Biggest rise in household income for poorer families
I refer to the article “Household income up, with biggest rise for poorer families” (Straits Times, Feb 27).
It states that “Families in all income groups in Singapore earned more last year because of the tight labour market and higher contribution rate of employers to a worker’s Central Provident Fund (CPF) account
But what is most heartening in the figures released yesterday is that the rise is most significant in the bottom 30 per cent.”
HDB 1 & 2-room: Only 1.6% p.a. increase?
According to the report – the real change in average monthly household income from work per household member among resident employed households by type of dwelling 2005 -2015 (Table 12C) – for HDB 1 & 2-room flats was only 1.6 per cent per annum.
What about “excluding employer CPF contribution”?
Moreover, the data is “including employer CPF contribution”. Is the annualised increase even lower than 1.6 per cent “excluding employer CPF”?
I understand that it used to be that the household income statistics were also given “excluding employer CPF contribution”.
Are lower-income really better off?
Also, since “The increases are due to ongoing government schemes that boost the earnings of low-wage workers, like the Workfare Income Supplement programme” – as the bulk of Workfare goes to CPF – are these typically lower-income HDB households really better off in terms of disposable income relative to their expenditure?
% of HDB 1 & 2 -room flats increase every year?
In this connection, the percentage share (Table 2) of HDB 1 & 2-room flats is at its highest in 10 years (2005 – 2015), at 5.6 per cent (increasing gradually every year from the low of 3.9 per cent in 2008.
“Equity measured by GDP deteriorated tremendously, frighteningly”?
The above dismal statistics are perhaps underscored by Professor Lim Chong Yah, founding chairman of the NWC’s remarks (Straits Times, Feb 27)
“GROWTH AND EQUITY
When I was chairman of the National Wages Council, I said we had to have growth with equity. Later on, the emphasis was more on growth and less on equity. The result was that equity measured by GDP deteriorated tremendously, frighteningly.”
Leong Sze Hian
