Key Insight

In 2000, Singapore's workforce of 2,094,814 individuals showed a strong concentration in Services Producing Industries (65.5% of total employment), significantly outnumbering those in Goods Producing Industries (34.5%). Within the service sector, Wholesale & Retail Trade, Hotels & Restaurants, and Business Services were major employers. The largest occupational group was Service and Sales Workers, highlighting the importance of the service sector to the Singaporean economy. Anomalies observed include a disproportionate number of Cleaners, Labourers, and Related Workers, along with the high number of workers in the 'Workers Not Classifiable By Occupation' category. This suggests a need for further investigation into workforce classification and potential underreporting.

Small Interesting Points of Note

Manufacturing, a core component of Goods Producing Industries, employed a substantial number of workers, but this was still dwarfed by the service sector. The 'na' values in the provided dataset indicates missing data which limits the full understanding of the composition of workers across the various industries. A significant portion of workers were in the 'Other Services Industries' category, requiring further detail on these services. The discrepancy between total employment and the sum of employment across different occupation might be due to rounding errors and/or lack of information.

Methodology

• Calculated percentages of total employment by industry and occupation from raw data.
• Identified the largest industry and occupational sectors through sum aggregation.
• Noted discrepancies between the overall totals of some records and the totals inferred from the breakdown of specific groups.
• Highlighed 'na' values as data limitations, affecting the accuracy and completeness of the analysis.

Footnotes

The dataset contained some fields with 'na' values representing missing data. These values were excluded from calculations, which limits the insights produced. The original dataset provided the total number of workers; the sum across industries/occupations did not always match this overall total due to data limitations or rounding discrepancies. Some headers appeared to contain superscript characters (e.g., 2011²). The superscript digits were ignored in analysis.