Resourceful oz unemployment rate is 4.4%,while resource-less SG
is only 1.7%.why?Dunt forget SG get 1 million foreigners here,of which
some 750,000 work in SG!!(Foreigners refer to non--SG citizens and non--SG PR)

inspired by this post

Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:

quote: Down Under… Australia posted another strong labor report in November adding 52.6K jobs, marking the longest run of jobs growth in more than 27 years! While this is good news for the people looking for jobs, and the economy… It's bad news for future wage inflation pressures. There are actually job shortages in Australia, which gives the present workers the hammer when it comes to wage negotiations. I'm sure the Reserve Bank is watching this carefully, and looking for the right time to raise rates again to combat these inflationary pressures.http://www.dailyreckoning.com/Writers/Butler/Articles/121307.html
end of quote..

Wide open spaces (Singaporeans should be compensated and not punished for the lack of wide open spaces), cheap housing, medical care and .... [b]there are actually job shortages in Australia... meaning an abundance of jobs... and real wage negotiations... meaning real wage increases

I wonder what the running dogs of the despots have to say about that?[/b]

source of news

1.It is great,mate.Some 600,000 jobs created in oz p.a.

TREND ESTIMATES (MONTHLY CHANGE)

* EMPLOYMENT increased to 10,559,800
* UNEMPLOYMENT increased to 484,600
* UNEMPLOYMENT RATE increased to 4.4%
* PARTICIPATION RATE increased to 65.2%

But can u tell me why unemployment rate is 4.5%
while the poor resource--less little red dots

overal unemployed rate is 1.7% only...
''The resident unemployment rate also fell significantly to 2.3 per cent from 3.1 per cent over the same period.''
(SG citizens 3.4 million plus PR 0.4 million=residents)

2.Booming economy still more than 4%?The trend.

After rising significantly during the recession in the early 1990s, the unemployment rate has declined from around 11 per cent of the labour force in 1992 (934,000 persons) to its current rate of around 4¼ per cent (472,000 persons).

'Note3.In line with international standards, the ABS classifies the unemployed as those aged 15 years and over who were not employed in the reference week, had actively sought full-time or part-time work at any time in the four weeks up to the end of the reference week and who were available to start work in the reference week.''

Because there are still some lazy people squeezing off the welfare system?

Because some are umemployed farmers and their sons whose lands have been lost to the drought and they have to come into the city to seek work?

Because of alot more factors than what your brainless dribble can include?

After rising significantly during the recession in the early 1990s, the unemployment rate has declined from around 11 per cent of the labour force in 1992 (934,000 persons) to its current rate of around 4¼ per cent (472,000 persons).

'Note3.In line with international standards, the ABS classifies the unemployed as those aged 15 years and over who were not employed in the reference week, had actively sought full-time or part-time work at any time in the four weeks up to the end of the reference week and who were available to start work in the reference week.''

So some could be students with and without scholarships?

As usual lionnoisy chooses to lambast Australia, a place which he is neither a citizen nor ever lived in.

Put it this way, if Singapore is truly what lionnoisy made it out to be, there should be a mass exodus of Australians citizens to Singapore. Instead Singapore is a magnet for 3rd world country citizens like China, India, Indonesia, Philippines and Vietnam.

Unemployment is linked to growth rates, each country is subjected to it's own business cycle. When USA is having boom time, Japan could be having a recession, therefore Japanese unemployment rate could be higher.

plus.......i think the sinkapore's reported 1.7% unem is only surface deep in terms of data shared.....

plus plus...there is so much mobility of workforce from the region's ppl, think across the causeway and the relative ease of ppl coming in from China, Philippines, Indo, Aussieland, etc. etc..

in oz land, it is not easy at all.....in some level, protectionism is practiced, but i think it is in the favour of its citizens.

here, u r on your own...regardless of the color of your IC.

Originally posted by weiqimun:

plus.......i think the sinkapore's reported 1.7% unem is only surface deep in terms of data shared.....

plus plus...there is so much mobility of workforce from the region's ppl, think across the causeway and the relative ease of ppl coming in from China, Philippines, Indo, Aussieland, etc. etc..

in oz land, it is not easy at all.....in some level, protectionism is practiced, but i think it is in the favour of its citizens.

here, u r on your own...regardless of the color of your IC.

One also has to understand that this is statistical sampling, they don't use data from 100% of the population.

All they do is, take a sample size from the population based on the requirements for "accuracy level" and "confidence interval".

For a population of 1 million (5% accuracy and 95% confidence interval), you only need a sample size of 383 respondents.

Originally posted by weiqimun:

plus.......i think the sinkapore's reported 1.7% unem is only surface deep in terms of data shared.....

plus plus...there is so much mobility of workforce from the region's ppl, think across the causeway and the relative ease of ppl coming in from China, Philippines, Indo, Aussieland, etc. etc..

in oz land, it is not easy at all.....in some level, protectionism is practiced, but i think it is in the favour of its citizens.

here, u r on your own...regardless of the color of your IC.

For all we know, Australia could have a higher unemployment rate for it's non-citizen. Unlike Singapore which has higher unemployment rate for it's citizen.

Unemployment rates are calculated based on those who seek work but cannot find it. So this means that some people who give up seeking work are not considered unemployed anymore and are generally dropped from statistics.

For example lets say our forum member Mr Dragg was seeking work in the 1st year but by 2nd year he gave up. Then in first year he will be part of the uemplpyment statistics. By 2nd year, he will not be included in that statistics. So the statistics seems to indicate a reducing number of unemployed people.

Statistics don't tell the whole picture. Facts cannot be massaged but statistics can.

According to the Ministry of Manpower, an employed person would be:

Employed Persons

This refers to persons aged 15 years and over who, during the reference period:

Worked for one hour or more either for pay, profit or family gains;

or

Had a job or business to return to but were temporarily absent because of illness or injury, vacation, bad weather, mechanical breakdown, labour management dispute, temporarily laid off with salary or other reasons during the reference period.

So if this person who works for 1 hour in 3 months either for profit or for family gains(helping dad in shop without pay).

This person is considered employed.

Which such broad definition for employed, I am surprised that we still have 1.7% unemployed.

Statistics is used to trick those simpletons without a knack for analysis.

Putting in my 2 cents here....

Singapore probably does have a lower unemployment rate than Australia. And i would be surprised if it was otherwise.

Alot of my colleagues don't want to be permanent instead prefering to be temps.... working a few months before jetting off on 2 month holidays to South America or watever.... that was a culture shock for me when i first arrived..... that's how much confidence the ozzies have in getting a job when they feel like it

Also there are people in Oz that just choose not to work... they get paid "gahment help them cos in trouble" for being unemployed. and i heard its enough for them to buy beer every day That's why taxpayers are angry cause we pay for them Of cos there are genuine cases .... but i suspect some are not

I hate it when TS starts a thread and just disappears and ignores all responses to his posting.

only idiots will believe

Originally posted by maurizio13:
According to the Ministry of Manpower, an employed person would be:

[b]Employed Persons

This refers to persons aged 15 years and over who, during the reference period:

Worked for one hour or more either for pay, profit or family gains;

or

Had a job or business to return to but were temporarily absent because of illness or injury, vacation, bad weather, mechanical breakdown, labour management dispute, temporarily laid off with salary or other reasons during the reference period.

So if this person who works for 1 hour in 3 months either for profit or for family gains(helping dad in shop without pay).

This person is considered employed.

Which such broad definition for employed, I am surprised that we still have 1.7% unemployed.

Statistics is used to trick those simpletons without a knack for analysis.
[/b]

1) Is MOM definition of employment different from other countries?

2) Is MOM constantly tweaking and changing their definition of employment to trick simpleton like you?

Originally posted by Gazelle:

1) Is MOM definition of employment different from other countries?

2) Is MOM constantly tweaking and changing their definition of employment to trick simpleton like you?

er.. tell me which country place an unemployed of 3 months and more is equal to 'unemployment by choice' and thus omitted?

er, tell me which country would use a term such as 'homeless by choice'?

Originally posted by genie99:

Also there are people in Oz that just choose not to work... they get paid "gahment help them cos in trouble" for being unemployed. and i heard its enough for them to buy beer every day That's why taxpayers are angry cause we pay for them Of cos there are genuine cases .... but i suspect some are not

i think this is only a very small minority.....this perception of Aussie choosing not to work does not hold for now....the economy is booming and the opportunity of Aussies moving up the social ladder is there for real. Most, I believe, would take the chance of improving their lifestyle and make the most of the `ride' of the economic boom.

U can sit on your laurel and enjoy your beer, but when u see that your neighbour is stepping up becos there is opportunities there, you wouldn't want to be left behind, unless one is the ultimate `lepak king'.

Originally posted by Gazelle:

1) Is MOM definition of employment different from other countries?

Again, did you do your research before questioning?

Just some examples:

USA
Source: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.tn.htm

People are classified as employed if they did any work at all as paid
employees during the reference week; worked in their own business, pro-
fession, or on their own farm; or worked without pay at least 15 hours
in a family business or farm. People are also counted as employed if they
were temporarily absent from their jobs because of illness, bad weather,
vacation, labor-management disputes, or personal reasons.

Difference: USA is at least 15 hours, Sg is at least 1 hour

Hong Kong
Source: http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hong_kong_statistics/statistical_tables/index.jsp?charsetID=1&subjectID=2&tableID=006
The labour force refers to the land-based non-institutional population aged 15 and over who satisfy the criteria for inclusion in the employed population or the unemployed population.

The employed population comprises those persons who have been at work for pay or profit during the 7 days before enumeration or who have had formal job attachment.

The unemployed population comprises all unemployed persons. For a person aged 15 or over to be classified as unemployed, that person should :
(a) not have had a job and should not have performed any work for pay or profit during the 7 days before enumeration; and
(b) have been available for work during the 7 days before enumeration; and
(c) have sought work during the 30 days before enumeration.

However, if a person aged 15 or over fulfils the conditions (a) and (b) above but has not sought work during the 30 days before enumeration because he/she believes that work is not available, he/she is still classified as unemployed, being regarded as a so-called "discouraged worker".

Difference: Hong Kong is no work for 30 days before considered as "discouraged worker"
Sg is no work for 3 months before considered as "unemployed by choice"

UK
Source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=12

Working age is defined as 16-64 for men and 16-59 for women.

Difference: Sg is 15 yrs old onwards

Australia is the same:
source:http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/C52B8F48D579E37BCA2573AF0014BE38/$File/62020_nov%202007.pdf

Thanks mates for all the valuable contributions.

I agree figure and reports could be tailored make
to please the people and fool government .

but,do u think SG need to fake figures to get one more
no.1 in the world?

But i cant buy the idea of business cycle to explain high unemplotment
rate,in resourceful Australia .

pl help to explain
Chart 5: Unemployment rate, Australia, 1984 to 2005


SG unemployment rate fr 1993---2005 in red,the top curve.
The highest is 4 %,during the year of SARS.

source of the curve

1.Why Oz unemployment rate still maintain at above 4 % during the
current good time?Remember,Oz is money every where.
SG is just a small island even water has to be imported.

According to the Ministry of Manpower, an employed person would be:

Employed Persons

This refers to persons aged 15 years and over who, during the reference period:

Worked for one hour or more either for pay, profit or family gains;

or

Had a job or business to return to but were temporarily absent because of illness or injury, vacation, bad weather, mechanical breakdown, labour management dispute, temporarily laid off with salary or other reasons during the reference period.

So I suppose everyone in our economy works 1 hour for 1 month, then the Singapore economy would have zero percent unemployment.

Wonder what they could afford with 1 hour of pay for 1 month?

Maybe Mr. lionnoisy can explain this?

Moreover high unemployment does not necessarily mean bad and low unemployment does not necessarily mean good.

Low unemployment could lead to higher inflation, go read and understand NAIRU if you can. While you are at it maybe you can also try your best to understand natural rate of unemployment.

Countries with zero unemployment would be the old communist Russia and China, where everybody has a job. Maybe we are striving towards that end.

Originally posted by weiqimun:

i think this is only a very small minority.....this perception of Aussie choosing not to work does not hold for now....the economy is booming and the opportunity of Aussies moving up the social ladder is there for real. Most, I believe, would take the chance of improving their lifestyle and make the most of the `ride' of the economic boom.

U can sit on your laurel and enjoy your beer, but when u see that your neighbour is stepping up becos there is opportunities there, you wouldn't want to be left behind, unless one is the ultimate `lepak king'.

There is a reason why they call Australia the surfer's paradise.

I generally put more weight to what's happening on the ground:

Out in the cold

Expectations lowered, but some still jobless

Letter from Gilbert Goh Keow Wah

Though the media has been painting a rosy picture of Singapore's employment market, many of my professional friends in their 40s and 50s feel they have been left out in the cold.

One wonders if the jobs created, mostly in the service sector, are more suitable for younger workers. Singaporeans tend to shun these jobs not because they are unwilling to do them, but rather because they do not pay enough to cover a family's expenses.

Many of my friends have not been able to get a job for months, some even years, though they have lowered their expectations drastically. One, an engineer, left his job late last year but until now has not been able to get a job.

Although he has breadth of experience and has even headed a department, so far no employer has been keen to tap his skills and experience.

He is willing to take a pay cut of up to 50 per cent to make ends meet. Despite this, he is still desperately searching for a job in a very vibrant job market.

Many friends say employers prefer younger workers as they are less demanding and more eager to learn.

Some bosses also prefer foreigners as they are cheaper to hire. Hiring from abroad both dampens wages and forces locals to compete with a mass influx of foreigners. Apparently, there are firms that will only replace outgoing local staff with foreigners.

Unless some priority is given to unemployed locals, I fear that the feeling of discontentment may grow with time.

Originally posted by Gazelle:

There is a reason why they call Australia the surfer's paradise.

Yah, there's some connection with sand and beaches - take a wild guess what the connection is.

Now that the USSR doesn't exist any more, the title of Worker's Paradise is vacant. I'm sure Singapore would love to have that title.

You fool.

Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Thanks mates for all the valuable contributions.

I agree figure and reports could be tailored make
to please the people and fool government .

but,do u think SG need to fake figures to get one more
no.1 in the world?

But i cant buy the idea of business cycle to explain high unemplotment
rate,in resourceful Australia .

pl help to explain
[b]Chart 5: Unemployment rate, Australia, 1984 to 2005


SG unemployment rate fr 1993---2005 in red,the top curve.
The highest is 4 %,during the year of SARS.

source of the curve

1.Why Oz unemployment rate still maintain at above 4 % during the
current good time?Remember,Oz is money every where.
SG is just a small island even water has to be imported.[/b]

Figures need not be faked.

For eg.

When comparing standard of living, compare Singapore with poorer countries to show that Singapore has a high standard of living
When comparing cost of living, compare Singapore with more costly countries to show that Singapore has a relatively lower cost of living.

Both figures are not fake. They are just presented in a way which the govt wants us to perceive Singapore.

You got to look deeper to truly see through the veil and look at the bare facts

Originally posted by soul_rage:

Figures need not be faked.

For eg.

When comparing standard of living, compare Singapore with poorer countries to show that Singapore has a high standard of living
When comparing cost of living, compare Singapore with more costly countries to show that Singapore has a relatively lower cost of living.

Both figures are not fake. They are just presented in a way which the govt wants us to perceive Singapore.

You got to look deeper to truly see through the veil and look at the bare facts

Well said! I was trying to explain this to ql99 in another thread

Originally posted by soul_rage:

Figures need not be faked.

For eg.

When comparing standard of living, compare Singapore with poorer countries to show that Singapore has a high standard of living
When comparing cost of living, compare Singapore with more costly countries to show that Singapore has a relatively lower cost of living.

Both figures are not fake. They are just presented in a way which the govt wants us to perceive Singapore.

You got to look deeper to truly see through the veil and look at the bare facts

1.U mean I compare a country in worse performance or figure to make
SG looks better or good?

Ya.OZ has worse records in employment for many years.
Pl tell me either OZ or SG fake the figures or both?
Who lower or increase the figures?

Originally posted by lionnoisy:

1.U mean I compare a country in worse performance or figure to make
SG looks better or good?

Ya.OZ has worse records in employment for many years.
Pl tell me either OZ or SG fake the figures or both?
Who lower or increase the figures?

Singapore has her own good points. Australia also have her own good points.

Which country is better or worse ? I don't know . For me , Australia looks better.

I am actually employed despite your figures of "worse records in employment".

As for faking? It is lies lies and more statistics.

One thing though, one portfolio budget of one federal department can go into 3 volumes - one volume is about 200-300 pages. A breakdown of expenses in every single division, branch and EVEN sections for some departments.

If you want figures in Australia , you can request for what you want to look at and the department will give you the figures if it is not confidential. If it is , they will tell you that it is confidential. I know that when I was in uni .