Gender wage gap in Singapore

12
INTRODUCTION

After 3 waves of feminism, women's equality has come a long way. However, today there is still a large gender

pay gap in almost every nation. The unadjusted gender pay gap is not the comparison of salaries between men and

women working in the same position, but rather the difference between the average income of men and women in

society; thus even if equal pay is achieved, the gender pay gap can still remain large.

According to a publication by the European Union, some main causes of the gender wage gap are differences

in levels of education, fewer women in higher-paying senior roles, and more women unemployed or working part-time

(Europarl.europa.eu,2021). I will be investigating the gender pay gap in Singapore as it is a developed country in

Southeast Asia, with political stability and transparency, as well as a high standard of living. Thus, as I am interested in

women's equality in Southeast Asia, investigating Singapore is relevant as it is a driving force in the development of

Southeast Asia. Identifying the gender pay gap is important as it is a key indicator of (gender) inequality in society;

understanding some possible causes for this will support the creation of policies and goals needed to close the gender

pay gap. This is crucial because such inequalities due to exogenous factors such as gender are inherently unfair.

As mentioned above there are a plethora of reasons for the gender pay gap, this report will aim to find to what extent

men in Singapore earn more on average than women, and look into the effect of education and employment

CALCULATING GENDER PAY GAP

To calculate the unadjusted gender-pay gap in Singapore, the average monthly wages from the past 9 years were

retrieved from the Ministry of manpower; this mean value calculated by them, is not the true unadjusted wage gap, as

unemployed people are not included, even though they are economically active. This means that even if there is a

disparity between male and female unemployment rates, it is not represented in the data. The mean is used to calculate

the unadjusted gender pay gap as it will most accurately show the outliers in society. For example: if a small

percentage of men earn more than women, this will be displayed in the average and thus exemplify social inequalities.
Table 1 - Average male- and female monthly earnings per year in Singapore from 2011 until 2020, and

percentage difference. (MoM, 2021)

𝑦1−𝑦2
Year 𝑥1 Male mean wages (SGD) 𝑦1 Female mean wages (SGD)𝑦2 Percentage difference (%) 100( 𝑦1
)

2011 4964 3650 26.47

2012 5080 3735 26.48
2013 5291 3909 26.12
2014 5412 4006 25.98
2015 5584 4172 25.29
2016 5774 4353 24.61
2017 5935 4509 24.03
2018 6118 4693 23.29
2019 6266 4827 22.97
2020 6308 4942 21.66

Table 1 compares the average male monthly wages to that of female monthly wages; this difference is expressed in the

fourth column, percentage difference.

This is calculated by subtracting average male wages by female, and dividing by male wages, this is then multiplied by

100 to create a percentage value.

𝑦1−𝑦2
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 100( 𝑦1
)

Equation 1: Percentage difference

𝑦1 = 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑠

𝑦2 = 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑓𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑠

for example this has been used to calculate the percentage difference between average male and female monthly earnings in 2011
4964−3650
𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 100( 4964
)

𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 (%) = 26. 470588235

𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 5 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑓𝑖𝑔𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑠 ∴ 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 26. 47%
This displays, on average, how much more men earn than women as a percentage of the male salary. It is in a

percentage format as this allows it to be compared with other countries, where for example currencies are different and

average wages may differ as well. The data used starts from 2011, as this is the only relevant data made available by

the MoM. As per Table 1, in 2020, men on average earned 21.66% more than women in Singapore, this indicates a

relatively large gender pay gap, however, compared to other economically developed countries this is relatively

common, as Germany has a gender pay gap of 19.20% (Europarl.europa.eu,2021).

The percentage difference is graphed on a scatter graph to visualize the downward trend identified in the table, this

can be used to predict when the percentage difference reaches a value below.

Figure 1. Scatter graph showing the percentage difference between average male and female monthly wages in

Singapore, per year. (MoM, 2021)

A linear trend was identified in the regression, showing a negative relationship between the unadjusted gender pay gap

(as a percentage of male wages) and time in years.

Thus a line of best fit is calculated to estimate when the gender wage gap could possibly close, this is an accurate line

as the data is highly correlated, and there are no outliers identified. Through substitution, using the points A.

(2013,26.12) B.(2018,23.29). 𝑎 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑏are substituted into the formula for a linear function
 𝑦 = 𝑚𝑥 + 𝑏

Equation 1 where:

𝑦 = 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑓𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑠

𝑥 = 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 (𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠)

𝑚 = 𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒, 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒

𝑏 = 𝑦 − 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡

The point were substituted into the equation

𝐴. 26. 12 = 𝑚(2013) + 𝑏

𝐵. 23. 21 = 𝑚(2018) + 𝑏

𝐴 is subtracted from 𝐵 to form equation 𝐶, which rearranged to calculate the value of 𝑚 , the slope by isolating the
coefficient

𝐶. 2. 83 = 𝑚(2013 − 2018)

2.83
𝐶. 𝑚 = (2013−2018)
= − 0. 566

𝑚is not rounded as this significantly altered the accuracy of the line of best fit when i plotted it, is then substituted into
the equation 𝐵 to calculate the value of 𝑏, the y-intercept, by isolating the coefficient

𝐵. 23. 21 = 0. 566(2018) + 𝑏

𝐵. 𝑏 = 23. 21 − (− 0. 56 × 2018) = 1164. 478

Substituting in coefficients 𝑚 and 𝑏 the function is

𝑦 = 0. 566𝑥 + 1164. 478

on the graph it can be seen that the x-intercept is 2057, this is the estimated year the gender wage gap will be 0, and
complete gender equality is reached. However, it should be noted that this will never be possible as there will always
be variation in average wages.
Next, I calculated the strength of the correlation between the two aforementioned variables to justify the strength of the

relationship between the two variables, and the accuracy of the line of best fit that is calculated using Pearson's

correlation coefficient.

The formula for Pearson's correlation coefficient is as shown below:

Σ(𝑥−𝑥̄)(𝑦−ỹ)
𝑟= 2 2
(𝑥−𝑥̄) (𝑦−ỹ)

Equation 2: Pearson's correlation coefficient where

(𝑥 − 𝑥̄) = Year - mean of years

(𝑦 − ỹ) = 𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑤𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑔𝑎𝑝 − 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑤𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑔𝑎𝑝

a table is used to calculate the variables needed to find the r value

Table 2: Calculating the variables in the pearson's correlation coefficient equation

𝑦 Gender (𝑥 − 𝑥̄)
2 2
𝑥 time (year) wage gap (%) (𝑥 − 𝑥̄) (𝑦 − ỹ) (𝑦 − ỹ) (𝑥 − 𝑥̄) (𝑦 − ỹ)
2011 26.47 -4.50 1.78 -8.01 20.25 3.17
2012 26.48 -3.50 1.79 -6.27 12.25 3.20
2013 26.12 -2.50 1.43 -3.58 6.25 2.04
2014 25.98 -1.50 1.29 -1.94 2.25 1.66
2015 25.29 -0.50 0.60 -0.30 0.25 0.36
2016 24.61 0.50 -0.08 -0.04 0.25 0.01
2017 24.03 1.50 -0.66 -0.99 2.25 0.44
2018 23.29 2.50 -1.40 -3.50 6.25 1.96
2019 22.97 3.50 -1.72 -6.02 12.25 2.96
2020 21.66 4.50 -3.03 -13.64 20.25 9.18
sum 20155.00 246.90 0.00 0.00 -44.27 82.50 24.98
mean 2015.50 24.69 0.00 0.00
The variables above were substituted into equation 2:

−44.27
𝑟 =
(82.50 × 24.98)

−44.27
𝑟 = 45.40

𝑟 = 0. 98

An 𝑟 value of 0.98 means that the data would be considered highly correlated. Thus justifying the aforementioned

negative relationship between time and the gender wage gap.

Effect of EDUCATION

According to the European Union (Europarl.europa.eu,2021), a leading cause for the global unadjusted gender pay gap

is a lack of equal education, especially in Asia where there are still significantly less girls attending school than boys

(Unicef). As a more developed country primary and secondary education is mandatory and good quality. Thus male

and female tertiary graduation rates in Singapore were compared, as such degrees can help female upward social

mobility.

Table 3: Number of Male vs. Female University Graduates in Singapore per year, 2011 to 2018 (Singstat.gov).

𝑦1−𝑦2
Male 𝑦1 Female 𝑦2 Percentage difference (%) 100( )
Year𝑥1 𝑦1

2011 6,140 7,185 -17.02%

2012 6,501 7,111 -9.38%
2013 7,504 7,984 -6.40%
2014 7,511 7,530 -0.25%
2015 7,689 7,547 1.85%
2016 7,436 7,547 -1.49%
2017 7,822 8,338 -6.60%
2018 8,348 8,475 -1.52%
Table 3 shows percentage differences between male and female graduates from 2011 until 2019, ranging from -17% in

2011 to 1.85% in 2015. looking at the percentage difference it is noticeable that only in 2015, there were more male
than female graduates, in all other 6 years, there were more female graduates, as indicated by the frequent negative

percentage values. Thus meaning that lack of equality in higher education, commonly needed to earn higher salaries

(cheng, 2020) is not likely a leading cause of the gender wage gap in Singapore.

HIGH PAYING JOBS

Another possible reason for the large average difference between male and female incomes, is lower female

employment in high paying positions. This can have a large impact on the gender wage gap as the higher the income

the more it will alter the average average. Thus the frequency of male and female employees' monthly wages

categorized per SDG 1000.00 has been collected. As Singapore's workforce is lage, male and female frequencies have

been divided by 1000.

Table 4: Shows frequency of males and females per income category ( ×1000 people) (MoM, 2021)

Interval midpoint (SGD) Males𝑦1 Females𝑦2 𝑦1−𝑦2

Percentage difference (%) 100( 𝑦1
)
𝑚𝑖𝑛 +𝑚𝑎𝑥
Income categories (SGD) 2
, 𝑥1

0 - $ 999 499.50 64.10 89.20 -39.16%

$ 1,000 - $ 1,999 1499.50 181.00 193.10 -6.69%
$ 2,000 - $ 2,999 2499.50 150.50 163.70 -8.77%
$ 3,000 - $ 3,999 3499.50 159.00 154.40 2.89%
$ 4,000 - $ 4,999 4499.50 117.10 109.00 6.92%
$ 5,000 - $ 5,999 5499.50 94.90 84.60 10.85%
$ 6,000 - $ 6,999 6499.50 61.20 48.50 20.75%
$ 7,000 - $ 7,999 7499.50 53.10 39.20 26.18%
$ 8,000 - $ 8,999 8499.50 45.80 31.10 32.10%
$ 9,000 - $ 9,999 9499.50 29.70 21.30 28.28%
$10,000 - $10,999 10499.50 35.70 21.80 38.94%
$11,000 - $11,999 11499.50 18.40 13.60 26.09%
$12,000 + 12499.50 115.10 55.20 52.04%

To visualize the data, it has been graphed on a frequency distribution chart. To do this the median income per category

is calculated by adding the minimum and maximum of each range and dividing by 2, this is referred to as the midpoint
and is used as the 𝑥 variable. As money is considered a continuous variable, the graph is a scatter graph as this best

represents the variables.

Figure 2. Frequency distribution graph percentage difference between men and women per income category
in 2020 (jan - jan). (MoM, 2021)
This scatter graph shows a strong positive linear relationship between the percentage difference of men per woman

employed and monthly earnings from work. Meaning that the more a job pays, the more men employed per woman.

This is seen in point (1499.5, -6.69), which indicates that in Singapore there are 6.69% fewer men earning 4499.50

(± 500) SGD per month than women. However in higher-paying positions, with a median pay of 8499.50 SDG there

are 32.10% more men than women earning that per month, (32.10, 8499.50); this is an increase of 38.79%. The 0.00%

threshold on the graph indicates when the employment gap is skewed in favour of women, meaning that more women

are earning this wage than men. It is noticeable that negative percentages are only found for monthly wages below

3499.5. One possible reason is that more women work part-time, meaning the monthly wages are lower. According to

the same source, the MoM, in 2020, 63.53% fewer men than women work part-time. This was found using the same

percentage difference formulae as previously, (Appendix 1). There is also a noticeable dip in the percentage difference

of male vs female employment when the median wage is 11499.5, this is an anomaly in the data.
 To find the effect the increase in percentage difference of men employed vs women per increase in wage, has on the

overall unadjusted gender wage gap, the frequency table is expanded below to calculate the cumulative mean incomes,

in order to find the cumulative unadjusted wage gap as more income categories are included. This is done to visualize

the effect of low female employment in high paying jobs, but also to control the fact that there are more men in the

workforce than women, as this significantly impacts the conclusions displayed in Figure 2.

Table 5: Frequency table showing cumulative estimated mean income per income category.

Males Male
Estimated cumulative Estimated cumulative
𝑓1 Cumulative Percentage
mean income income mean income Females
Income Σ(𝑓1×𝑥) Σ(𝑓2×𝑥) difference/
Sum of all males Σ𝑓1 Σ(𝑓1 × 𝑥) males
mid point (SGD)𝑥 Σ𝑓1 Σ𝑓2 wage gap (%)
499.5 64.10 64.10 32017.95 499.50 499.50 0.00%
1499.5 181.00 245.10 303427.45 1237.97 1183.52 4.40%
150.50 395.60
2499.5 (64.10+181+150.5) 679602.2 1717.90 1666.54 2.99%
3499.5 159.00 554.60 1236022.7 2228.67 2137.91 4.07%
4499.5 117.10 671.70 1762914.15 2624.56 2500.77 4.72%
5499.5 94.90 766.60 2284816.7 2980.45 2820.28 5.37%
6499.5 61.20 827.80 2682586.1 3240.62 3032.08 6.44%
7499.5 53.10 880.90 3080809.55 3497.34 3230.70 7.62%
8499.5 45.80 926.70 3470086.65 3744.56 3410.21 8.93%
9499.5 29.70 956.40 3752221.8 3923.28 3549.07 9.54%
10499.5 35.70 992.10 4127053.95 4159.92 3707.58 10.87%
11499.5 18.40 1010.50 4338644.75 4293.56 3816.88 11.10%
12499.5 115.10 1125.60 5777337.2 5132.67 4284.61 16.52%
To calculate to what extent having significantly less females in higher paying jobs has on the overall gender wage gap

(as seen in table 5), a frequency table was constructed, to estimate the mean of a data set. However I have added

additional columns to display the “growing” mean as each income category is added. This will indicate how the

percentage difference/ unadjusted wage gap grows when the higher wages are included in the estimate. To calculate the

estimated mean, the total income (all the wages added together) is divided by the total number of men/ women
employed in Singapore (as previously stated, with this data set this excludes the self- employed, unemployed and

citizens aged under 15 years old).

First the sum of males, respective to the midpoint is then found by adding the frequency to all previous values. Σ𝑓1.

The male cumulative income is then divided by the sum of men, to create the more and more inclusive average

income. the total income per relative midpoint is calculated by multiplying the frequency of men by the relative

midpoint 𝑓1 × 𝑥. As i want to display the growth, these values are then added progressively, showing the cumulative

income, Σ𝑓1 × 𝑥 . The same method was followed to calculate the average female income this is shown in Appendix 2.

The percentage difference was then calculated using the same methods as in tables 1, 3 and 4

The percentage difference shows Singapore's wage gap, note that it is different by 5.14% (21. 66% − 16. 52%) from

the one calculated in table 1 as this is an estimated mean, as the median income is used, furthermore unemployed and

self employed citizens, aswell as men participating in mandatory national service are not included in the wage gap

calculated above (table 4), moreover everyone earning 12,000 + SGD per month is in the same category, this can

cause anomalies when calculating as it is a much less accurate estimate than the rest of the data set.

Figure 3. Scatter graph showing cumulative unadjusted gender wage gap, per monthly wage category.
From the table it is clear that as more income levels are included in the estimation of the average, the gender wage gap

widens, this is seen in the movement from a gender wage gap of 4.07% with for all employees with incomes from
ranging from 0 > 𝑥 > 3499. 5 𝑆𝐺𝐷to 5.37% with incomes ranging from0 > 𝑥 > 5499. 5 𝑆𝐺𝐷. This widening of

the wage gap, by 1.3% when including people who earn just 2,000 SGD more per month indicates a clear positive

linear relationship. Reinforcing that when including more income levels in the calculation of the wage gap, the wage

gap increases. Thus identifying that the largest issue is within the upper income categories. To visualize the data, a

trend line was added, using the same method as in Equation 1 this is seen in Appendix 3.

5.9
𝑦= 6000
𝑥 + 2. 542

It could thus be said that reducing employment inequalities in higher wage jobs, would significantly reduce the gender

wage gap, in any country including Singapore. The data has an r value of 0.95 (Appendix 4) this means it has a strong

correlation, thus increasing the reliability of the conclusion drawn.

EVALUATION

To investigate the effect of female education and employment in higher paying jobs on the gender wage gap, and
inequalities in society, the gender wage gap in Singapore over the past 10 years was first calculated. Singapore was
chosen as it has a small population, compared to other developed countries, thus the effect of such variables are more
accurately calculated. This is because the mean would be less affected, thus making results more reliable, this means
that conclusions drawn from the data can be used to infer wage gap patterns in other countries. However when
calculating the wage gap, or percentage difference between average male and female incomes over time, unemployed
and self employed citizens aged 15-64 are not included in the average, this means that the wage gap could potentially
be larger as there are more unemployed females than males. Furthermore Calculating the wage gap through the use of
an average can be less reliable in expressing inequalities in society as large wages by a small number of people can
significantly affect the whole average, thus not accurately representing male and female equalities. Moreover, gender
equality should refer to equal freedom and utility of both genders, thus in this report it is assumed that freedom and
utility is achieved with more income, however this is not always the case.

When calculating the gender wage gap over time, percentages were used so it can easily be compared to any other
country, city or society in the world. A clear downward linear trend was found indicating that society is becoming
more equal over time, pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to justify the correlation between the two
variables, moreover, this is seen because the one of best fit has a slope of 0.566. Here 3 significant figures are used as
the slope will drastically change when rounding up, meaning that the line is less correlated to the points and less
reliable.

To confirm that education levels were not a large factor in the wage gap in Singapore, the number of male and female
university graduates per year for the past 10 years were compared, the percentage difference clearly indicated that on
average more women graduate than men. Moreover this data is important as a college degree can allow people to
access higher paying jobs. However these statistics just included university graduates and not people with other forms
of training, even though this could give people access to better jobs. It also did not specify what majors were taken
even though this can also significantly affect predicted income.

A main cause for the presence of the wage gap identified in the investigation, is less women in higher paying positions.
According to the Australian workplace gender equality This is because of the “under-representation of females in
senior executive and management roles” (WGEA,2021). Thus the frequency of male and female employees at each
monthly income bracket progressing by 1000 SGD. Through the use of a frequency table the progressive estimated
mean income was calculated, this showed that as more income boundaries were included the wage gap grew. Whilst
this was accurate and had a high r value, there were some factors affecting the reliability of the conclusions for
example the fact that all month wages of 12000 SGD and above were grouped together made the data point highly
unreliable for calculating the specific wage gap, thus it was not used as an example in the analysis. This is because for
example, 3 women earning 50,000 SGD a month could affect the wage gap as much as 10 men earning 15,000 SDG a
month, this is because the assumed median income value (12499.5) is has a much higher percentage error than the
± 500 𝑆𝐺𝐷percentage error in all other wage brackets, because of the use of a median value. It was also evident that
the female workforce is smaller than the male workforce as there are less women than men in the Singaporean society,
whilst this does not affect averages, it does affect the percentage difference of men employed per woman, making the
employment inequalities in higher paying jobs larger than it seems.

CONCLUSION

To conclude, the employment inequality in high paying jobs, possibly due to the fact that more women work part time,
and have a larger share of unpaid domestic work due to social norms, has the largest effect on the unadjusted gender
wage gap. Thus to decrease the wage gap, and increase financial equality within society, governments should actively
work to break restrictive social norms. A way to do this is to enforce equal paid paternity and maternity leave, this
would reduce the domestic work share of women, this is a law in Iceland, the country that has placed first on the world
economic forums’ gender equality index for the past 10 years (IWeforum.com,2021). Moreover, companies could be
advised to consider more female representation in their leadership, as unconscious gender bias is common in
recruitment processes (Hbr.org,2021).
WORKS CITED

Cheng, Ian, and Bookmark Bookmark Share WhatsApp Telegram Face. “Higher Median Starting Pay for 2019
Graduates: Survey.” CNA, 28 Feb. 2020,
www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/university-graduates-2019-higher-median-starting-pay-survey-781346.

“Gender Equality in Primary and Secondary Education.” UNICEF South Asia,

www.unicef.org/rosa/what-we-do/education/gender-equality-primary-and-secondary-education.

“The Gender Pay Gap.” WGEA, Aug. 2021,

www.wgea.gov.au/the-gender-pay-gap#what-does-the-gender-pay-gap-mean.

“Global Gender Gap Report 2020.” World Economic Forum, World Economic Forum, 2021,
www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2021.pdf.

Ministry of Manpower (MoM), Manpower Researcha and statistics development. Ministry of Manpower (MoM),
June 2021. Singapore Yearbook of Manpower Statistics 2021. Accessed 8 Nov. 2021.

“Research: To Reduce Gender Bias in Hiring, Make Your Shortlist Longer.” Harvard Business Review, 17 Sept.
2021, hbr.org/2021/02/research-to-reduce-gender-bias-in-hiring-make-your-shortlist-longer.

“Singapore Department of Statistics: Graduates per Year per Sex.” Singapore Department Of Statistics | SingStat
Table Builder - Variables/Time Period Selection, 2021,
www.tablebuilder.singstat.gov.sg/publicfacing/createDataTable.action?refId=17130.

“Understanding the Gender Pay Gap: Definition and Causes: News: European Parliament.” Understanding the
Gender Pay Gap: Definition and Causes | News | European Parliament, 8 Apr. 2021,
www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20200109STO69925/understanding-the-gender-pay-gap-defi
nition-and-causes.
APPENDIX

Appendix 1 - table comparing total male and female part time employees in the 2020 singapore economy.

Total Male Total Female Difference Percentage

Difference
Part time 89.40 145.30 -55.90 -62.53%
employees 2020
source (MOM,2021)

Appendix 2 - Frequency table showing cumulative estimated mean income per income category., female

Males Females male

inco
me female Sum of Sum of male female Average average
(f*M income all all cumualtive cumulative income income
) (f*F) males females income income male female
64.10 89.20 3201 0.00
499.5 7.95 44555.4 64.10 89.20 32017.95 44555.4 499.5 499.5 %
1499. 181.0 193.10 2714 289553. 1237.97409 1183.5240 4.40
5 0 09.5 45 245.10 282.30 303427.45 334108.85 2 88 %
2499. 150.5 163.70 3761 409168. 1717.90242 1666.5403 2.99
5 0 74.75 15 395.60 446.00 679602.2 743277 7 59 %
3499. 159.0 154.40 5564 540322. 2137.9077 4.07
5 0 20.5 8 554.60 600.40 1236022.7 1283599.8 2228.67418 28 %
4499. 117.1 109.00 5268 490445. 1762914.1 2624.55582 2500.7686 4.72
5 0 91.45 5 671.70 709.40 5 1774045.3 8 78 %
5499. 94.90 84.60 5219 465257. 2980.45486 2820.2808 5.37
5 02.55 7 766.60 794.00 2284816.7 2239303 6 56 %
6499. 61.20 48.50 3977 315225. 2554528.7 3240.62104 3032.0816 6.44
5 69.4 75 827.80 842.50 2682586.1 5 4 02 %
7499. 53.10 39.20 3982 293980. 3080809.5 2848509.1 3497.34311 3230.7010 7.62
5 23.45 4 880.90 881.70 5 5 5 89 %
8499. 45.80 31.10 3892 264334. 3470086.6 3744.56312 3410.2142 8.93
5 77.1 45 926.70 912.80 5 3112843.6 7 86 %
9499. 29.70 21.30 2821 202339. 3315182.9 3923.27666 3549.0664 9.54
5 35.15 35 956.40 934.10 3752221.8 5 2 28 %
1049 35.70 21.80 3748 228889. 4127053.9 3544072.0 4159.91729 3707.5761 10.87
9.5 32.15 1 992.10 955.90 5 5 7 59 %
11499 18.40 13.60 2115 156393. 1,010.5 969.50 4338644.7 3700465.2 4293.56234 3816.8800 11.10
 .5 90.8 2 0 5 5 5 93 %
115.1 55.20 1438
1249 0 692.4 689972. 1,125.6 1,024.7 4390437.6 5132.67341 4284.6078 16.52
9.5 5 4 0 0 5777337.2 5 9 36 %

Appendix 3 - title

𝐴. 8. 9 = 𝑚(8449. 5) + 𝑏

𝐵. 3 = 𝑚(2499. 5) + 𝑏

= 𝐶. 5. 9 = 𝑚(6000)

5.9
𝐶. 6000
= 𝑚

Substitute in 𝑚to find 𝑏value

5.9
𝐵. 3 = 6000
(2499) + 𝑏

𝐵. 𝑏 = 2. 542

5.9
∴𝑦 = 6000
𝑥 + 2. 542

Appendix 4 - Title***

36000000
499.5 0 -6000.00 -7.12 42692.31 .00 50.63
 25000000
1499.5 4.4 -5000.00 -2.72 13576.92 .00 7.37
16000000
2499.5 3.0 -4000.00 -4.12 16461.54 .00 16.94
9000000.
3499.5 4.1 -3000.00 -3.02 9046.15 00 9.09
4000000.
4499.5 4.7 -2000.00 -2.42 4830.77 00 5.83
1000000.
5499.5 5.4 -1000.00 -1.72 1715.38 00 2.94
6499.5 6.4 0.00 -0.72 0.00 0.00 0.51
1000000.
7499.5 7.6 1000.00 0.48 484.62 00 0.23
4000000.
8499.5 8.9 2000.00 1.78 3569.23 00 3.18
9000000.
9499.5 9.5 3000.00 2.38 7153.85 00 5.69
16000000
10499.5 10.9 4000.00 3.78 15138.46 .00 14.32
25000000
11499.5 11.1 5000.00 3.98 19923.08 .00 15.88
36000000
12499.5 16.5 6000.00 9.38 56307.69 .00 88.07
18200000
Sum 84493.50 92.50 0.00 0.00 190900.00 0.00 220.70
Mea 14000000
n 6499.50 7.12 0.00 0.00 14684.62 .00 16.98

R value 0.95252