Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

America vs. Singapore: You can't save your way out of economic shocks

governance.fyi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 488 posts

Re: America vs. Singapore: You can't save your way out of economic shocks

#61

Post by boelboel »

vladms wrote: post #13
hnthrow0287345 wrote: post #8

>They’re failing to save because the world is rough, and their institutions don’t do enough to help them weather it. Well, America is rough. It turned on hardcore capitalism mode for itself because a significant portion of its population wants to try and solo socioeconomic hardships and hates any one who doesn't want the same challenge. But not to just blame the voter, lots of money is spent for setting up systems to…

Isn't it more a cultural issue though? As a European, I think many Americans take pride and love to succeed "on their own" and accept they could "die trying" (exaggerating a bit, hence the quotes, but the feeling holds). Yes, the systems are amenable to acquiring more money, but I would claim that all that the richest need to do is to push the idea that "anyone can make it" - which was probably (more) true 50 years a…

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'.

Re: America vs. Singapore: You can't save your way out of economic shocks

#62

Post by jonahx »

foxyv wrote: post #42
paxys wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can retire whenever you want. The government decides when to start funding it. As for why - the same reason why they get to decide what side of the road you drive on and what laws you follow. They rule the patch of land you were born on, and if you don't like it you can either participate in the system (assuming it's a democracy) or leave.

This boils down to a "Might makes right" claim. It doesn't answer the question why. Only how.

It definitely answers why. You are asking for an appeal to some moral justification. But there isn't one, and it doesn't matter. That's the whole point of "might makes right".

Re: America vs. Singapore: You can't save your way out of economic shocks

#63

Post by temp8830 »

nosianu wrote: post #41
drivebyhooting wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for the part where citizens get low returns and are forced to work their whole lives accruing minimal benefit. How is being a serf win win?

Unless we scale back our lives significantly, and are fine with a lot less stuff and vacations and devices and modernized living (houses and transit today are vastly more complex systems than a few decades ago), there simply is no way to let a large number of people live like rich people. I grew up in East Germany, and while it was a total failure, they got at least one idea correct in the workers paradise: We need t…

You get lots of vacations? And fancy transit systems? Where do you live and work?

Re: America vs. Singapore: You can't save your way out of economic shocks

#64

Post by delta_p_delta_x »

InkCanon wrote: post #50
3rodents wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t speak for Singaporeans and every government has their detractors but the Singaporeans I’ve known loved their system and hated the western systems they were exposed to. They would laugh if you tried to describe their life as serfdom when compared to a life in the U.S. or Europe.

I'll be blunt and say most Singaporeans have a very poor idea of how these policies work. Another major one - virtually all Singaporeans believe they own their houses, and it is a point of pride and financial security. Most houses are on 99 year leases, but the idea that is deeply lodged is that this is longer than you can live so this is inconsequential. While this is true if they only cared about living in it, hous…

I think Singaporeans have a decent idea, and given their quality of lives, they have no problems with the trade-offs. If they do, they leave. And many go back, because the trade-offs in the West are even worse.

> Despite the iron mathematical law that these houses must depreciate their lease value

SERS means that houses slated to be torn down are resold back to the government at near-market rates excluding the effect of the 99-year leasehold.

In Singapore, the government owns everything, even ostensibly 'freehold' land. If they want to run an MRT line under your house, and they need to tear your house down to get to it, they will force you to sell your house and your land to them. Has happened before, will absolutely happen again. It's an island city-state smaller than London. There is literally no space anywhere else.

Re: America vs. Singapore: You can't save your way out of economic shocks

#65

Post by dmoy »

delta_p_delta_x wrote: post #47
drivebyhooting wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for the part where citizens get low returns and are forced to work their whole lives accruing minimal benefit. How is being a serf win win?

Singapore is one of the last countries one will be a 'serf' in. The parent contributor has conveniently left out the fact that the 37% of CPF contributions is split 20-17 in terms of employee-employer contributions[1], and has a ceiling of S$8000[2], so if one earns more than that, every additional dollar goes entirely to them, which is also taxed at globally low income tax rates[3]. One can put all one's post-tax mo…

$8000 is considerably above median income, no?

Re: America vs. Singapore: You can't save your way out of economic shocks

#66

Post by cm2012 »

ww520 wrote: post #44
ecshafer wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CPF sounds pretty clever. It covers a major individual cost and need (retirement, medical, housing) instead of just throwing it into a tax. It makes the government money. This sounds like a win win kind of policy.

It’s not a win win policy. The citizens lose massive amount of their money to government on the bond yield delta. It preys on people not knowing the effect of long term compound interest. Edit: in fact interest delta is how banks make their huge profits except the government here does it by force.

The average person does not make meaningful interest or investment income, its not practical to on individual small salaries.

Re: America vs. Singapore: You can't save your way out of economic shocks

#67

Post by temp8830 »

paxys wrote: post #40
finolex1 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that different from the US? Immigrants also get booted here if they lose their job. They also pay social security, Medicare, and other taxes but usually don't get the benefits unless they stay here for long enough and get a green card.

The difference is the number. Workers on temporary visas make up ~1% of the labor force in the US. And a large chunk of them will eventually get citizenship or permanent residency and qualify for benefits later in life. Countries like Singapore and all of the Middle East meanwhile rely on a revolving door of cheap immigrant labor. In the extreme cases like Qatar 95% of the working population are on short term visas.…

The US also has a huge pool of undocumented immigrants who don't get any benefits, don't pay into the social security system, and can be paid below minimum wage (because officially they don't exist). Any time this labor supply is threatened, the construction and agriculture industries rise up (and probably sponsor all those massive protests you see in the news).

Re: America vs. Singapore: You can't save your way out of economic shocks

#68

Post by gruez »

everforward wrote: post #57
ecshafer wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CPF sounds pretty clever. It covers a major individual cost and need (retirement, medical, housing) instead of just throwing it into a tax. It makes the government money. This sounds like a win win kind of policy.

To me it sounds like a tax structured in a strange way so it doesn't obviously read as a tax. It's essentially a forced loan to the government at subpar rates. The "tax" is the delta between what the government pays out for the bonds vs what a bond of equivalent risk in the free market would have paid. The magnitude of the investment also probably makes it impractical for anyone but the very wealthy to retire before…

>It's essentially a forced loan to the government at subpar rates. The "tax" is the delta between what the government pays out for the bonds vs what a bond of equivalent risk in the free market would have paid.

Yeah there's even a term for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_repression

Re: America vs. Singapore: You can't save your way out of economic shocks

#69

Post by foxyv »

jonahx wrote: post #62
foxyv wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This boils down to a "Might makes right" claim. It doesn't answer the question why. Only how.

It definitely answers why. You are asking for an appeal to some moral justification. But there isn't one, and it doesn't matter. That's the whole point of "might makes right".

In an attempt to steelman, you are saying:

"There is no moral justification for the government setting a retirement age, but they are able to. So it doesn't matter."

Re: America vs. Singapore: You can't save your way out of economic shocks

#70

Post by zozbot234 »

InkCanon wrote: post #50
3rodents wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t speak for Singaporeans and every government has their detractors but the Singaporeans I’ve known loved their system and hated the western systems they were exposed to. They would laugh if you tried to describe their life as serfdom when compared to a life in the U.S. or Europe.

I'll be blunt and say most Singaporeans have a very poor idea of how these policies work. Another major one - virtually all Singaporeans believe they own their houses, and it is a point of pride and financial security. Most houses are on 99 year leases, but the idea that is deeply lodged is that this is longer than you can live so this is inconsequential. While this is true if they only cared about living in it, hous…

99 year leases make complete sense. Much of the value of a 'house' in an urban area like Singapore is actually in the land, and the value is being created by the community on a day-to-day basis. It makes no sense for that value to be captured for all future time by a single owner, that just encourages pointless speculation and makes it harder to allocate real estate towards its highest and most valuable use.
Post reply on HN