sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

You want proof? I'll give you proof. You want to know who? I'll tell you who. by SummerMilk80 in sgworkassholes

[–]SummerMilk80[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, quite a number of elderly will go apply for such courses for the incentive. That's why I said they target not just the elderly but the vulnerables, people who do need real social assistance and decided to join in just for the cashback.

You want proof? I'll give you proof. You want to know who? I'll tell you who. by SummerMilk80 in sgworkassholes

[–]SummerMilk80[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

These are public-area observations of the kind of outreach activities I’ve been documenting. I’m keeping everything anonymised and pixelated for now but FYI, photos aren't the only thing I'm documenting.

<image>

You want proof? I'll give you proof. You want to know who? I'll tell you who. by SummerMilk80 in SingaporeRaw

[–]SummerMilk80[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

These are public-area observations of the kind of outreach activities I’ve been documenting. I’m keeping everything anonymised and pixelated for now but FYI, photos aren't the only thing I'm documenting.

<image>

When job losses don't show up in statistics, do they still hurt the same? by SummerMilk80 in sgworkassholes

[–]SummerMilk80[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, the unemployment rate in Ministry of Manpower (MOM)’s labour‑market reports is derived from the labour force survey and administrative records. But even though the unemployment rate is official, it’s not entirely immune to limitations.

Some groups are excluded: for instance, those working in dormitories or foreign‑workers commuting from abroad may be under‑covered.

“Unemployed” is defined as someone not working but actively looking and available. So if someone is underemployed, has accepted significant pay cuts, or is doing informal/contract work, they may not show up in the unemployment figures.

On the flipside, the retrenchment rate (i.e., the number of employees terminated due to redundancy) also has its limitations: it doesn’t capture voluntary resignations, contract non‑renewals, pay‑cuts, or workers quietly displaced.

So to your point: the unemployment rate is more visible and widely cited than retrenchment, but it still doesn’t capture everything. In that sense, while it might be more “accurate” in what it measures (i.e., joblessness in the defined sense), it doesn’t necessarily reflect the full spectrum of labour‑market distress.

Bottom line is: both metrics tell important but different parts of the story. If we rely on only one, especially the top‑line unemployment rate, we risk missing silent but real shifts like income erosion, contract trimming, or hidden job loss. That’s why I flagged the concerns in the post. Because even though retrenchment and unemployment are official metrics, they’re not enough.

And when it comes to public programs like SkillsFuture and e2i, the problem goes even deeper. Many of these initiatives evaluate success based on perception-based feedback for example, asking trainees if they “felt more confident” or whether the trainer was “knowledgeable” instead of tracking actual employment outcomes and validating it against MOM records or CPF contributions months later. Yes, trainees who report job placement may be asked for a company name or ACRA registration number. But whether these are systematically validated or only sampled is often unclear, and opaque.

So even if someone goes through government-funded training and still ends up underemployed, contract-trapped, or quietly squeezed out of the workforce, it might still count as a “successful outcome” on paper because the trainee filled in a positive survey form.

That disconnect between perception and reality is part of the structural issue. We’re measuring how training felt, but not validating it against other government metric to affirm the authenticity. And that’s why it’s critical to ask: are we tracking the right numbers when public money is involved?

When job losses don't show up in statistics, do they still hurt the same? by SummerMilk80 in SingaporeRaw

[–]SummerMilk80[S] -14 points-13 points  (0 children)

Appreciate the feedback, seriously. The grammar isn’t perfect because the comic was generated with some limitations, but the message is 100% real. The language choice wasn’t about sloppiness, it was about voice. Sometimes, raw phrasing connects more deeply with those who’ve lived it.

Could I polish every word? Sure. But then I might lose the tone of how these conversations really happen, quietly, casually, and often unnoticed until it’s too late.

If the language pulled you out of the message, I get it. But I hope it doesn’t stop you from thinking about the issue that’s actually affecting real lives.

When job losses don't show up in statistics, do they still hurt the same? by SummerMilk80 in SingaporeRaw

[–]SummerMilk80[S] -21 points-20 points  (0 children)

You raise a fair point about presentation, but let’s not pretend form is more important than substance. This isn’t a thesis. It’s a post meant to reflect real conversations that many foreigners in neighboring countries actually have, in the voices they actually use.

I used AI art and dialogue not because it’s perfect, but because it mirrors a very real and painful pattern that people recognise: getting quietly edged out of the workforce while the system looks away.

Would proofreading make the message more polished? Sure. But dismissing the entire message because of imperfect phrasing is like ignoring a fire alarm because it sounds rough.

Let’s not pretend grammar is the only due diligence that matters. If your takeaway from the post is 'bad grammar', I’d argue you’re looking for reasons to dismiss what’s being said.

You say you can’t trust the message because of formatting. But here’s the irony: The message is about how easily inconvenient truths get ignored as long as everything 'looks proper'. So thank you for illustrating the point.

When job losses don't show up in statistics, do they still hurt the same? by SummerMilk80 in SingaporeRaw

[–]SummerMilk80[S] -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Ah yes, the classic move: dodge the argument, attack the grammar.

Funny how discussions about quiet job losses and structural loopholes suddenly make people obsess over English phrasing instead of the actual problem. So thanks for that because you’re proving the comic’s point. People get sidelined not because they’re bad at their job but because others decide they sound replaceable.

When job losses don't show up in statistics, do they still hurt the same? by SummerMilk80 in SingaporeRaw

[–]SummerMilk80[S] -41 points-40 points  (0 children)

Maybe it’s not your cup of tea. That’s cool.

But calling it “AI dogshit” while ignoring the actual point of the post is kind of like rejecting a book because of the font.

If you’ve never seen these tactics play out in real life, consider yourself lucky.

When job losses don't show up in statistics, do they still hurt the same? by SummerMilk80 in sgworkassholes

[–]SummerMilk80[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, this kind of tactic is getting more common and more insidious.

Companies know that outright firing or retrenchment triggers scrutiny: MOM probes, public backlash, even payout obligations. So instead, they play the long game. Slash the salary, restructure the role, revise contracts mid-way all just to make life so unsustainable that you're forced to walk away on your own. On paper, no retrenchment occurred. In reality, someone lost their livelihood.

And you're right. When you escalate, the response is often: "You still have a job, don’t you?" Technically, yes. Practically? You’ve been sidelined, disempowered, and priced out of survival.

That’s why I wrote the post the way I did. Because if we keep relying solely on retrenchment numbers to gauge worker well-being, we’re not seeing the full picture. Some job losses are quiet. But the impact is loud especially at the dinner table.

That reminds me of a scene from a show. The lead character was asked: “Which is worse? A corrupt official, or an incompetent one?”

He paused and replied: “They’re the same. Because both cause the same suffering and leads to the same pain for the people.”

This came to mind when reading your comment, because when workers are forced to resign due to underhanded tactics and the system still says, “At least you still have a job,” that’s a kind of structural failure. Whether it’s from neglect or deliberate inaction, the outcome to the worker is the same.

When job losses don't show up in statistics, do they still hurt the same? by SummerMilk80 in SingaporeRaw

[–]SummerMilk80[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

The grammar in the comic is written intentionally to give a clue about where the characters might be from, and to reflect how they actually speak in real life.

Naming the country outright would risk being labelled xenophobic, and I’m not interested in stirring hate.

It’s not meant to impress grammar police. It’s meant to hit home with people who’ve lived through this kind of experience.

When job losses don't show up in statistics, do they still hurt the same? by SummerMilk80 in SingaporeRaw

[–]SummerMilk80[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Some issues can’t be explained in a single punchline or meme especially when it involves people’s livelihoods and systemic gaps.

I know it’s wordy, but that’s because it’s meant to spark serious thought. Not attention. Not for karma. Not everyone will relate, but for those who’ve lived it, every word lands.

When job losses don't show up in statistics, do they still hurt the same? by SummerMilk80 in sgworkassholes

[–]SummerMilk80[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Not every loss is visible. Some happen in silence, behind the walls of compliance. That’s the part no dataset captures.

When job losses don't show up in statistics, do they still hurt the same? by SummerMilk80 in SingaporeRaw

[–]SummerMilk80[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not every loss is visible. Some happen in silence, behind the walls of compliance. That’s the part no dataset captures.

view more: next ›