5 ms·

When I worked in Singapore, it was heartbreaking to see how the elderly were forced to take low paying positions clearing tables and being servers at McDonald's

When I worked in Singapore, it was heartbreaking to see how the elderly were forced to take low paying positions clearing tables and being servers at McDonald's. Not because it's "bad" work or anything, but because in their aging years they were forced to due to a social service system that failed them. This is obviously a fluff piece that tries to promote the resilience and motivation of the aging population, yet just highlights how bad things are since people have to work til they die.

mirimir 7y ago
So has Singapore's social services gone bankrupt? Did they just run out of young people to fund it? Edit: OK, OK, I found a 2011 Brookings report that explains it: "Social Policy in Singapore: A Crucible of Individual Responsibility".[0] Basically, social services mandates savings, with more or less self-managed investment, but doesn't guarantee benefits. And it has emphasized home ownership. So no, their system isn't at risk of bankruptcy. But then: > Like the standard criticism of defined-contribution pension plans, the standard criticism of somewhat minimalist social policy such as that which characterises Singapore is that it does not cover enough risks and actual problems faced by the poor, the elderly, and the sick and disabled. As we have seen, European, Scandinavian and North American countries spend around 35% of their GDPs on social programmes. Although a comparable figure on total social welfare spending is not available for Singapore, the Government of Singapore spends only 16.7% of its GDP on all its programmes, a figure that is less than half as much as European and Scandinavian programmes spent just on social welfare. So there we have it: individual responsibility. 0) https://www.brookings.edu/articles/social-policy-in-singapore-a-crucible-of-individual-responsibility/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/social-policy-in-singapor...
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  "Individual responsibility" is code for "privatised profits from essential public services." Which in turn is code for "Heaven help you if you're poor or just plain unlucky."
  - mirimir 7y ago
    There is some debate over just what public services are essential. But I do agree that livable support ought to be available for those who, for whatever reason, can't provide for themselves, or get support from family or friends. That's arguably a major part of living in a society.
seppin 7y ago
> This is obviously a fluff piece that tries to promote the resilience and motivation of the aging population, yet just highlights how bad things are since people have to work til they die. It's "learn to code" but in a less aggressive way.
rayiner 7y ago
How has the system “failed them?”
- 9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
  CPF, the Singaporean pension system, is a defined contribution system funded by employers. If you were working before it was created in 1955 (not many of these left), or before contribution rates were ramped up to meaningful levels c. 1985, or -- most commonly -- working in informal or self-employed jobs, it was/is entirely possible to reach retirement age without a penny to your name. There are some government schemes to prevent total destitution, but most rely on having family to support you, which many of the poorest don't (no children and/or broader family estranged). https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/cnainsider/ploughing-on-the-faces-and-insecurities-of-singapore-s-elderly-8824490 https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/cnainsider/ploughing-on...
- coldtea 7y ago
  In the European sense, that if you're 70+ and you're forced to working still after a lifetime of work (even if you had blown every penny of your old salaries on hookers and blow), then the pension system is bad and anybody who approves of it should feel bad -- you wouldn't understand!
  - rayiner 7y ago
    I clearly don’t. It’s inexplicable to me why able-bodied people in a country with a birth rate below replacement rate since 1977 should expect to be able to stop working. It doesn’t matter how you structure the retirement system, the math doesn’t work.
    - quickthrower2 7y ago
      The explanation would be automation. If we have machines doing the bulk work of food production and distribution (with some people involved, but not the entire population), then there is in theory room for some people not to work. This means other people will need to take up that slack, but lets honestly look at most of the jobs we do and the world is mostly inventing work for itself. "Must see movie?" "Luxury Appartments" "Diamond rings" "Minecraft" etc. etc. Pretty much most of the stuff we buy in the 1st world are luxuries.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

mirimir 7y ago

So has Singapore's social services gone bankrupt? Did they just run out of young people to fund it? Edit: OK, OK, I found a 2011 Brookings report that explains it: "Social Policy in Singapore: A Crucible of Individual Responsibility".[0] Basically, social services mandates savings, with more or less self-managed investment, but doesn't guarantee benefits. And it has emphasized home ownership. So no, their system isn't at risk of bankruptcy. But then: > Like the standard criticism of defined-contribution pension plans, the standard criticism of somewhat minimalist social policy such as that which characterises Singapore is that it does not cover enough risks and actual problems faced by the poor, the elderly, and the sick and disabled. As we have seen, European, Scandinavian and North American countries spend around 35% of their GDPs on social programmes. Although a comparable figure on total social welfare spending is not available for Singapore, the Government of Singapore spends only 16.7% of its GDP on all its programmes, a figure that is less than half as much as European and Scandinavian programmes spent just on social welfare. So there we have it: individual responsibility. 0) https://www.brookings.edu/articles/social-policy-in-singapore-a-crucible-of-individual-responsibility/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/social-policy-in-singapor...

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
"Individual responsibility" is code for "privatised profits from essential public services." Which in turn is code for "Heaven help you if you're poor or just plain unlucky."
- mirimir 7y ago
  There is some debate over just what public services are essential. But I do agree that livable support ought to be available for those who, for whatever reason, can't provide for themselves, or get support from family or friends. That's arguably a major part of living in a society.

seppin 7y ago

> This is obviously a fluff piece that tries to promote the resilience and motivation of the aging population, yet just highlights how bad things are since people have to work til they die. It's "learn to code" but in a less aggressive way.

rayiner 7y ago

How has the system “failed them?”

9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
CPF, the Singaporean pension system, is a defined contribution system funded by employers. If you were working before it was created in 1955 (not many of these left), or before contribution rates were ramped up to meaningful levels c. 1985, or -- most commonly -- working in informal or self-employed jobs, it was/is entirely possible to reach retirement age without a penny to your name. There are some government schemes to prevent total destitution, but most rely on having family to support you, which many of the poorest don't (no children and/or broader family estranged). https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/cnainsider/ploughing-on-the-faces-and-insecurities-of-singapore-s-elderly-8824490 https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/cnainsider/ploughing-on...
coldtea 7y ago
In the European sense, that if you're 70+ and you're forced to working still after a lifetime of work (even if you had blown every penny of your old salaries on hookers and blow), then the pension system is bad and anybody who approves of it should feel bad -- you wouldn't understand!
- rayiner 7y ago
  I clearly don’t. It’s inexplicable to me why able-bodied people in a country with a birth rate below replacement rate since 1977 should expect to be able to stop working. It doesn’t matter how you structure the retirement system, the math doesn’t work.
  - quickthrower2 7y ago
    The explanation would be automation. If we have machines doing the bulk work of food production and distribution (with some people involved, but not the entire population), then there is in theory room for some people not to work. This means other people will need to take up that slack, but lets honestly look at most of the jobs we do and the world is mostly inventing work for itself. "Must see movie?" "Luxury Appartments" "Diamond rings" "Minecraft" etc. etc. Pretty much most of the stuff we buy in the 1st world are luxuries.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]