MOM clarified that the increase mentioned by Dr Chee is not the total number of new jobs taken up by locals last year. The increase is actually the difference between the total number of locals taking up and leaving jobs, for example due to retirement. This difference - the "net" number of new jobs taken by locals - was 700 last year.
Thus what does this say? The differential must be due solely to difference in new entrants vs retired workforce.
New Entrants to workforce comes from two sources. One, increase in PRs and two, due to natural births happening twenty over years ago.
For simplicity, we compare the numbers born in 1960 (the earliest recorded data on birth) vs 1994 ( taking 21 years old). The result is 61775-49554= 12221 for birth differential. What does this mean? It means that we have a deficit of about 12,000 jobs if we depended on our natural growth of workforce alone. i.e. a negative growth of jobs for Locals of 12K if there are no supplement of PRs.
Please also note that for the period of 1990 to 1995, the total birth were pretty constant without much variation.
What do all these imply? It actually means that the new entrants for the past few years should be pretty CONSTANT.
Even if we take the variation of retirement of old workforce (ROW) into consideration, the variance should not exceed 5,000!
So how could MOM statistics come up with such a statistics with such a wide variation while maintaining a pretty constant unemployment rate?
From the 12K deficits of jobs, we add 30K impact of increase in PRs, we will get a net effect of about 18K of increase in jobs for Locals! Do a plus minus 5K or even 10K for the variation due to birth rate variance in the 1950s or 1960s, at most we should get about 28K of new jobs! How could we ever get such a huge 96K increase in jobs in 2014 for locals?
Does it mean that those previously out of job market aka in long term unemployment have re-entered the job market? No. The Resident (or Local) Long Term Unemployment numbers are pretty constant for the past few years as well! (No drastic decrease).
Thus, to me, the sum doesn't add up.
There are two question marks here. If we assume normal distribution (a technical statistical assumption), it is totally IMPOSSIBLE to have 96K increment of jobs in 2014 (which equivalent to about more than 100K new jobs created) or even 37,900 increment of jobs for Locals in 2011 IF we do not have at least 100K of new PRs in 2014 or 50K of new PRs for 2011!
And it is impossible to have such a minimal increase of unemployed Locals if there are nearly 30K of new PRs in 2014 which presumably will get into the workforce. There should be at least 15K of increment of jobs, not 700!
This is why I conclude that MOM's statistics doesn't really make any sense nor tally to differential between births in different time frame and the increase in PRs. Thus, MOM's statistics lack Credibility and totally nonsense in my view. Especially for period from 2010 to 2014 whereby New PR issued was curbed at constant about 29K but they still report such a high number such as 96K for increment of jobs!
It is either ICA's statistics is erroneous or MOM's statistics is totally rubbish. There is no other way around it.
In short, when Birth rates are pretty constant in the short period of 5 years from 1990 to 1994 as well as 1960 to 1965, new PRs numbers for last few years are pretty stable, unemployment numbers stable, long term unemployment stable etc but only increment of jobs for Locals fluctuates with WIDE variance, there MUST BE something wrong with the statistics. Such inconsistency is a very telling sign of rubbish statistics in the making.
Goh Meng Seng