I make a rough guess that 50% of the working population will be sufficient to produce the goods to meet the basic needs of the population for food, shelter, clothing, health and education, including the manufacturing industries that are needed to support the basic industries.
If the work is shared fairly among the working population, it is possible (based on my guess) for each person to work 4 hours a day to contribute their share of the work and to receive an income that is sufficient for a decent standard of life.
In this environment, there is no need for a person to worry about inability to find a job. There is no need for them to work more than is needed, and in the process deprive another person of their right to a job.
It is possible for people to work longer than the minimum hours, so that they can accumulate savings for the future, or additional income to raise a family or to engage in leisure, social or religious activities. These are optional activities that come after the person has the security of a job.
It is possible for society to mandate a wider scope of the basic needs, to include raising a family or involved in culture or religion. The cost of these activities can be borne by society collectively, and expand the pool of work that needs to be done.
My ideas are influenced by the need for social justice and the need for society to set the norms for its future (instead of the "me first" attitude of individualism). However, my concept still relies on the mechanics of the market to ensure that the people can choose the suitable work based on their interest and skill and that the remuneration can be based on supply and demand, but determined holistically.
Tan Kin Lian
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
A fairer distribution of work
Many young people are worried about their ability to find a job on graduation. If they are unemployed, how can they repay their study loan and meet their daily expenses, especially if their parents are not well off.
Some people with jobs work long hours, so that they can keep their jobs. In the process, they are depriving other people of the chance to work.
This is a bad capitalist system. It exploits the weak so that the strong can get richer. It creases stress and economic insecurity. It leads to a declining population as many people decide that they cannot afford to raise children.
Is there a better and fairer system? Yes, but we have to think out of the box. To provide the basic needs of every person on earth, there is a certain volume of work to be done. If this volume of work is shared fairly among all the working people, there is no need for anyone to be unemployed or for others to be overworked.
Maybe, each person needs to work only a few hours each day and will have more time for leisure and socialising. They will also have more time to raise a family. If there are more children, there will be more work to take care of and educate the children.
There are advantages for a fairer system of distributing work and rewards - a better quality of life, less stress, more children, happier people. I am describing a more socialist society.
Tan Kin Lian
Some people with jobs work long hours, so that they can keep their jobs. In the process, they are depriving other people of the chance to work.
This is a bad capitalist system. It exploits the weak so that the strong can get richer. It creases stress and economic insecurity. It leads to a declining population as many people decide that they cannot afford to raise children.
Is there a better and fairer system? Yes, but we have to think out of the box. To provide the basic needs of every person on earth, there is a certain volume of work to be done. If this volume of work is shared fairly among all the working people, there is no need for anyone to be unemployed or for others to be overworked.
Maybe, each person needs to work only a few hours each day and will have more time for leisure and socialising. They will also have more time to raise a family. If there are more children, there will be more work to take care of and educate the children.
There are advantages for a fairer system of distributing work and rewards - a better quality of life, less stress, more children, happier people. I am describing a more socialist society.
Tan Kin Lian
Morgan Stanley, Moody,S&P must defend fraud claims
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A U.S. federal judge has ruled that Morgan Stanley and two credit rating agencies must defend part of a class-action lawsuit over losses on a fund that collapsed during the credit crisis.
U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin on Wednesday rejected efforts by Morgan Stanley, Moody's Corp's Moody's Investors Service and McGraw-Hill Cos' Standard & Poor's to dismiss fraud claims brought by the plaintiffs, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank and King County in Washington state.
She dismissed the remaining claims against those entities, as well as all claims against Bank of New York Mellon Corp. The judge will allow the plaintiffs to amend their complaint, and set an Oct 1 status conference.
The lawsuit accused the defendants of marketing a complex instrument, the Cheyne Structured Investment Vehicle, as a high-quality investment, but masked the risks.
SIVs once held some $350 billion in assets, but many collapsed. According to its complaint, the Abu Dhabi bank lost its entire investment in the Cheyne vehicle.
The case is Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank v. Morgan Stanley, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan), No. 08-7508.
U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin on Wednesday rejected efforts by Morgan Stanley, Moody's Corp's
She dismissed the remaining claims against those entities, as well as all claims against Bank of New York Mellon Corp
The lawsuit accused the defendants of marketing a complex instrument, the Cheyne Structured Investment Vehicle, as a high-quality investment, but masked the risks.
SIVs once held some $350 billion in assets, but many collapsed. According to its complaint, the Abu Dhabi bank lost its entire investment in the Cheyne vehicle.
The case is Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank v. Morgan Stanley, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan), No. 08-7508.
Cut in bonus
Dear Mr. Tan,
Recently, I received my annual bonus statement on my life policy. I was disappointed with their cut in my bonus from 1.5% to 0.75% (50%).
From what I understand, the premiums are been pooled together in a participating fund and the investment allocation is considered conservative type. When I see this 50% cut,I am wondering am I aboard on a roller coster?
I have received my bonus statements from other companies, but some did not cut my bonuses at all and for others, it was only a minor deduction.
May I know is there anything I can do?
REPLY
You can write to the newspaper or lodge a complaint with MAS. MAS should realise that their governance framework is producing this type of outcome.
Recently, I received my annual bonus statement on my life policy. I was disappointed with their cut in my bonus from 1.5% to 0.75% (50%).
From what I understand, the premiums are been pooled together in a participating fund and the investment allocation is considered conservative type. When I see this 50% cut,I am wondering am I aboard on a roller coster?
I have received my bonus statements from other companies, but some did not cut my bonuses at all and for others, it was only a minor deduction.
May I know is there anything I can do?
REPLY
You can write to the newspaper or lodge a complaint with MAS. MAS should realise that their governance framework is producing this type of outcome.
Rejection from FIDREC
Every few days, I get an email from a credit note investor who asked for my advice and help, after receiving a rejection letter from FIDREC.
Earlier on, there were many opportunities for the investor to get in touch with other investors, to get legal help, to join the class action, to sign the Petition and to attend the Hong Lim gathering. Many of these investors prefer not to be engaged in these activities.
Now, after receiving a rejection letter, they turn to me for help. I am not able to help them at this late stage. There is nothing that can be done now.
I had spent a lot of effort to organise the Petition and the Hong Lim Gathering. I had posted many updates in my blog. I also sent an email to remind the 700 signatories about the Gathering. Only 300 people turned up, which was below expectation and insufficient to create the impact.
Earlier on, there were many opportunities for the investor to get in touch with other investors, to get legal help, to join the class action, to sign the Petition and to attend the Hong Lim gathering. Many of these investors prefer not to be engaged in these activities.
Now, after receiving a rejection letter, they turn to me for help. I am not able to help them at this late stage. There is nothing that can be done now.
I had spent a lot of effort to organise the Petition and the Hong Lim Gathering. I had posted many updates in my blog. I also sent an email to remind the 700 signatories about the Gathering. Only 300 people turned up, which was below expectation and insufficient to create the impact.
Earthquake tremors in Jakarta
I was at an insurance company office in Jakarta. We discussed the underwriting loss for a branch. What was the reason?
The technical director said "earthquake, earthquake". I asked, "which earthquake and how did it caused the loss".
He said, "Can you see the office shaking? There is an earthquake now". We all decided to vacate the office and run down to the ground floor and outside the building.
This was the first time that I experienced an earthquake in my life We learned later that there was an earthquake in West Java, about 250 km from Jakarta, measuring 7.5 richter scale. This caused the tremor to be felt in Jakarta.
The technical director said "earthquake, earthquake". I asked, "which earthquake and how did it caused the loss".
He said, "Can you see the office shaking? There is an earthquake now". We all decided to vacate the office and run down to the ground floor and outside the building.
This was the first time that I experienced an earthquake in my life We learned later that there was an earthquake in West Java, about 250 km from Jakarta, measuring 7.5 richter scale. This caused the tremor to be felt in Jakarta.
An open mind
Many Singaporeans have a closed mind. If they see a suggestion for a change, they will evaluate it and find many reasons why the new way will not work. With this mindset, it is difficult to make any change.
There are some Singaporeans who have an open mind, but this tends to be a minority. To have an open mind, it is necessary to observe the following:
a) Identify and understand the problem. Accept that there is a problem and the need to make a change.
b) Recognise that there are many ways to make a change. Some will not work, but other ways may work.
c) Do not decide based on theory. It is better to try it out and see the results. Even if there are problems, they can be overcomed.
I hope that more people will adopt a positive approach and be ready to make a change, working for a better outcome.
Tan Kin Lian
There are some Singaporeans who have an open mind, but this tends to be a minority. To have an open mind, it is necessary to observe the following:
a) Identify and understand the problem. Accept that there is a problem and the need to make a change.
b) Recognise that there are many ways to make a change. Some will not work, but other ways may work.
c) Do not decide based on theory. It is better to try it out and see the results. Even if there are problems, they can be overcomed.
I hope that more people will adopt a positive approach and be ready to make a change, working for a better outcome.
Tan Kin Lian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)