Posted by theonlinecitizen on November 30, 2011
~by: Leong Sze Hian~
I refer to the article “S’pore job rate hits new high” (Channel NewsAsia, Nov 30).
According to the Singapore Workforce – 2011 report released on 30 November (see HERE) “Excluding employer CPF contributions, growth in income (median monthly income from work of full-time employed residents) also accelerated in 2011, although by a slightly lower rate at 8.0% (nominal) and 2.8% (real)”
In the past, some of the Ministry of Manpower’s (MOM) labour reports also given the growth in median income for all employed residents (full-time and part-time), instead of just full-time, in the narrative. However, the subject report makes no mention of this.
In this connection, I calculated from the table on page 44 of the report, that the growth in median income for all employed residents (full-time and part-time) was approximately 5.3% (nominal) and 0.1% (real) (2011 – $2,633 divided by 2010 – $2,500 equals to 5.3%).
So, does it mean that the real median income grew by only 0.1% for the year?
3, 4 years of negative real income growth?
Since the report said that the real median income of full-time employed residents dipped by 0.3% in 2010, and real median income growth of all employed residents (full-time and part-time) was negative in 2009 and 2008 (according to past labour reports), does it mean that this year’s real growth was only 0.1% after almost nearly three previous consecutive years of negative growth?
With inflation currently at 5.4% in October, how likely is it that we may end the year with yet again, another negative real median income growth?
Median growth 1.1% last 10 years
“Cumulatively, the median monthly income from work (including employer CPF contributions) of full-time employed residents rose by 36% or 3.1% p.a. from $2,387 in 2001 to $3,249 in 2011. The increase after adjusting for headline inflation was 11% or 1.1% per annum, with virtually all the gains occurring in the second half of the decade from 2006 to 2011. The median income rose faster than the income at the 20th percentile level, which grew by 25% or 2.3% p.a. from $1,383 in 2001 to $1,733 in 2011. Factoring in headline inflation, the real income growth at the 20th percentile level was only 2.6% or 0.3% p.a.”
So, over the last 10 years, real median income grew by only 1.1% per annum, and only 0.3% per annum at the 20th percentile!
More part-timers?
“The number of part-timers continued to rise from 176,700 or 9.0% of employed residents in 2010 to 194,700 or 9.7% in 2011. 47% of the part-timers were willing and available to work additional hours (i.e. time-related underemployed) in 2011 … their number increased from 86,600 or 4.4% of all employed residents in 2010 to 91,200 or 4.6% in 2011, reflecting the rise in part-time employment”
Is this an indication that it may be getting harder to get a full-time job?
More contract workers?
“The number of resident employees on term contracts rose by 1.1% over the
year to 188,400 in 2011”
Interesting, the bulk of contract workers – 108,500, were on term contract of less than 1 year.
Is this an indication of the trend of more out-sourcing and contract employment?
No more break-down for Singaporeans/PRs?
Finally, since for the first time – MOM’s labour report last month gave the breakdown of the unemployment rate into Singaporeans and permanent residents (PRs), why does the subject report not continue this expanded disclosure by breaking-down the employment statistics too?
