Family of four needs $6,426 a month for basic standard of living in S'pore.
Let's round it up to $6,500 per month since I hate "precision" when its not needed.
Which means we can assume the man is making $3,500 and the wife makes $3,000?
(OK, OK. For feminists, we can easily say husband makes $3,000, while wife makes $3,500. There. Happy?)
If husband makes $6,500 per month, to have a better standard of living, the problem is easily "solved" by having wife go back to work.
I mean their children are not babies right?
My time before maids were popular, when both parents work and children were left at home on their own, they were known at latchkey kids.
Now what happens if a family of 4 only earns $5,500 per month. And both husband and wife works. Die! Below basic standard of living!!!
How to overcome the shortfall of $1,000 per month?
What if I come "selling" the benefits of a dividend portfolio?
I mean all this couple need is "just" have a $250,000 portfolio of dividend stocks that yield 5% per year.
Problem solved!
Gee. Thanks!
Wait.
How do this couple amass the $250,000 capital in the first place?
I mean first they have to increase their income to $6,500 per month, no?
Unless you tell me the researchers got it "wrong"? $6,500 is not the basic standard of living? Its much lower?
To start saving, its only when their household income is above $6,500 per month before they can afford to save any surplus... Can we agree on this?
To save $1,000 per month, the couple have to increase their household income from $5,500 to $7,500 per month!?
And they would still need 20 years before they can have their hands on that "fabled" $250,000 capital to play the dividend income game!!!
Has anyone spotted the Elephant in the room?
If this couple can increase their earned income by $2,000 per month, is there still the need to wait 20 years for that dividend income!!!???
LOL!
What if the same couple meet the 1M65 people?
Would the 1M65 people awkwardly shy away from any families that make $6,500 and below per month?
Or would the 1M65 people still encourage voluntary contributions to CPF?
I mean, man up!
A little bit of austerity never killed anyone.
Just take $1,000 from their current $5,500 per month and voluntarily contribute to CPF. The interests will compound and compound until...
Look! You both are already making so little mandatory contributions to CPF due to your low salaries...
Cannot!
Like that how to survive when you both retire???
No, don't live for today, we must live in the future!
If we fail to plan, we plan to fail...
"Chotto matte"...
Pray tell how should this family of 4 survive on $4,500 per month again?
Giving advice is easy when the pin don't prick your own skin...
There's another "easy" solution.
Report on minimum income standards not an accurate reflection of basic needs
Well, that was quick!
What if the basic standard level of living income, for a family of 4, according to big daddy's calculation is $4,500 per month?
(Big daddy gives a knowing nod and wink to the 1M65 people. Don't worry. I got your backs)
Problem solved!!!
Invite the researchers for "coffee" for stirring shit?
What do I think?
Well, I know my own feet, I don't need others to tell me what basic standard of living shoes I should wear.
Who wants "basic" shoes anyway?
I want comfortable shoes. Wink.
There are some ang-moh bloggers who can retire to Phuket or Chiang Mai on $1,500 passive income per month. Tell the whole world they have achieved FIRE before age 35...
Then there are non-HDB heartlanders in our community who would treat any retirement incomes below $10,000 per month as "hardship"...
Its like asking others how much you need to retire?
Now that's a dumb question!
Earn More; Save More.
Do both!
But focus on Earn More if you need to prioritise.
Don't believe?
Show me countries, companies, families, or individuals that achieved prosperity through austerity?