I had the privilege of getting a working gig in Singapore for a small AI startup: such a well run country! There is a sense of community for helping by employing people who need jobs, the police were friendly and I felt very safe there (I like to take long walks either early in the morning or late at night and I felt very secure.) Amazing what the people and government have achieved since the end of WW2. 100% respect…
I worked with a guy from sg. He gave me tips for when I went to visit. He hooked me up with a family member that showed me the backend a bit. The country effectively runs on a slave class. You must drive a new vehicle under 5 years old, and the license just to buy a car was $90,000 or so. This means an entire class of people that will be taking the bus to do your laundry and clean your house for the rest of their liv…
> You must drive a new vehicle under 5 years old, and the license just to buy a car was $90,000 or so.
I don't understand this. At all. Are people forced to buy cars every 5 years?
Money is just an abstract, and the less it circulates, the less stuff gets done. For no purpose but insecurity. The ideal would be that everybody operates without savings and without debt. Either of those tools only being used exceptionally, when the benefits are enormous.
Seems to indicate that the ideal capitalist society would have strong social safety nets to make people less risk averse and more willing to spend.
Yes, and one of the strongest of those nets is limited liability for companies, which I think almost all industrialized countries have, no matter their degree of socialism/capitalism.
The other strong safety net needed is a fluid labour market with high wages for workers, meaning people can take risks and if it doesn't work out, they find a well paying job easily.
And of course health care has to be cheap in this "ideal society".
Maybe I missed something in the article but why Singapore and not a country closer in culture to the US? Like why not compare to Canada or the UK, or anywhere in Europe?
Did the study have to go as far as Singapore to find somewhere where the situation was reversed or was there another factor?
If you go out into the street at 11pm you'll see poor people running power washers everywhere you go
I've lived here since 2017. I have yet to see the poor people running power washers at night. Which neighbourhood do you suggest I visit for this spectacle?
By the way I'm not GP, I just wanted to clarify what they said (or attempted to). Apologies.
Maybe I missed something in the article but why Singapore and not a country closer in culture to the US? Like why not compare to Canada or the UK, or anywhere in Europe? Did the study have to go as far as Singapore to find somewhere where the situation was reversed or was there another factor?
A few days ago there was a discussion about how Singapore forces their people to save and invest in bonds. The country makes money on the difference between the daily/compound rates and it keeps their workforce working.
In other words, I suspect it's "we started with Singapore then compared to America" not the other way around.
I saw an interview with Trump in the 80s. He was remarkably clear and articulate. He stayed on topic, he used multi-syllable words, and he generally sounded like someone worth listening to. The comparison of today vs then is frankly shocking.
Simpler, but more powerful words. I think the "nerd" stereotypes that HN is full of could learn from him in that respect.
I saw an interview with Trump in the 80s. He was remarkably clear and articulate. He stayed on topic, he used multi-syllable words, and he generally sounded like someone worth listening to. The comparison of today vs then is frankly shocking.
Simpler, but more powerful words. I think the "nerd" stereotypes that HN is full of could learn from him in that respect.
Listen to Eisenhower, JFK, even Reagan. Are we children?
Obama seems like this great orator because he was just… okay. Like he could speak and sound like a coherent adult. That should be the bar.
> The country effectively runs on a slave class. I really wish people would not throw this word around so casually, it is disrespectful to the many millions of people over the course of human history (and today!) who were forced under threat of violence or death to labour without remuneration. Of course Singapore's migrant worker system is open to criticism, but every single one of those workers can resign tomorrow a…
The argument against allowing migrant workers seems to boil down mostly to 'out of sight, out of mind'. Or in more sophisticated terms: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics. See https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/QXpxioWSQcNuNnNTy/...
Interesting article, and thanks for the introduction to "philosophy bro".
I think the Copenhagen interpretation of Ethics is really a misnomer. In quantum physics, a particle can exist in a superposition of states until you observe it. The ethical equivalent would be "a problem can be viewed as moral or amoral until you observe it", which is not really what the author is explaining. Additionally, I think the problem the author describes mostly boils down to how one interprets the intention behind each example. For instance: paying a homeless person $20 a day (plus donations) can be viewed as charitable (a homeless person gets to earn money and be treated as a human being) or exploitative (you underpay a worker). Same with the price surging: you can view it as a incentive for drivers to compensate for demands or price gouging. I'm not saying either is right or wrong, but that these are the opposed views are coexisting in different people's head. For this, it would make more sense to call this scenario a "Reverse Copenhagen interpretation" where one observation lead to two coexisting interpretations.
A large part of it is originally rooted in racism if you look how the US implemented its welfare state. Many benefits were skewed towards white americans (GI Bill, right to claim land, redlining and social security). I'm sure most Americans aren't nearly as racist right now as back then but the being 'on their own' is linked to the 'don't want 'lazy' african americans to get benefits'.
How were Social Security and the GI Bill skewed towards white Americans, exactly? I haven't heard that before.
Social security had exceptions for farmworkers as well as domestic workers (which was the majority of black people at the time of creation). GI Bill had far more benefits for white Americans as they used it to join great universities in emerging fields. Black Americans mostly used it to go into trades school or underfunded black universities. Access to mortgages through the GI bill was far greater for white people.
Although most these things are better now these things have long lasting consequences for the wealth distribution in the US.
Like Dubai, many of the migrant workers are ineligible for post retirement life in Singapore and so despite any mandatory savings will not represent any kind of burden on the state compared to delivery of health and housing and care costs. So they are functionally productive and net positive to any scheme about post work funding for the community.
You don't pay CPF unless you have Permanent Residence/Citizenship so there isn't any mandatory saving for migrant workers (both low income unskilled and high income skilled labour) AFAIK?
Yep. As someone who worked on an EP, the difference was that I paid a low rate of tax that didn't contribute towards Singaporeans' retirement income, whereas a Singaporean living in Europe would pay a higher rate of tax that contributed towards Europeans' retirement income