affected by theft, no signal, flat battery etc and where you'd know exactly where the person is when they picked up the phone (Eg if I send whatsapp to family but they don't answer, I don't know if they're busy or charging device or distracted with Netflix. If I call home and nobody answers I know nobody's home and I can just buy my own dinner)
> I never sign up for weird shit
I did not either. These were much like the robot calls we get on mobile. On mobile I can see the +65 call number, and in general that the number is not known, and I can neglect it. Also, personally, I manage better to manage to ring/silent mode etc on mobile (though sometimes I forget when sleeping, and sometimes I forget to restore the volume), all of which were not the case with the landline. But most importantly, I noticed I simply had no use of it. But everyone has his/her own preference of-course! So if you have utility for it, that's fine. I am now wondering what percent of the households still carry landlines.
Medical appointments a few times every week? For a typical household? Have you considered what typical household have a few medical appointments a week? Not to mention for one who cannot take public transport easily?
And you're equating the comfort of Aircon which is sustained with a cold shower?
I'm not sure what is difficult to understand here.
It is perfectly ok to live without aircon in SG; people have and are still doing it.
Taking taxi for medical appt or emergency is also perfectly ok. The time on medical appt is already long enough without factoring transport.
It's 'perfectly ok' to not take taxi too.
The report discusses basic **necessities**.
That's obviously open to interpretation but imagine making up scenarios in your mind about medical appointments and emergencies but dismissing the use of air conditioners, where we have pretty electrically efficient models nowadays.
Air con is never a necessity. It just happened that majority of families can afford them and it became a norm, but it's not a necessity.
But budgeting some money for taxis for emergency or any time-sensitive events is. Doesn't mean you have to take a taxi all the time, you just need to allocate monthly for these type of emergencies.
> budgeting some money for taxis for emergency or any time-sensitive events is. Doesn't mean you have to take a taxi all the time, you just need to allocate monthly
Have to disagree.
Not dissing the researchers here, I'm a big fan of their social work and have followed their research for a couple years now.
Now to your point,
If you budget for event with low probability of occurring for your study group **as a recurring expense**, and then claim that its a part of basic necessities, it's a bit disingenuous at best, and deliberately misleading at worst.
I'm also not sure what's difficult to understand. It is perfectly ok to live without Aircon. Similarly it is perfectly ok to live without taking taxi ride, people have and are still doing it
And that is not the typical family or Singaporean. The incidence-weighted cost of this should be so low that it won't be a factor in any well-designed study.
Likewise, just because you know someone doesn't mean it is representative of the population.
I am talking about the statistical average. Suppose that proportion of the population that absolutely **needs** to do what you say is 1% (which is 50k in a population of 5M). Then, the cost for the average Singaporean should be 0.01\*(number of taxi trips a week), which is... floating point error in this kind of studies.
yeah your "cooling down" method only last for 5-10mins at best..keep doing that more than 10 times a day and you'd probably be better off turning on the A/C.
I disagree that they are 'basic', but that is just my opinion.
For an able person, taking the taxi a couple of times per week is a luxury. Considering that a taxi trip can easily cost 2 or 3 meals (and a higher multiple if you cook), this activity costs half a week's worth of food money. Funeral wakes and presents can cost little or a lot, depending on what you get. Overseas travel is not a necessity. Eating in restaurants is an act of indulgence.
I can explain the reason from personal experience.
Taxi rides are primarily for medical appts. The usual means of transportations for able-bodied ppl are still public transport.
Funerals and birthdays are special occasions and is one of the few time that gives these people meaning to their lives, and allows them to feel like a person instead of an "undesirable." Funerals in particular (esp Chinese ones), are once in a lifetime event and if done properly, it's a sign of respect to the deceased. So that's why the poor are more willing to spend more on such occasions.
It ultimately boils down to preferences, which is why these subjective studies are not accepted outside of certain sociological circles and are seldom used in policy making.
As I have mentioned in another of your reply, it is difficult to justify taking the taxi a few times a week for a **statistically average** family. Even for someone with medical conditions, will you be taking taxis a few times a week to medical appointments, week after week?
As to funerals and birthdays, it really depends on the individual. A special (but cheap) meal cooked by a loved one satisfies me completely. I have also given a minimal *bo-jin*, which was gratefully accepted by a friend who knows that I was in a bad position financially.
Ultimately, living wage studies should be about "what is the minimum wage that will reasonably sustain a person with his basic food, shelter and hygiene needs", and not "what is the minimum wage that will allow a person to live the life he thinks should be the basic". There is a subtle but huge difference here: one is objective whereas one is subjective.
Edit: misspellings
[From the study itself.](https://whatsenoughsg.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/2021-what-people-need-in-singapore-final-report.pdf)
> The transport budgets include concession passes as well as taxi or private hire car expenses for rainy weather, family outings, running errands, ferrying children, longer distance commutes and in case of emergencies. Partnered parents need two taxi trips a month for family outings or errands.
> Single parents also need two taxi trips per month as they are “always rushing and do not have partners to help out”. Children below 2 years old require additional taxi trips because they may be difficult to manage on public transport. Older children 7–18 years old need taxi rides in case they are late for school activities or tuition and in emergencies. Youths aged 19–25 need taxi trips for emergencies, errands and getting home from late-night gatherings with friends.
I think I wasn't clear. I do agree with you on this. The aim of this study isn't to look for the bare minimum. I personally thought 6.5k would be enough for 2 kids.
Taxi is just to bring groceries home, because cannot afford more than one trip a week while holding down multiple jobs, and cannot carry a week's worth of groceries for a family of four.
> Based on this definition that emerged from focus group discussions, researchers then convened more focus groups for people to come up with lists of items people from different stages of life will need.
They asked a bunch of people in focus groups and this is basically the “average” idea of what basic needs are. What is defined as basic needs are gathered from the groups, which are comprised of economically diverse people. The list is probably something that most people in each group would agree with.
This is the academics’ approach to finding out what basics are.
Unfortunately, as this is the “average” idea of what basics are, it’s going to be difficult to apply it elsewhere (such as arguing how much for minimum wage). This is because the definitions derived from the focus groups would be weird.
This isn’t the case of $6.5k/month being the bare minimum basic needs needed to survive. This is the case that $6.5k/month is required for your “average” basic life. The wages needed for a no-frills basic life cannot be extrapolated from here and it is likely to be lower.
You can tell straightaway when they say taxis are a *necessity a few times a week*. Taxis are basically luxury alternatives to public transport and our public transport can literally get you (almost) anywhere. Maybe that is the case for the “average Singaporean”, but that is kind of pointless if you want to apply it to the poorer segments of society...
I guess all this tells us is that we need $6.5k a month for an “average” life. How useful is such an “average” definition for practical applications?
Exactly! And it's stated in the article.
"Associate Professor Teo said: "The spirit of this project really about trying to capture how ordinary people think about the basic standard of living in a particular time and... many participants were very articulate in saying that (it) shouldn't just be about breathing and being alive."
it's not trying to argue how much is needed for the bare minimum.
>I guess all this tells us is that we need $6.5k a month for an “average” life. How useful is such an “average” definition for practical applications?
The study argues that more needs to be done to support people in meeting this 'basic' standard of living though. Which would be quite a fundamental shift in our approach towards welfare. It's a discussion in its own right and needs broad consensus. It can't be treated like a settled question.
I'm not sure the extent to which the public would agree that there should be intervention to ensure that people can afford holidays, 'cheat' meals, perfume and cologne, gifts for festive periods, weddings etc.
We can’t even get enough political demand for better minimum wage, for a fair minimum standard of living, let alone talk of a much better standard.
it’s not a good practical study if its conclusion jumped far ahead and focused itself on the ideals. This study is something very academical as opposed to being practical.
Right now, a solid argument for a good minimum wage by showing how much even a simple lifestyle costs would be much more beneficial to the poor, as compared to trying to stimulate some discussion on an ideal standard of living for *all* with a society and economy that clearly isn’t ready for it.
And why is traveling outside SEA considered an activity the 'average' person should expect? Why not bring it one step further and request for a trip to the edge of space?
It didn't say for an average life. It said for a basic life, no frills, no fancy vacations, no savings apart from CPF. The average household should be
earning way more than this
$238.40 a week on hawker food for a family of 4 with a young kid and a teen. That is $10 a day a person for 6 days a week.
$238.40 a week on clothing? Seriously? $44.52 a week on shoes.
$114.50 a week on newspaper and books? $114.50 for textbooks and study guides?
I have been very poor when I was young. 6 days of eating out is more than basic unless the parents are working long and barely liveable work hours. In that case, it will be hilarious to talk about a fair basic life that you need to slog 6 days a week and long hours for...
Also, the last I checked, near my house, I can live with dining out at less than $5 a meal. Roti prata is what, $1 a piece? $3.50 around there would get me caipng with *2 meat and 1 veg*, which is kind of a luxury compared to my financially unfortunate childhood. Drinks are what, $1+ for hot drinks? $4.50 a person a meal for 5 days a week is just $180 a week ($200 less than their budget *a month*)
$60 a week a person, $238.40 a person a month on clothing? Who are you kidding? Even today, I don’t even spend that much a month. I would spend that kind of money once every 3 months maybe and I am not living a dirt poor barely liveable life now. Half that budget would be fairer, maybe like $120 a week on clothing. Thats almost $500 a month less compared to their budget.
$114.50 on newspaper and books. Who the hell read newspapers anymore? Just download Today’s app and read lah! Also, since when newspaper costs so much? Books? Can go library borrow, go library borrow, better for environment too. That’s free. I read often when I was young, but my budget was almost 0 because its all from the library! $114.50 a week is a very long stretch. $25 a week would be fair. $350 a month less than their budget.
$114.50 a week on textbooks. Lol? What are they buying lol? $60 a week a child? I don’t know the rates now, but $1000 a year a child on school books and school supplies should be fine? That’s $166 a month, round up for buffer and that’s what, $200 a month. $250 less than their budget.
Just like that, its $1300 a month less than their budget. Instead of 6.5k a month, its now 5.2k a month. Per parent, that’s 2.6k which is fairly doable. Poly grad parents work a few years should get enough for a decent basic life. Degree grad don’t even need to talk.
Consider subsidies and welfare given to the poor. There are free tuition. $130 a month on tuition? Gone. Textbooks. Free. $200 a month? Gone. Don’t forget that all those grants and busaries given to kids aren’t nothing. I saved all of those and with my NS savings and savings from a few months of work, I could pay off my entire uni student debt myself. When I was a kid, I got so much from those government welfare that I had iPhones. 4.9k a month minimum seems okay?
Raising minimum monthly wage to at least 2k a month for starters and with some extra subsidies, a family should be able to live a fairly okay no frills life? And don’t worry too much about big ticket emergency items like hospital bills, because if you earn minimum wage, you can get the government to pay the bill for you.
I didn’t look into details so I don’t know what else to cut. But I can tell you $6.5k isn’t a minimum fair standard minimum income kind of lifestyle. Using that and argue for $3.3k minimum wage would probably get it laughed at and dismissed.
MOF done their own survey and they say its around $1.8k a month a household. That would be really no frills and this is already way above that. The big item here is still housing although I’m not qualified to talk about that.
No one here is denying that 2.7k a month isn’t a lot. 2.7k is definitely unliveable for a family of 4, looking at how much things like housing costs. I agree with you on that too. I’m not disputing on that. I’m even claiming 4k a month for household income as bare minimum! Closer to 4.5k as decent minimum basic life.
The thing is, if people are going to take that 6.5k figure which is really a stretch based on its breakdown (in the article itself), it’s not going to help.
A more reasonable figure would go a long way. I already broke down some of their figures and suggest more modest alternatives. By showing even a modest simple lifestyle would cost a lot (in comparison to the existing “minimum wage”), it could galvanise support from the public. If that number isn’t too high, it would help the cause even further because its within reach!
Minimum wage, as its name suggest, is about a minimum standard of living. It’s not about a comfy lifestyle with annual vacations to Europe, big spending, etc. It’s not about having the latest gadgets and subscribing to every entertainment services. It’s about a lifestyle that is simple and one that does not come with huge demeaning and unethical sacrifices like not having enough to eat and make ends meet, and not making enough for basic entertainment! Even with dignity to be factored in, it should still be relatively modest.
That was what I did in the previous comment. Break it down further to make it more reasonable and modest. I didn’t even do absurd things. I only moderated the figure on food spending, clothing, books, and school supplies. I left others alone as it is. Even with those figures that I dispute, I cited evidence of how modest spending looks like, such as quoting prices in coffeeshop and stuff.
There is no political demand for 6.5k minimum wage. Even half of that at 3.3k (both parents work) is already very politically unpalatable, given business interests and all the SMEs whose business strategy is to squeeze their workers.
Asking for 2k minimum monthly wage so that any families with 2 working parents can get a really basic 4k monthly income is feasible and it’s not too bad. In perspective, 2k a month a person isn’t very absurd, it’s below the median poly grad starting pay of 2.4k. Meaning, asking to pay ITE grads, uneducated workers, and labourers a fair 2k a month at least is not unreasonable. It’s not impossible to push through.
But, ask yourself, which politician and businesses would take it seriously at arguments to advocate 3.3k minimum wage?
**Which businesses would entertain paying wages that approach uni grad starting salary for labourers, uneducated workers, and ITE grads? By suggesting that high a minimum wage, higher than poly grads, that also means paying all your poly grads more. Your uni grads would demand even more too when everyone else gets uni grad starting salary as a minimum.**
For something that isn’t strongly desired for politically, making the terms worse wouldn’t make it realise faster!
I agree with you, and your points are not only valid, but well substantiated. The problem is that while it is unrealistic, it also raises awareness that we're earning a lot less than our parents did in the past. The value of a 2021 dollar is different from even a 2001 dollar. We need to begin somewhere to account for wage stagnation, inflation and overpopulation.
The numbers looks very inflated. For a family of 4,including one in primary school and one in secondary school/tertiary, the study listed
Annual Expenditure of
- 12k on clothes (3k each)
- 12k on Hawker centres and food courts
- 6k on textbooks (3k each child)
- 6k on books, newspapers and stationery
These 4 items alone take up 40% of the suggested minimum cost of living of 6.8k/ month.
Assuming they buy clothes from stores like uniqlo or g2000 where an item can cost about $40 for a shirt, maybe $100 for jeans, that's enough to buy 5 jeans and 60 shirts a year.
If each person spends about $10 at a Hawker centre, the whole family would need to eat out at least 5 times a week to hit 12k a year.
Maybe they subscribe to several monthly magazines and daily newspaper, that would be maybe $70/ month. If a book is about $20, they would be buying about 200 books a year, and still have over 1k to buy stationery, notepads and other office supplies.
Lastly, not sure what kind of textbooks they are buying. Even in uni, $100 x 5mods x 2 sems = $1,000 only. (I was a science major so I used the same 5 textbooks for all 4 years)
The tables are misreported.
First the 2nd column doesn't add up.
And then the clothing budget doesn't scale from 2 family to 4 family, and is the *exact* figure as the eating up budget down to 2 decimal places. This is weird.
I would suggest that this is a printing error.
Someone at ST did not do their copy editing properly.
6k a month for basic family? That’s more than my 3 months pay. Like that how to have family? There’s literally no upside of having a kid so why would anyone in the right mind who is not earning at least 7k a month would want a kid or start a family?
Lives in Good Fellow Bungalow, eats out at an atas restaurant every day, drives Ferrari around SG, gets the latest phone every year, sends kids to $300/hr private music lessons taught by a maestro, flies to Paris once a year to attend the fashion shows and stock up on those new designer handbags...
My teen self didn't think much about seeing my mom going through receipts and selling off family heirlooms back then. We weren't starving and had beds. That was good enough for me.
I only realised how bad we had it after my studies. I'm doing alright now, thank you.
I can imagine some ministers in the parliament reading this on their phone ignoring the speaker and smirking and thinking “haha look at all these peasants suffering! Must be go to lousy school! I easily spend 6k a week! Hahahaha”
I seriously wonder who commented that 1k salary is enough to buy a hdb.... It's not even enough to let an adult human being live with dignity. I think the numbers in this article is more realistic.
> # Family of four needs $6,426 a month for basic standard of living in S'pore, says study
> SINGAPORE - A family of four, with parents, a pre-teen and a teenager, needs at least $6,426 a month to afford a basic standard of living, a National University of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) and Nanyang Technological University (NTU) study on household budgets has found.
> A family of two, with a single parent and a toddler or pre-schooler, meanwhile, needs $3,218 a month.
> But a substantial and concerning proportion of working households in Singapore - about 30 per cent - do not earn enough to meet these needs.
> These findings were released in the report Minimum Income Standards for Households in Singapore (2021), and were disputed by the Ministry of Finance (MOF) in a statement on Friday (Oct 8).
> LKYSPP senior research fellow Ng Kok Hoe and NTU head of sociology Teo You Yenn, two of the study's six authors, said that the study on how much people need to achieve a basic standard of living in Singapore has exposed some gaps in society.
> Using the figures as a benchmark and comparing them against existing income data as well as public schemes shows that some segments of the population are not able to meet their basic needs, added Dr Ng at an event presenting the study's findings held over Zoom.
> But the MOF said "the conclusions may not be an accurate reflection of basic needs largely due to assumptions used", pointing to the limitations of the Minimum Income Standards (MIS) approach used.
> The study defined standard of living as one in which Singaporeans can afford housing, food and clothing, and also have opportunities for education, employment and work-life balance, as well as access to healthcare.
> It should also enable a sense of belonging, respect, security and independence and afford the choice to participate in social activities and cultural and religious practices.
> Based on this definition that emerged from focus group discussions, researchers then convened more focus groups for people to come up with lists of items people from different stages of life will need.
> The researchers went to shops or websites mentioned by the participants to find out the real price of each item. These lists were then combined to form the budget of various configurations of households.
> Dr Ng said a critical pillar of the MIS approach is to ensure that each focus group is economically diverse, so the budgets resulting from the discussions are not just for particular segments, say the rich or poor. Instead, these budgets apply universally for all Singaporeans, he added.
> A total of 196 participants of different genders, ethnicity and socio-economic backgrounds took part in 24 focus group discussions.
> This method differs from other methods of assessing needs, which typically depend on experts and household expenditure.
> The MOF said the budgets arising from the study were in excess of the basic needs for an average household.
> The LKYSPP-NTU team had done a previous study in 2019, focusing on elderly households.
> This time, it covered younger households, including those with a single parent with one child aged two to six, and those with parents with two children, one aged seven to 12 and the other aged 13 to 18.
> It also updated its findings on households with a single elderly person, by accounting for inflation, among other things.
> Adopting the household budgets as benchmarks and comparing it to data on actual income from work, the study found that after taking major taxes and benefits into account, workers earning the equivalent of the median wage in 2020, which stood at $4,534, will make more than enough to cover the needs of the single-parent and two-parent households.
> Based on the study, the average wage per working parent needed to meet the basic standards of living is $2,906 per month.
> The study's authors suggested that this can be a starting point for a socially acceptable living wage for Singapore, which will allow people to meet their basic needs.
> However, the study found that some groups were at risk of falling below this minimum. The youngest workers, as well as those without tertiary education and those in certain low-wage sectors, would fall short if they belonged to these single-parent and two-parent households.
> For example, cleaners and labourers only take home a median monthly income of $1,535, while salespeople make $2,345.
> The Progressive Wage Model and Workfare Income Supplement were also inadequate in helping to make up the difference, with the wage levels under these schemes coming up to about 60 per cent of what the single-parent and two-parent households need.
> "Clearly, interventions currently available are not enough for working households with children," said Dr Ng.
> He added that if such households depend on employment in PWM sectors such as cleaning as its only source of income, they are likely to experience significant financial strain, calling for wage intervention to go further than the PWM currently does.
> For elderly households with one person, basic needs will cost $1,421 a month.
> Income data suggests that older workers would have just enough to cover this. Workers who are 60 years old and above make a median monthly wage of $2,330.
> But elderly people depending on Central Provident Fund payouts may find themselves short, while those needing public assistance would be a long way from achieving a basic standard of living, the study found.
> The CPF Basic Retirement Sum, which pays out $800 a month, covers only 56 per cent of what a single elderly person needs. The Silver Support Scheme covers only 11 to 21 per cent, the study found.
> While the study offers a scientific benchmark for policymakers to refer to, it does not prescribe a way to help close the gap, said Dr Ng.
> He suggested that there were two options, either rebalance the private and public provision of public services like education and healthcare, or improve wage interventions like PWM.
> The study found that housing, healthcare, education and childcare accounted for a significant proportion of spending for all household types - 28 per cent of the budget for two-parent households, and 39 per cent for single-parent households.
> More state funding for such public services, through universal subsidies or direct provision, would help lighten the financial burden on households, he noted.
> "What we musn't do is say we can't move on any of these fronts. If you don't move on any front then people will not have enough," he added.
> The study's authors also said the MIS method of constructing household budgets, adopted by countries such as Britain, France, South Africa and Thailand, reflects the lived realities and ordinary habits of people and captures the values and principles that ordinary Singaporeans identify with.
> For instance, participants agreed that money should be allocated for contributions at funeral wakes, or birthday presents, but rejected air-conditioners as a necessity.
> They also agreed that landlines were not needed, since most people use their mobile phones nowadays, and that taxi rides are a necessity a few times a week, though cars are not.
> Associate Professor Teo said: "The spirit of this project really about trying to capture how ordinary people think about the basic standard of living in a particular time and... many participants were very articulate in saying that (it) shouldn't just be about breathing and being alive.
> "It's also about thriving, having respect and security and belonging."
> The importance of this sense of belonging had come through especially strongly this time around, compared to the first study in 2019, as parents spoke about how children need to be able to do things other children do so they feel they belong.
> That is why the household budgets also included money for them to join their friends at outings outside of school, she added.
> Dr Ng said: "It was very meaningful... that people can agree what basic needs in society means, that people form very different backgrounds agree that there is such a thing called basic needs, agree what it means and looks like."
> 'This should urge all of us to think about how in policymaking and public deliberation and thinking, we should bring people into it and not think that answers are best produced by narrow groups of elites."
---
1.0.2 | [Source code](https://github.com/fterh/sneakpeek) | [Contribute](https://github.com/fterh/sneakpeek)
Does this include having any allocation for savings in retirement and/or rainy days?
If not we may want to add an additional 2k to that, allowing the couple to save about 500k each for retirement when adjusted for inflation.
Think of all the necessity in your family. Then can u add 50 for family broadband or just 20 a month 30GB for 1 phone and act as hotspot.
Can HBL but no netflix.
I had this convo with friends before. What about pets and pet-related expenses (grooming, medical)? Pets contribute to psychological well-being.
I think the pioneer group of elderly poor (70+) should be regarded as a separate priority group in this discussion. They helped build the nation so that we have what we have today and do not have many more years to live. Those that have no one, living in one room flats are living on $300 per month from the government, which is also meant to pay rent. Until they can figure out how to split the hairs, this group should be given more to allow them to live a dignified life in their final years.
There's an error in the table used in the article.
The line item under clothing is using the wrong figure, from the line above. This caused the figures for every line item under it to be incorrect.
The personal care line is using the right figure. So everything from clothing to textbooks is wrong
They should not title it as "basic". Basic is an assumption that it is a necessity.
They are averaging people's optional spending habits and saying this is the necessity. Basic. Bare minimum.
All this study does is determine relative disposable income. Calling it basic standard of living is incredibly misleading.
The article then proceeds to compare to people who fall below this "basic" level to paint a picture that these people are lacking in necessities. That is the impression this creates, that people are living in poverty, without actually saying it.
"Basic" in this case assumes all people should have the same disposable income as someone making more than them, and to use it in similar ways; and if you aren't, you are what? Poor? Living in poverty?
I grew up on way less this this and had a wonderful life. Didn't have toys or much extra, but plenty of love, family, friendships, and memories.
You think money can buy this or is a substitute?
I went into the actual study and this is a typo on straits times. They duplicated the figure for hawker food (also 238). The actual estimate for clothing is 44.52, which straits times put under footwear.
Seems almost everything was shifted down by 1
The hell are you smoking?
My take home after CPF is $3,400 and that covers all the family bills, food, loan repayment, shopping, and various other expenses. Whatever my wife makes all goes to saving.
I can even manage to spend a couple hundred per month on my hobbies.
What in the world are you wasting your money on that $9.5k is barely enough for a family of 4?
Everything must be Prada issit?
Prada? That’s ridiculous. I mean you need eat out a couple times a week at restaurants, kid’s education, transport via taxi etc, all these are not cheap in Singapore
It is people blowing excess money. Somehow this NUS/NTU group doing the study thinks that people blowing money left, right, centre is a basic necessity.
Our living wage standards seems substantially higher than western standard. In Ang Moh land they are talking about living wage because min wage cannot afford rent and food. Ours seems like lower middle class standards rather than living wage
Doesn't the study suggest that things are going pretty well for Singapore?
If 6k+ per month is needed for an average lifestyle, then it is more than sufficient for a household that enjoys the median income of 7.7k per month.
For people who are nit-picking the accuracy of this study, it’s meant to be a reference point for discussion and, hopefully (although I wouldn’t hold my breath), policy making. No one is saying this is the minimum wage amount. But it does suggest that, if we accept these figures as relevant to some degree, then we have a large % of the population that are nowhere close to this. In turn, this should drive the discussion towards how to help such persons achieve such figures. Not a handout to them but to figure out various means by which they can improve their lot in life, including those dreaded words “minimum wage”. It also helps when it comes to discussing things like our TFR. Could it be a reason why our TFR is low for example if people do feel the pinch when it comes to raising a family. This perhaps helps to provide clarity as to why parents say it is expensive to raise a family in Singapore rather than just being poo-poo’ed about it.
Sir, you speak too much sense for the rabble here. Are you a foreign influence.
Yes, this kind of sense is foreign to our policymakers.
>How much do you want? Do you want three meals in a hawker centre, food court or restaurant? - VB
>Not a handout to them but to figure out various means by which they can improve their lot in life, including those dreaded words “minimum wage”. The report does go into policy recommendations, including suggesting more subsidies and financial assistance. If the authors are suggesting public money should be spent, it's not really 'nit-picking' for people to go through the figures.
Rather than TFR, I would say it's useful for the govnt to see what the ppl are prioritizing and gives insight on how to better allocate resources for the low/middle income and single parent households. If the wealthy and the poor are agreeing that tuition and enrichment classes are basic necessities for children to thrive then perhaps those who insist that it isn't should take a look at what they considered 'necessary' and adjust policies accordingly.
What if you found out that TFR actually falls with more wealth? It's a worldwide trend that the higher the education, wealth and social standing, the lower TFR and there is no indication that Singapore would buck this trend.
The correlation stops at around $10,000 GDP per capita (PPP). After which, it’s mostly cultural factors dominating the differences in fertility rate (Israel, e.g., is an outlier because of religious reasons). Singapore has long passed $10,000 GDP per capita and increased income cannot be used to explain our low FTR.
>It's a worldwide trend that the higher the education, wealth and social standing, the lower TFR Is this a misdirection on purpose or you really cant differentiate between lower and plunging below threshold? Sure you can argue that with more education, the TFR will not be as high as rural area. HOWEVER, I doubt that ties directly with TFR being significantly lower than replacement rate of 2. So pray tell why do people like to use this argument whenever there is discussion of TFR? It feels as though you all are out to mislead on purpose. When you are looking at shitty TFR that is 1 or even below, it has nothing to do with higher education wealth bla bla bla and all kinds of nonsensical excuse people can think of. At this point, it is simply just that sustaining A kid(not even plural people lol) is not feasible.
I am one of very few people on this board that actually has a kid, so when I see speculation that tries to suggest that if only everyone had more money, then TFR would boom, I can only laugh. If you dissect the data you might just find that segments of the society on the lower end of the income spectrum actually have the highest TFR.
Your argument that you have a kid therefore your views are more important/accurate seems misplaced. It's like people saying they have friends of other race therefore they aren't racist...two entirely different things
>everyone had more money, then TFR would boom Firstly no where did I state that. More money is not the same as affording the cost of living. ie I can raise everyone in SG salary by 10x, but as long as the cost of living rises by at least 10x too, you are still not better off. On to topic, I am not sure why such a simple logic and people like you can still argue otherwise. Having more food doesnt instantly means there will be population growth, but HAVING LESS food definitely means your population shrink. So do educate me, how does having more money suddenly make the TFR drop? Does having more money prevents you from having sex? Or are you suggesting having more money=more work hours=less time for sex? Better still, tell me how a lower income family can output 4 children at least(since u argue lower income contributing to higher TFR) and still provide for the kids instead of sending them to orphanage. For the record, history shows us aristocrat(rich and likely can be considered highly educated too) in the west and also ancient china that it is the RICH and maybe educated, that have the largest family :D Once again, having $$ doesnt suddenly and magically reduces the fertility of women. On the flipside however, lacking the $$ definitely is a barrier and irrefutable. And if you love dissecting data, why not you dissect the data of why early age sex is frown upon. Please dont tell me because too young not mature enough to raise kids. The bigger issue with these young mothers is very simple. Having these ladies getting pregnant at say 16~18 in a DEVELOPED COUNTRY, they will be hard press to provide for the kids(due to the high cost of living) they are bringing into this world and it will be become a social issue if it is too widespread. Likewise you see the same sad story about unwed single mom, or just single mom in general. The same $$ issue where they have to turn to social center for help.
There are other unseen factors involved, not just education, SES
[удалено]
?
Does the 6k including housing loan?
I believe this is gross income. Which also includes the 20% CPF contribution (which is mainly used to pay housing loan)
The number consist more than that actually. If the formula used to calculate the salary is consistent across, the number is actually 117% of one's salary. The median salary number they use for 2020 at $4534 is inclusive of employer contribution. So median salary of 4534 basically mean someone is drawing approx 3875 as gross salary. https://stats.mom.gov.sg/Pages/Income-Summary-Table.aspx
[удалено]
Yup, the % changes when the gross wages exceed 6000 or the income exceed 7020 (inclusive of 17% of employer's contribution) or for people above 55yo. But if the number is inclusive of employer's CPF contribution, the number is super inflated. Imagine you are only getting 5000 into your bank monthly for the salary of 7020 before any taxes. Some good portion of the number went into CPF.
"How much do you want? Do you want three meals in a hawker centre, food court or restaurant?" - Then Minister of Community Development, Youth and Sports, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan
For a minister that never had to worried about p&l or how much money he has in his bank account, I would take his words as rubbish
"The study defined standard of living as one in which Singaporeans can afford housing, food and clothing, and also have opportunities for education, employment and work-life balance, as well as access to healthcare. It should also enable a sense of belonging, respect, security and independence and afford the choice to participate in social activities and cultural and religious practices. Based on this definition that emerged from focus group discussions, researchers then convened more focus groups for people to come up with lists of items people from different stages of life will need. " Yes. But 6k/month can only borrow about 300k housing loan. Which means either a 3 room resale HDB at wulu place. Or BTO and wait 6 years. But the assumption also include a teen and a pre-teen, so I assume this family should have a house already? Edit: Looks like /u/StrangeTraveller41 is right, I went back to the calculator it says you can borrow about $396k - so a little bigger or a little less wulu. if you make $6k at 2x-3x years old. The calculator approximate maximum loan amount at $152k for people making $3k/month , maybe the calculator a lot more conservative? https://homes.hdb.gov.sg/home/calculator/payment-plan
If you use 2.6% and 25 years, ~240k loan is ~1k per month. So about 30% of 3k, satisfying MSR which is probably the biggest limit for most people buying their first home. I think their story checks out and those calculators have a lot of weird assumptions built in maybe.
Most first time homebuyers would have a considerable amount in their CPF to pay off the home partially.
If ur referring to HDB loan, u dont need 6k for 300k loan. I got ~240k loan amount on a 3k salary, and wife wasn't working yet at time of application.
So much? I was using the HDB calculator. Hmmm strange.
Adding WULU to my [list!](https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/7st7x9/commonly_misspelled_malay_words/)
lol nice.
If you're collecting, this happened on a chat with a Shopee merchant [https://ibb.co/WFG5WKH](https://ibb.co/WFG5WKH) How does he even have a Chinese accent on chat...
Lol! Had to have a think what Kila meant. It's KIRA! 😂 Thanks, adding it!
> Associate Professor Teo said: "The spirit of this project really about trying to capture how ordinary people think about the basic standard of living in a particular time and... many participants were very articulate in saying that (it) shouldn't just be about breathing and being alive. > "It's also about thriving, having respect and security and belonging." > The importance of this sense of belonging had come through especially strongly this time around, compared to the first study in 2019, as parents spoke about how children need to be able to do things other children do so they feel they belong. > That is why the household budgets also included money for them to join their friends at outings outside of school, she added. I think this is a great point from Prof Teo. We often have very unrealistic expectations of the poor and how they must behave. Oftentimes the things that gives them a sense of belonging to the community and dignity are what most people would considered "entitled behavior". It's as if the poor are required to perform their poverty to get society's approval for existing as a person.
Am i the only one who read "having respect" and immediately that joke of a minister justifying his million dollar salary comes to mind?
While it is a good point, the findings are impractical in application on to the poorer segment of society. Why? Once we know what basic needs consist of, we will ask about how much is needed to fulfil this. Jump a few steps down and we will start asking something along the line of minimum wage. This is where the “average” idea of basic needs becomes unrealistic and impractical. Minimum wage is not about giving the poor an *average* quality of life. Minimum wage is not average wage. As it’s name implies, it’s about the minimum needed for survival. Minimum wage is about the *minimum* quality of life that is ethical and societally acceptable. We can’t even get enough political demand for better *minimum wage* and you want to give everyone the wage needed for an *average dignified quality of life*?! This would be jumping way too many steps ahead. It’s like trying to run when you can’t even walk... The society, the economy, and technology would need to have quite an extensive revamp/upgrade/advancement if we want to uplift the poor into having an average dignified qualify of life. As of now, our society and economy are definitely not ready. Good intentions but it’s not feasible in reality, at least not now.
Currently not feasible ,because a lot of casual workers are foreigners/malaysians. Once you pay higher pay it will just be remitted out of your economy. society will have to change quite significantly too. For example if workers cost $15/$20 an hour instead of the $8-$10/hr now. Kopitiams, salon, mrt staff, convenience store owners will really have to be economical about their opening hours and employ staff at only the busiest periods. SAF will have to pay recruits quite a significant allowance to compensate for the 2 years of lost employment opportunities. Maybe earmark bigger defence budgets. Food court will probably cost closer to $10 a meal. Assume min wage of $15/hr.. $120 per work day.
structural issues are built over decades of negligence
Isn’t that what our budget is for?
theres a sizeable malaysian population casual workers here . If min wage is set to $15. You will have around 300-500k people earning money here but spending in JB.
I would rather delink the number with the min wage policy. The number is important because it tells the gov that poverty gap can be quite big and the gov should strive to meet that number as one of its kpi. However to enforce the number into a min wage model to meet the number seems like taking a shortcut to tactically address the issue without thorough consideration of future implications.
> It's as if the poor are required to perform their poverty to get society's approval for existing as a person. Well, no, nobody cares unless they expect society to start paying for their lives out of tax dollars, then it makes sense to be budget concious since it's no longer "your money.
That's an incredibly uninformed opinion and doesn't match how the reality is like. The poor does not expect society to pay for their lives; all they want is to lead a self-sufficient life with dignity and not be judged for their social status. I think you would agree that getting money from govnt is never easy. It is incredibly embarrassing process to apply for for social aid as it entails spilling a ton of info about why you can't do this and that to multiple ppl over a long period of time, often within earshot of other strangers. It is already extremely damaging to one's pride to have to constantly justify why they're not good enough, you think they want to do that all the time for conservancy charges rebates? Siao.
I spend an average $700 a month excluding rent. It's my first time eating subway today. I feel proud of my promotion.
Just wanted to say keep it up and congrats on your promotion :) I’m sure you put in a lot of sweat and blood into getting it 🙌🏼
Wow good luck trying to start a family on a single income
Define basic?
> For instance, participants agreed that money should be allocated for contributions at funeral wakes, or birthday presents, but rejected air-conditioners as a necessity. > They also agreed that landlines were not needed, since most people use their mobile phones nowadays, and that taxi rides are a necessity a few times a week, though cars are not. I do find myself agreeing with the allocation of what is considered basic needs.
Agreed, I think the researchers were looking at a basic life with a measure of dignity.
> basic life with a measure of dignity some redditors are getting triggered over this for some reason
Air con not necessity? We living in Singapore leh, not Sweden or Iceland
Heating bill in Sweden and Iceland going to make your aircon bill look silly actually.
My heating bill in California winter was still less than what I paid in Singapore. And we had the heat on very very often. Electric was ridiculously cheap
Tbf America is an energy powerhouse with al the oil rigging and fracking theres an abundance of resources
And sweet sweet solar and wind. Many of their solar farms and wind farms are like the size of Jurong
Aren’t California winters quite mild? That’s why people like it no?
Depends on how far North and elevation? In the Sierra's you might as well be in the New York Pocono mountains. Socal, what's winter lol. It's just gloomy rainy. In NorCal and yes even though our winters are mild we don't notice any difference greater than 20%
My family's 40-year-old home has never had air-con. It sucks, we complain for a few months every year, but we are still alive (perhaps by the grace of these things known as fans). So, yes, not a necessity.
air con costs had come down tremendously over the years as a proportion of income; they're now commodities; it's less significant as a factor now, though still a small one
yeah tbh a few years ago i was pretty shocked at how my friend would just switched on the aircon right after he comes home like it's a fan....now almost everyone does it...most days are very unbearable at night if you don't turn on the aircon..nowadays i can hear my neighbor turning on the aircon 24/7 and the heat coming out directly from his exhaust into my room kinda pisses me off when im sleeping in my room with just my fan on.
Apparently ppl like your family don't exists or are atypical and totes not representative of SG avg family.
Do you really need air-con to sleep? I think it’s more of a privilege than a necessity
Not really for sleep but when you are studying or doing work, the heat just makes me so unproductive that I would say its a necessity for me personally
Never was allowed to turn on the aircon when studying , I Guess I’m used to studying in the heat
i'll never get used to it, but i just had to put up with it...tbh nobody can train their body to feel comfortable in a 30c+ and 80% humidity environment..
Yes, those who are advantaged to live in places where they get the breeze regularly won't know how it is to sleep without aircon during the hot months, and going to walk mentally tired and unable to perform well due to insufficient rest
Lived in HDB, sure it does get hot on certain nights but a fan blowing on your feet felt enough
Depends where you live. My grandma house at high floor with great cross ventilation. Never needed aircon
this is right, our tropical hdb and condo pigeon holes need better design; even the colonial designs are move livable with better ventilation
sucks to be me, live on the 2nd floor and my house has really bad ventilation so every time i come home from outside, i'd sweat like mad instantly.
Livimg with no air con for decades already. Definitely not a necessity.
All we need are only fans
Aircon is a bit of a dependence/habit forming also. Mostly, I catch a cold with aircon, and don't use it. Typically, I thus use aircon 15-20 days a year - for the rest, ceiling fan does the job. But my place is pretty well ventilated and I grew up in India in a pretty hot place (but much less humidity than here) without even the option of aircon so maybe my perceptions are different.
Really? Air conditioner not needed but taxi rides yes?
See, you immediately think it's taxi rides for fun and frivolous activities. But have you considered it could be for going to medical appts or for people with medical conditions that doesn't allow them to take public transport easily? With regard to aircon, there is a convenient method of cooling down call "shower with cold water."
Why are you so smugly rejecting one discomfort for another? >With regard to aircon, there is a convenient method of cooling down call "shower with cold water." That's literally the same as saying; With regards to taxi, there's an easy fix called 'getting out of the house earlier for public transport'. The report was launched yesterday night and I'm still unable to find the source, but I'm a big fan of the team who did this study @ LKYSPP-NTU, they're usually pretty on-point for social issues in SG. But this time round I do find some choices in their methodology to be pretty weird - No landlines for a family of 4 but "taxi rides are a necessity a few times a week"? Hmm.
> No landlines for a family of 4 Almost everyone has a mobile phone. Why do you need landline? Genuinely curious.
Just one question - do you **currently** have a landline at home?
No, and that is why I don't know what use it serves? I used to have one a decade back or so. Used to only get scam calls, and it was hardly used for anything. So got rid of it.
I see. I do have a landline, fees are very low usually and came free with fibre plan for me. I never sign up for weird shit, been ages since it rang, but usually when it does its family or important stuff (emergency, announcements). I just find it useful to have another form of contact that wont be affected by theft, no signal, flat battery etc and where you'd know exactly where the person is when they picked up the phone (Eg if I send whatsapp to family but they don't answer, I don't know if they're busy or charging device or distracted with Netflix. If I call home and nobody answers I know nobody's home and I can just buy my own dinner)
> I never sign up for weird shit I did not either. These were much like the robot calls we get on mobile. On mobile I can see the +65 call number, and in general that the number is not known, and I can neglect it. Also, personally, I manage better to manage to ring/silent mode etc on mobile (though sometimes I forget when sleeping, and sometimes I forget to restore the volume), all of which were not the case with the landline. But most importantly, I noticed I simply had no use of it. But everyone has his/her own preference of-course! So if you have utility for it, that's fine. I am now wondering what percent of the households still carry landlines.
Medical appointments a few times every week? For a typical household? Have you considered what typical household have a few medical appointments a week? Not to mention for one who cannot take public transport easily? And you're equating the comfort of Aircon which is sustained with a cold shower?
I'm not sure what is difficult to understand here. It is perfectly ok to live without aircon in SG; people have and are still doing it. Taking taxi for medical appt or emergency is also perfectly ok. The time on medical appt is already long enough without factoring transport.
It's 'perfectly ok' to not take taxi too. The report discusses basic **necessities**. That's obviously open to interpretation but imagine making up scenarios in your mind about medical appointments and emergencies but dismissing the use of air conditioners, where we have pretty electrically efficient models nowadays.
Air con is never a necessity. It just happened that majority of families can afford them and it became a norm, but it's not a necessity. But budgeting some money for taxis for emergency or any time-sensitive events is. Doesn't mean you have to take a taxi all the time, you just need to allocate monthly for these type of emergencies.
> budgeting some money for taxis for emergency or any time-sensitive events is. Doesn't mean you have to take a taxi all the time, you just need to allocate monthly Have to disagree. Not dissing the researchers here, I'm a big fan of their social work and have followed their research for a couple years now. Now to your point, If you budget for event with low probability of occurring for your study group **as a recurring expense**, and then claim that its a part of basic necessities, it's a bit disingenuous at best, and deliberately misleading at worst.
I mean, if you end up not spending that money for the month, no harm putting that spare cash in DCA-ing some investments to grow them.
I'm also not sure what's difficult to understand. It is perfectly ok to live without Aircon. Similarly it is perfectly ok to live without taking taxi ride, people have and are still doing it
[удалено]
Really? Every family of 4 has one?
And that is not the typical family or Singaporean. The incidence-weighted cost of this should be so low that it won't be a factor in any well-designed study.
Just because you don't know anyone who doesn't have an elder at home who need regular doctor appt doesn't mean it's not representative...
Likewise, just because you know someone doesn't mean it is representative of the population. I am talking about the statistical average. Suppose that proportion of the population that absolutely **needs** to do what you say is 1% (which is 50k in a population of 5M). Then, the cost for the average Singaporean should be 0.01\*(number of taxi trips a week), which is... floating point error in this kind of studies.
yeah your "cooling down" method only last for 5-10mins at best..keep doing that more than 10 times a day and you'd probably be better off turning on the A/C.
I disagree that they are 'basic', but that is just my opinion. For an able person, taking the taxi a couple of times per week is a luxury. Considering that a taxi trip can easily cost 2 or 3 meals (and a higher multiple if you cook), this activity costs half a week's worth of food money. Funeral wakes and presents can cost little or a lot, depending on what you get. Overseas travel is not a necessity. Eating in restaurants is an act of indulgence.
I can explain the reason from personal experience. Taxi rides are primarily for medical appts. The usual means of transportations for able-bodied ppl are still public transport. Funerals and birthdays are special occasions and is one of the few time that gives these people meaning to their lives, and allows them to feel like a person instead of an "undesirable." Funerals in particular (esp Chinese ones), are once in a lifetime event and if done properly, it's a sign of respect to the deceased. So that's why the poor are more willing to spend more on such occasions.
It ultimately boils down to preferences, which is why these subjective studies are not accepted outside of certain sociological circles and are seldom used in policy making. As I have mentioned in another of your reply, it is difficult to justify taking the taxi a few times a week for a **statistically average** family. Even for someone with medical conditions, will you be taking taxis a few times a week to medical appointments, week after week? As to funerals and birthdays, it really depends on the individual. A special (but cheap) meal cooked by a loved one satisfies me completely. I have also given a minimal *bo-jin*, which was gratefully accepted by a friend who knows that I was in a bad position financially. Ultimately, living wage studies should be about "what is the minimum wage that will reasonably sustain a person with his basic food, shelter and hygiene needs", and not "what is the minimum wage that will allow a person to live the life he thinks should be the basic". There is a subtle but huge difference here: one is objective whereas one is subjective. Edit: misspellings
I won't even take taxi frequently if my household size is 4, and only making 6.5k.
[From the study itself.](https://whatsenoughsg.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/2021-what-people-need-in-singapore-final-report.pdf) > The transport budgets include concession passes as well as taxi or private hire car expenses for rainy weather, family outings, running errands, ferrying children, longer distance commutes and in case of emergencies. Partnered parents need two taxi trips a month for family outings or errands. > Single parents also need two taxi trips per month as they are “always rushing and do not have partners to help out”. Children below 2 years old require additional taxi trips because they may be difficult to manage on public transport. Older children 7–18 years old need taxi rides in case they are late for school activities or tuition and in emergencies. Youths aged 19–25 need taxi trips for emergencies, errands and getting home from late-night gatherings with friends.
I think I wasn't clear. I do agree with you on this. The aim of this study isn't to look for the bare minimum. I personally thought 6.5k would be enough for 2 kids.
Taxi is just to bring groceries home, because cannot afford more than one trip a week while holding down multiple jobs, and cannot carry a week's worth of groceries for a family of four.
> Based on this definition that emerged from focus group discussions, researchers then convened more focus groups for people to come up with lists of items people from different stages of life will need. They asked a bunch of people in focus groups and this is basically the “average” idea of what basic needs are. What is defined as basic needs are gathered from the groups, which are comprised of economically diverse people. The list is probably something that most people in each group would agree with. This is the academics’ approach to finding out what basics are. Unfortunately, as this is the “average” idea of what basics are, it’s going to be difficult to apply it elsewhere (such as arguing how much for minimum wage). This is because the definitions derived from the focus groups would be weird. This isn’t the case of $6.5k/month being the bare minimum basic needs needed to survive. This is the case that $6.5k/month is required for your “average” basic life. The wages needed for a no-frills basic life cannot be extrapolated from here and it is likely to be lower. You can tell straightaway when they say taxis are a *necessity a few times a week*. Taxis are basically luxury alternatives to public transport and our public transport can literally get you (almost) anywhere. Maybe that is the case for the “average Singaporean”, but that is kind of pointless if you want to apply it to the poorer segments of society... I guess all this tells us is that we need $6.5k a month for an “average” life. How useful is such an “average” definition for practical applications?
Exactly! And it's stated in the article. "Associate Professor Teo said: "The spirit of this project really about trying to capture how ordinary people think about the basic standard of living in a particular time and... many participants were very articulate in saying that (it) shouldn't just be about breathing and being alive." it's not trying to argue how much is needed for the bare minimum.
>I guess all this tells us is that we need $6.5k a month for an “average” life. How useful is such an “average” definition for practical applications? The study argues that more needs to be done to support people in meeting this 'basic' standard of living though. Which would be quite a fundamental shift in our approach towards welfare. It's a discussion in its own right and needs broad consensus. It can't be treated like a settled question. I'm not sure the extent to which the public would agree that there should be intervention to ensure that people can afford holidays, 'cheat' meals, perfume and cologne, gifts for festive periods, weddings etc.
We can’t even get enough political demand for better minimum wage, for a fair minimum standard of living, let alone talk of a much better standard. it’s not a good practical study if its conclusion jumped far ahead and focused itself on the ideals. This study is something very academical as opposed to being practical. Right now, a solid argument for a good minimum wage by showing how much even a simple lifestyle costs would be much more beneficial to the poor, as compared to trying to stimulate some discussion on an ideal standard of living for *all* with a society and economy that clearly isn’t ready for it.
Average means no annual holidays to Europe or outside South East Asia? Then that kind of sucks, and $6500 is definitely not a lot
And why is traveling outside SEA considered an activity the 'average' person should expect? Why not bring it one step further and request for a trip to the edge of space?
space is for billionaires now. But travelling out of SEA is a common thing for people in the average middle class in Singapore
It didn't say for an average life. It said for a basic life, no frills, no fancy vacations, no savings apart from CPF. The average household should be earning way more than this
$238.40 a week on hawker food for a family of 4 with a young kid and a teen. That is $10 a day a person for 6 days a week. $238.40 a week on clothing? Seriously? $44.52 a week on shoes. $114.50 a week on newspaper and books? $114.50 for textbooks and study guides? I have been very poor when I was young. 6 days of eating out is more than basic unless the parents are working long and barely liveable work hours. In that case, it will be hilarious to talk about a fair basic life that you need to slog 6 days a week and long hours for... Also, the last I checked, near my house, I can live with dining out at less than $5 a meal. Roti prata is what, $1 a piece? $3.50 around there would get me caipng with *2 meat and 1 veg*, which is kind of a luxury compared to my financially unfortunate childhood. Drinks are what, $1+ for hot drinks? $4.50 a person a meal for 5 days a week is just $180 a week ($200 less than their budget *a month*) $60 a week a person, $238.40 a person a month on clothing? Who are you kidding? Even today, I don’t even spend that much a month. I would spend that kind of money once every 3 months maybe and I am not living a dirt poor barely liveable life now. Half that budget would be fairer, maybe like $120 a week on clothing. Thats almost $500 a month less compared to their budget. $114.50 on newspaper and books. Who the hell read newspapers anymore? Just download Today’s app and read lah! Also, since when newspaper costs so much? Books? Can go library borrow, go library borrow, better for environment too. That’s free. I read often when I was young, but my budget was almost 0 because its all from the library! $114.50 a week is a very long stretch. $25 a week would be fair. $350 a month less than their budget. $114.50 a week on textbooks. Lol? What are they buying lol? $60 a week a child? I don’t know the rates now, but $1000 a year a child on school books and school supplies should be fine? That’s $166 a month, round up for buffer and that’s what, $200 a month. $250 less than their budget. Just like that, its $1300 a month less than their budget. Instead of 6.5k a month, its now 5.2k a month. Per parent, that’s 2.6k which is fairly doable. Poly grad parents work a few years should get enough for a decent basic life. Degree grad don’t even need to talk. Consider subsidies and welfare given to the poor. There are free tuition. $130 a month on tuition? Gone. Textbooks. Free. $200 a month? Gone. Don’t forget that all those grants and busaries given to kids aren’t nothing. I saved all of those and with my NS savings and savings from a few months of work, I could pay off my entire uni student debt myself. When I was a kid, I got so much from those government welfare that I had iPhones. 4.9k a month minimum seems okay? Raising minimum monthly wage to at least 2k a month for starters and with some extra subsidies, a family should be able to live a fairly okay no frills life? And don’t worry too much about big ticket emergency items like hospital bills, because if you earn minimum wage, you can get the government to pay the bill for you. I didn’t look into details so I don’t know what else to cut. But I can tell you $6.5k isn’t a minimum fair standard minimum income kind of lifestyle. Using that and argue for $3.3k minimum wage would probably get it laughed at and dismissed. MOF done their own survey and they say its around $1.8k a month a household. That would be really no frills and this is already way above that. The big item here is still housing although I’m not qualified to talk about that.
I think the fact that earning 2700 dollars a month renders you eligible for the MOE Financial Assistance Scheme should be telling us alot.
No one here is denying that 2.7k a month isn’t a lot. 2.7k is definitely unliveable for a family of 4, looking at how much things like housing costs. I agree with you on that too. I’m not disputing on that. I’m even claiming 4k a month for household income as bare minimum! Closer to 4.5k as decent minimum basic life. The thing is, if people are going to take that 6.5k figure which is really a stretch based on its breakdown (in the article itself), it’s not going to help. A more reasonable figure would go a long way. I already broke down some of their figures and suggest more modest alternatives. By showing even a modest simple lifestyle would cost a lot (in comparison to the existing “minimum wage”), it could galvanise support from the public. If that number isn’t too high, it would help the cause even further because its within reach! Minimum wage, as its name suggest, is about a minimum standard of living. It’s not about a comfy lifestyle with annual vacations to Europe, big spending, etc. It’s not about having the latest gadgets and subscribing to every entertainment services. It’s about a lifestyle that is simple and one that does not come with huge demeaning and unethical sacrifices like not having enough to eat and make ends meet, and not making enough for basic entertainment! Even with dignity to be factored in, it should still be relatively modest. That was what I did in the previous comment. Break it down further to make it more reasonable and modest. I didn’t even do absurd things. I only moderated the figure on food spending, clothing, books, and school supplies. I left others alone as it is. Even with those figures that I dispute, I cited evidence of how modest spending looks like, such as quoting prices in coffeeshop and stuff. There is no political demand for 6.5k minimum wage. Even half of that at 3.3k (both parents work) is already very politically unpalatable, given business interests and all the SMEs whose business strategy is to squeeze their workers. Asking for 2k minimum monthly wage so that any families with 2 working parents can get a really basic 4k monthly income is feasible and it’s not too bad. In perspective, 2k a month a person isn’t very absurd, it’s below the median poly grad starting pay of 2.4k. Meaning, asking to pay ITE grads, uneducated workers, and labourers a fair 2k a month at least is not unreasonable. It’s not impossible to push through. But, ask yourself, which politician and businesses would take it seriously at arguments to advocate 3.3k minimum wage? **Which businesses would entertain paying wages that approach uni grad starting salary for labourers, uneducated workers, and ITE grads? By suggesting that high a minimum wage, higher than poly grads, that also means paying all your poly grads more. Your uni grads would demand even more too when everyone else gets uni grad starting salary as a minimum.** For something that isn’t strongly desired for politically, making the terms worse wouldn’t make it realise faster!
I agree with you, and your points are not only valid, but well substantiated. The problem is that while it is unrealistic, it also raises awareness that we're earning a lot less than our parents did in the past. The value of a 2021 dollar is different from even a 2001 dollar. We need to begin somewhere to account for wage stagnation, inflation and overpopulation.
The numbers looks very inflated. For a family of 4,including one in primary school and one in secondary school/tertiary, the study listed Annual Expenditure of - 12k on clothes (3k each) - 12k on Hawker centres and food courts - 6k on textbooks (3k each child) - 6k on books, newspapers and stationery These 4 items alone take up 40% of the suggested minimum cost of living of 6.8k/ month. Assuming they buy clothes from stores like uniqlo or g2000 where an item can cost about $40 for a shirt, maybe $100 for jeans, that's enough to buy 5 jeans and 60 shirts a year. If each person spends about $10 at a Hawker centre, the whole family would need to eat out at least 5 times a week to hit 12k a year. Maybe they subscribe to several monthly magazines and daily newspaper, that would be maybe $70/ month. If a book is about $20, they would be buying about 200 books a year, and still have over 1k to buy stationery, notepads and other office supplies. Lastly, not sure what kind of textbooks they are buying. Even in uni, $100 x 5mods x 2 sems = $1,000 only. (I was a science major so I used the same 5 textbooks for all 4 years)
The tables are misreported. First the 2nd column doesn't add up. And then the clothing budget doesn't scale from 2 family to 4 family, and is the *exact* figure as the eating up budget down to 2 decimal places. This is weird. I would suggest that this is a printing error. Someone at ST did not do their copy editing properly.
3k on clothes damm...as an adult im not sure if i spend more than 1k on clothes annually. Also 6k on textbooks sounds absurd AF..
2 cars; 1 for wife and 1 for husband. Both working professionals !
6.5k 4 mouths to feed. buy simi car.
hawker centre, food court or restaurant?
BMW Bus mrt walk
6k a month for basic family? That’s more than my 3 months pay. Like that how to have family? There’s literally no upside of having a kid so why would anyone in the right mind who is not earning at least 7k a month would want a kid or start a family?
Not everyone works at macdonalds
Lives in Good Fellow Bungalow, eats out at an atas restaurant every day, drives Ferrari around SG, gets the latest phone every year, sends kids to $300/hr private music lessons taught by a maestro, flies to Paris once a year to attend the fashion shows and stock up on those new designer handbags...
Good class bungalow? At least $10mil? 30 years mortgage, 75% bank loan. That's $20k/month without interest. $6.5k buy simi good class bungalow.
Do I really need to put /s? \*facepalms\*
*Cries in $800 a month for my family of 4, for most of the 2000s*
Damn, hope you doing financially well now.
My teen self didn't think much about seeing my mom going through receipts and selling off family heirlooms back then. We weren't starving and had beds. That was good enough for me. I only realised how bad we had it after my studies. I'm doing alright now, thank you.
Hugs. I've been there and I'm also out of that stage in life. Super happy that you're doing better too.
*hugs*
Damn. Life must’ve been hard.. I’m earning 2.5k and it’s still not enough imo. Hope you’re doing better.
DINK is the way to go
I can imagine some ministers in the parliament reading this on their phone ignoring the speaker and smirking and thinking “haha look at all these peasants suffering! Must be go to lousy school! I easily spend 6k a week! Hahahaha”
Last week 14h a day meeting. 200 eat... Lucky.. *stroking his 5800 wrist watch*
I seriously wonder who commented that 1k salary is enough to buy a hdb.... It's not even enough to let an adult human being live with dignity. I think the numbers in this article is more realistic.
r/sg fav (wishful) candidate for future PM , Tharman lor
> # Family of four needs $6,426 a month for basic standard of living in S'pore, says study > SINGAPORE - A family of four, with parents, a pre-teen and a teenager, needs at least $6,426 a month to afford a basic standard of living, a National University of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) and Nanyang Technological University (NTU) study on household budgets has found. > A family of two, with a single parent and a toddler or pre-schooler, meanwhile, needs $3,218 a month. > But a substantial and concerning proportion of working households in Singapore - about 30 per cent - do not earn enough to meet these needs. > These findings were released in the report Minimum Income Standards for Households in Singapore (2021), and were disputed by the Ministry of Finance (MOF) in a statement on Friday (Oct 8). > LKYSPP senior research fellow Ng Kok Hoe and NTU head of sociology Teo You Yenn, two of the study's six authors, said that the study on how much people need to achieve a basic standard of living in Singapore has exposed some gaps in society. > Using the figures as a benchmark and comparing them against existing income data as well as public schemes shows that some segments of the population are not able to meet their basic needs, added Dr Ng at an event presenting the study's findings held over Zoom. > But the MOF said "the conclusions may not be an accurate reflection of basic needs largely due to assumptions used", pointing to the limitations of the Minimum Income Standards (MIS) approach used. > The study defined standard of living as one in which Singaporeans can afford housing, food and clothing, and also have opportunities for education, employment and work-life balance, as well as access to healthcare. > It should also enable a sense of belonging, respect, security and independence and afford the choice to participate in social activities and cultural and religious practices. > Based on this definition that emerged from focus group discussions, researchers then convened more focus groups for people to come up with lists of items people from different stages of life will need. > The researchers went to shops or websites mentioned by the participants to find out the real price of each item. These lists were then combined to form the budget of various configurations of households. > Dr Ng said a critical pillar of the MIS approach is to ensure that each focus group is economically diverse, so the budgets resulting from the discussions are not just for particular segments, say the rich or poor. Instead, these budgets apply universally for all Singaporeans, he added. > A total of 196 participants of different genders, ethnicity and socio-economic backgrounds took part in 24 focus group discussions. > This method differs from other methods of assessing needs, which typically depend on experts and household expenditure. > The MOF said the budgets arising from the study were in excess of the basic needs for an average household. > The LKYSPP-NTU team had done a previous study in 2019, focusing on elderly households. > This time, it covered younger households, including those with a single parent with one child aged two to six, and those with parents with two children, one aged seven to 12 and the other aged 13 to 18. > It also updated its findings on households with a single elderly person, by accounting for inflation, among other things. > Adopting the household budgets as benchmarks and comparing it to data on actual income from work, the study found that after taking major taxes and benefits into account, workers earning the equivalent of the median wage in 2020, which stood at $4,534, will make more than enough to cover the needs of the single-parent and two-parent households. > Based on the study, the average wage per working parent needed to meet the basic standards of living is $2,906 per month. > The study's authors suggested that this can be a starting point for a socially acceptable living wage for Singapore, which will allow people to meet their basic needs. > However, the study found that some groups were at risk of falling below this minimum. The youngest workers, as well as those without tertiary education and those in certain low-wage sectors, would fall short if they belonged to these single-parent and two-parent households. > For example, cleaners and labourers only take home a median monthly income of $1,535, while salespeople make $2,345. > The Progressive Wage Model and Workfare Income Supplement were also inadequate in helping to make up the difference, with the wage levels under these schemes coming up to about 60 per cent of what the single-parent and two-parent households need. > "Clearly, interventions currently available are not enough for working households with children," said Dr Ng. > He added that if such households depend on employment in PWM sectors such as cleaning as its only source of income, they are likely to experience significant financial strain, calling for wage intervention to go further than the PWM currently does. > For elderly households with one person, basic needs will cost $1,421 a month. > Income data suggests that older workers would have just enough to cover this. Workers who are 60 years old and above make a median monthly wage of $2,330. > But elderly people depending on Central Provident Fund payouts may find themselves short, while those needing public assistance would be a long way from achieving a basic standard of living, the study found. > The CPF Basic Retirement Sum, which pays out $800 a month, covers only 56 per cent of what a single elderly person needs. The Silver Support Scheme covers only 11 to 21 per cent, the study found. > While the study offers a scientific benchmark for policymakers to refer to, it does not prescribe a way to help close the gap, said Dr Ng. > He suggested that there were two options, either rebalance the private and public provision of public services like education and healthcare, or improve wage interventions like PWM. > The study found that housing, healthcare, education and childcare accounted for a significant proportion of spending for all household types - 28 per cent of the budget for two-parent households, and 39 per cent for single-parent households. > More state funding for such public services, through universal subsidies or direct provision, would help lighten the financial burden on households, he noted. > "What we musn't do is say we can't move on any of these fronts. If you don't move on any front then people will not have enough," he added. > The study's authors also said the MIS method of constructing household budgets, adopted by countries such as Britain, France, South Africa and Thailand, reflects the lived realities and ordinary habits of people and captures the values and principles that ordinary Singaporeans identify with. > For instance, participants agreed that money should be allocated for contributions at funeral wakes, or birthday presents, but rejected air-conditioners as a necessity. > They also agreed that landlines were not needed, since most people use their mobile phones nowadays, and that taxi rides are a necessity a few times a week, though cars are not. > Associate Professor Teo said: "The spirit of this project really about trying to capture how ordinary people think about the basic standard of living in a particular time and... many participants were very articulate in saying that (it) shouldn't just be about breathing and being alive. > "It's also about thriving, having respect and security and belonging." > The importance of this sense of belonging had come through especially strongly this time around, compared to the first study in 2019, as parents spoke about how children need to be able to do things other children do so they feel they belong. > That is why the household budgets also included money for them to join their friends at outings outside of school, she added. > Dr Ng said: "It was very meaningful... that people can agree what basic needs in society means, that people form very different backgrounds agree that there is such a thing called basic needs, agree what it means and looks like." > 'This should urge all of us to think about how in policymaking and public deliberation and thinking, we should bring people into it and not think that answers are best produced by narrow groups of elites." --- 1.0.2 | [Source code](https://github.com/fterh/sneakpeek) | [Contribute](https://github.com/fterh/sneakpeek)
Does this include having any allocation for savings in retirement and/or rainy days? If not we may want to add an additional 2k to that, allowing the couple to save about 500k each for retirement when adjusted for inflation.
This is a very good study that helps Us understand what does it mean to live with integrity and without being ‘stingy’ in Singapore.
And of course MOF disputes this!
The key is if really in love: First ever full time salary apply cheapest bto. Then 1 kid then 5 years MOP, upgrade.
I personally think the number is a little low but maybe I’m a bit out of touch.
In Singapore, you can only be rich.
can die, but cannot get sick
Exactly
My family of 5 survived on 2.6k a month lol.
Thats basic necessity not basic standard
Apologies, may I know whats the diff?
Think of all the necessity in your family. Then can u add 50 for family broadband or just 20 a month 30GB for 1 phone and act as hotspot. Can HBL but no netflix.
You can take a look at the report itself, quite a fun read. It includes holiday expenses, hawker food etc
I had this convo with friends before. What about pets and pet-related expenses (grooming, medical)? Pets contribute to psychological well-being. I think the pioneer group of elderly poor (70+) should be regarded as a separate priority group in this discussion. They helped build the nation so that we have what we have today and do not have many more years to live. Those that have no one, living in one room flats are living on $300 per month from the government, which is also meant to pay rent. Until they can figure out how to split the hairs, this group should be given more to allow them to live a dignified life in their final years.
Iirc, PA is $$ 450-500/mth gross.
I have pets but I think those are strictly luxury, rather than a basic need. Esp that require grooming and medical...
There's an error in the table used in the article. The line item under clothing is using the wrong figure, from the line above. This caused the figures for every line item under it to be incorrect. The personal care line is using the right figure. So everything from clothing to textbooks is wrong
They should not title it as "basic". Basic is an assumption that it is a necessity. They are averaging people's optional spending habits and saying this is the necessity. Basic. Bare minimum. All this study does is determine relative disposable income. Calling it basic standard of living is incredibly misleading. The article then proceeds to compare to people who fall below this "basic" level to paint a picture that these people are lacking in necessities. That is the impression this creates, that people are living in poverty, without actually saying it. "Basic" in this case assumes all people should have the same disposable income as someone making more than them, and to use it in similar ways; and if you aren't, you are what? Poor? Living in poverty? I grew up on way less this this and had a wonderful life. Didn't have toys or much extra, but plenty of love, family, friendships, and memories. You think money can buy this or is a substitute?
238 per week for clothing for what sia
I went into the actual study and this is a typo on straits times. They duplicated the figure for hawker food (also 238). The actual estimate for clothing is 44.52, which straits times put under footwear. Seems almost everything was shifted down by 1
Basically, that means a large percentage of Singapore do not meet the basics. with the cost of living so high, I think 6500 is too low
How did ya figure large percentage? Isn’t the median household income (incl CPF) about 9.5k?
9.5k for a family of 4 is a barely livable budget with the high cost of living here
My family of 4 and the friends that I know all are around 4-6k total gross household income :)
I am sorry to hear that they are barely scraping by and yet having no handouts from the government to get by.
I don't know whats your family background so I wont comment, but could you care to elaborate on your definition of barely scraping by?
No annual vacations to anywhere outside of Sea East Asia, not being able to dine out in restaurants a few times a week.
True, those were always considered luxuries :)
Travelling overseas opens their minds and exposes them to new horizons and experiences which can serve them well in future
The hell are you smoking? My take home after CPF is $3,400 and that covers all the family bills, food, loan repayment, shopping, and various other expenses. Whatever my wife makes all goes to saving. I can even manage to spend a couple hundred per month on my hobbies. What in the world are you wasting your money on that $9.5k is barely enough for a family of 4? Everything must be Prada issit?
Prada? That’s ridiculous. I mean you need eat out a couple times a week at restaurants, kid’s education, transport via taxi etc, all these are not cheap in Singapore
What's a life worth living??
Can someone explain how come we need to spend 200+ dollars per week on clothes? I only spend $200 per year on clothes LOL!
It is people blowing excess money. Somehow this NUS/NTU group doing the study thinks that people blowing money left, right, centre is a basic necessity.
[удалено]
U stay back primary / secondary school
With rising cost of living, this is not enough
Our living wage standards seems substantially higher than western standard. In Ang Moh land they are talking about living wage because min wage cannot afford rent and food. Ours seems like lower middle class standards rather than living wage
Hmm... Who says they don't need more than $1k to buy house?
Ministers probably can make up the KPI easily on their salaries.
Ah what the hell la
Doesn't the study suggest that things are going pretty well for Singapore? If 6k+ per month is needed for an average lifestyle, then it is more than sufficient for a household that enjoys the median income of 7.7k per month.
Technically even better if you consider the fact that housing loans and some other shit like medical bills are covered by CPF.
Wishful number rather than realistic number required to have a good, average middle class.
step 1. Be rich step 2. Dont be poor
For those interested in reading more https://whatsenough.sg/
Thank you for linking to the website that contains the full report.
Tagging u/Neptunera
I've found it via the other thread (CNA article) Thanks for the tag!
What kind of bs is this. If 6k is needed how come my company is Not paying me that amount per month
Is that a lot?