Singapore Expats

Alternative media complaining that the jobless rate in Singapore is going up slightly. I'd rather have it from the horse's mouth for now:MoM Press Release (not too sure why the article is titled "Tight Labour Market Shows Signs of Easing"). Note that these numbers are often adjusted later on.

Preliminary estimates show that the seasonally adjusted overall unemployment rate was 2.1% in June 2013, up from 1.9% in March 2013 and 1.8% in December 2012. The resident unemployment rate similarly rose to 3.0% in June 2013 from 2.9% in March 2013 and 2.7% in December 2012, while the unemployment rate for citizens increased to 3.1% from 2.9% in the preceding two quarters.

At this point, the statistical changes are very slight, and the unemployment is still way below most of the 2000s. The employment creation and layoff numbers are also still quite ok, though not particularly high.

Unemployment???...there are lots of jobs out there that are not being filled in both local and mnc companies, even labor jobs...so it's just a question of getting picky with jobs...

pixfirewall wrote:Unemployment???...there are lots of jobs out there that are not being filled in both local and mnc companies, even labor jobs...so it's just a question of getting picky with jobs...

and since a lot of freelancing foreigners have been sent packing, more and more locals are taking it easy, like a few friends of mine are doing, by going to change jobs to full time tuition .. I wonder where these guys fit in, employed or unemployed ??

"Persons are counted as unemployed, if they are not working, but are actively looking and available for work"

Actually doesn't really give a true unemployment picture

Saint wrote:"Persons are counted as unemployed, if they are not working, but are actively looking and available for work"

Actually doesn't really give a true unemployment picture

It does. If someone has lots of money due to his/her parents property investments etc and doesnt want to work, then that person shouldn't be counted as unemployed.

I fully subscribe to the theory that Singapore indeed has extremely low unemployment rate. If people really needed money then they would take up any job on offer to feed themselves. On the other hand if someone is too lazy to do work or thinks certain types of work are too lowly for them then I wont count them in the unemployed category.

This is opposite to Europe where people are rioting on the streets due to unemployment and debt, which is not the case here.

The problem here is that they don't have a clue as to who is unemployed or who is just no longer working. In countries with unemployment benefits, you are registered as unemployed if you apply for benefits and have to be seen to be actively looking for a job. Here, with no benefits, and lots living in their parent's/children's/relative's homes, there isn't much way to tell so it's all a bit of guess work.

I believe the only way is by looking at Singaporeans that do not have monthly CPF contributions (minus students)

But are Singaporeans currently working overseas also considered as unemployed?

Saint wrote:I believe the only way is by looking at Singaporeans that do not have monthly CPF contributions (minus students)

But are Singaporeans currently working overseas also considered as unemployed?

Those self employed - or overseas, they should contribute Medisafe ..

Saint wrote:I believe the only way is by looking at Singaporeans that do not have monthly CPF contributions (minus students)

But are Singaporeans currently working overseas also considered as unemployed?

Which brings up another question I've never quite be about to get my head around also I'm sure the answer is easy enough!

Singapore likes to bandy around two sets of unemployment figures. Citizen/PRs and all residents. Where I'm having a problem is with the "all residents" portion. I would think the all residents factor would be a lie as unless they are using a different matrix for one and not the other. Citizens/PRs obviously are not counting non-working SAHMs/Childrend/Students therefore this same set of non-working should not be included in the "all residents" figures. Therefore, assuming that they are not, then the "all residents unemployment figures should be less than the residents figure as they will always be at 100% because as soon as they lose their employment visas they are put on transient visa (SVPs) so shouldn't even be included in the equation. Where is my thinking wrong?

SAHMs don't have CPF contributions nor medisave contributions but are of working age.

Interesting! If you read these 2 links, I think you will get the picture:


http://www.mom.gov.sg/statistics-public ... yment.aspx

Residents refer to Singapore citizens and Singapore Permanent Residents.

http://www.mom.gov.sg/Publications/mrsd ... empsit.pdf

Data on foreigners working in Singapore are compiled from administrative records of foreigners on valid work passes issued by the Ministry of Manpower. Foreigners can work in Singapore only if they have valid work passes issued by the Ministry of Manpower.

You will notice that the figures for overall unemployment is much lower than the resident(PR+SC) unemployment. The overall unemployment denominator takes into account all the foreigners on work passes, but the numerator is not affected because as you said, the moment they get lay'd off they are not counted.

From the 6th page in the PDF link, the PR unemployment rate and the Citizen unemployment rate is so close, max 20 basis points difference at any point in time, which is quite interesting. They seem to have got the perfect matching set of PRs, atleast from the employment point of view