[S I M T A N]

It depend on what kind of boss the person is.. He/she can be brutal, where if business no good, just chop people to survive and hack care about whether those people got family to feed. At most, go bankrupt (before that part all the money under someone's name)..

Some bosses care about their employees and worried about how they can feed their family if they are chopped, these are the bosses who will have additional pressure apart from the business problem..

I was blathering about bosses having to deal with the pressures of running their businesses while you touched on the issue of bad and good bosses in response to my post. It's, nevertheless, an interesting subject.

Well, it's a roll of the dice whether an employee is in the employ of a good or bad boss. An admirable trait of a good employer is that he always pays his his employees on time. A nonagenarian I know continued to pay his staff their salaries, fringe benefits and bonuses but paid himself nothing when his company was going through a rough spell. He is the epitome of a caring boss who has his workers' welfare at heart.

History is replete with stories of bosses who failed to pay their hires their dues. To my mind, the employers in the great majority of cases who did not pay their workers or pay them promptly were not necessarily what you call "brutal." Those laggards were likely blighted by cash flow problems when money from their main contractor or other sources wasn't forthcoming.

These sad episodes go to show that being a caring boss isn't enough to keep your workers happy - sometimes you need loads of vitamin M to tide things over for a while when your firm is going through a lean period. If its financial resources are severely limited, you're in a financially precarious position.

[S I M T A N]

Bro true la..you got visit the SQ girls recently opposite bugis junction boh? Close door KTV.

Are you certain the ladies working behind closed doors opposite Bugis Juction are SQ flight stewardesses? You saw them personally or you heard about them through the grapevine?

There's always something a little bit seedy about a shop that operates with its door closed. Besides, the stealthy comings and goings of people at the shop is a telltale sign of illegal or immoral activites going on.

In the seedy world of prostitution, hanky-panky can take place in the most unlikely places other than the usual red-light districts, residential areas and shops. A few years ago, massage parlours that offered special services behind closed doors sprouted up in Adelphi, a shopping-cum-office complex known for its large number of hifi equipment stores. Located at no 1, Coleman Street, it has long been audiophile's paradise.

What raised many eyebrows is that the building is situated just next to the Supreme Court. The standing joke while those parlours were in operation was that court officials and trial lawyers, with their life of conflict and argument, could easily walk next door to the massage parlours and get the lovely masseuses to give them a soothing rubdown during break time

[S I M T A N]

Well said, it is what you had mentioned, this is the situation we have here in Singapore..

The situation would have been worse without govt support packages for the working class and businesses affected by Covid-19, and the less well-off. Thanks to the fiscal health of our nation, the economic fallout from the pandemic has been alleviated somewhat.

Not so fortunate are the impoverished folks from many third world countries esp. After months of lockdown and without govt aid, they were starving and begging, with many making do with just one measly meal a day or nothing at all. People implored their govts to open up the economy so that their lives could return to some semblance of normality.

Evidently the economic toll is far worse than that of the virus. "It's not the virus that is killing us but hunger arising from joblessness," many cried.

[debono]

The situation would have been worse without govt support packages for the working class and businesses affected by Covid-19, and the less well-off. Thanks to the fiscal health of our nation, the economic fallout from the pandemic has been alleviated somewhat.

Not so fortunate are the impoverished folks from many third world countries esp. After months of lockdown and without govt aid, they were starving and begging, with many making do with just one measly meal a day or nothing at all. People implored their govts to open up the economy so that their lives could return to some semblance of normality.

Evidently the economic toll is far worse than that of the virus. "It's not the virus that is killing us but hunger arising from joblessness," many cried.

But lives are more important than economic toll.  It is human lives that are at stake.....

[S I M T A N]

But lives are more important than economic toll.  It is human lives that are at stake.....

The lives versus livelihoods argument is an emotive and divisive one. As previously mentioned, many ordinary people believe lockdown impedes economic growth, which also causes economic hardship and threatens their livelihoods.

Let's assume for a moment that you're living in a developing country where your govt imposes draconian measures to control the spread of the virus. Economic activities come to a complete standstill due to the strict lockdown with the result that you lose your livelihood. Lockdown takes the bread out of your mouth. You're facing starvation every day but your govt is too poor to provide relief. What will you do then?

In their situation, I would do what those impoverished people did - plead with the authorities to ease the lockdown so that I can earn at least some starvation wages to pay for the things, such as food and shelter, that are needed to live. My immediate concern is bread and butter; the virus poses no immediate threat to my life.

I believe many of us here do not feel the pains of the poor and starving, especially those of us who are self-sufficient and can do without the financial aid packages from the govt. I think the health authorities are trying hard to perform a delicate balancing act between saving lives (the fatality rate stands at around 0.2%) and livelihoods. (by lifting restrictions incrementally)

[debono]

The lives versus livelihoods argument is an emotive and divisive one. As previously mentioned, many ordinary people believe lockdown impedes economic growth, which also causes economic hardship and threatens their livelihoods.

Let's assume for a moment that you're living in a developing country where your govt imposes draconian measures to control the spread of the virus. Economic activities come to a complete standstill due to the strict lockdown with the result that you lose your livelihood. Lockdown takes the bread out of your mouth. You're facing starvation every day but your govt is too poor to provide relief. What will you do then?

In their situation, I would do what those impoverished people did - plead with the authorities to ease the lockdown so that I can earn at least some starvation wages to pay for the things, such as food and shelter, that are needed to live. My immediate concern is bread and butter; the virus poses no immediate threat to my life.

I believe many of us here do not feel the pains of the poor and starving, especially those of us who are self-sufficient and can do without the financial aid packages from the govt. I think the health authorities are trying hard to perform a delicate balancing act between saving lives (the fatality rate stands at around 0.2%) and livelihoods. (by lifting restrictions incrementally)

I concur with what you are saying, govt must practice a delicate balancing act, between saving lives and livelihoods. But more priority should be given to the livelihoods of citizens here......

[S I M T A N]

I concur with what you are saying, govt must practice a delicate balancing act, between saving lives and livelihoods. But more priority should be given to the livelihoods of citizens here......

I suppose giving priority to citizens' livelihoods means enhancing job openings by easing restrictions further and adopting the policy of laissez-faire, the virus notwithstanding. Will it be at the expense of more lives lost due to increased transmission of disease?

On the other hand, prioritizing the need to save lives will result in more people losing their means of livelihoods and businesses folding because more stringent rules and restrictions are enforced to prevent the spread of the virus.

You see, our attitudes towards this lives vs livelihoods conundrum have been shaped by our experiences during the pandemic. Although job losses are an inevitable consequence of a foundering economy, a good many people here in SG are believed to be none the worse for it, thanks to the job support packages and other relief measures.

If we've remained relatively unaffected, we won't feel the despair and the desperation experienced by those living in severe poverty elsewhere. When their stomachs are growling all day, food and jobs are their primary concern while the virus is the farthest thing from their minds. So the hell with lockdown which destroys jobs but may save some lives.

As far as they're concerned, the economic toll should not be taken lightly when people are dying of starvation. If we were in their shoes, we would feel the same. People are basically the same the world over.

[debono]

I suppose giving priority to citizens' livelihoods means enhancing job openings by easing restrictions further and adopting the policy of laissez-faire, the virus notwithstanding. Will it be at the expense of more lives lost due to increased transmission of disease?

On the other hand, prioritizing the need to save lives will result in more people losing their means of livelihoods and businesses folding because more stringent rules and restrictions are enforced to prevent the spread of the virus.

You see, our attitudes towards this lives vs livelihoods conundrum have been shaped by our experiences during the pandemic. Although job losses are an inevitable consequence of a foundering economy, a good many people here in SG are believed to be none the worse for it, thanks to the job support packages and other relief measures.

If we've remained relatively unaffected, we won't feel the despair and the desperation experienced by those living in severe poverty elsewhere. When their stomachs are growling all day, food and jobs are their primary concern while the virus is the farthest thing from their minds. So the hell with lockdown which destroys jobs but may save some lives.

As far as they're concerned, the economic toll should not be taken lightly when people are dying of starvation. If we were in their shoes, we would feel the same. People are basically the same the world over.

Having read your comments, I do agree with your argument, but we must ensure that no lives are at stake (when they face starvation), but the economic landscape must be closely examined....

[babygirl]

[S I M T A N]

Having read your comments, I do agree with your argument, but we must ensure that no lives are at stake (when they face starvation), but the economic landscape must be closely examined....

It's great to have the best of both worlds -- low levels of infection and an economy buzzing again. Unless the nova coronavirus is kept at bay, these two situations cannot be had at the same time. And until the pandemic is kept under control, we have to continue to make a trade-off between lives and livelihoods.