Jeb Bush, apparently coming from the Walter Mondale school of campaign talking points, has decided that "
people need to work longer hours."
As a software engineer in the video game industry, I kindly invite "JEB!" to kiss my hairy yellow ass.
I'm a Democrat, but frankly this kind of game of gotcha by taking a quote out of context and twisting its meaning just makes me roll my eyes. What he's talking about is freaking people who have part-time jobs but want to work full time!
Every month the BLS releases a jobs report in which they report the unemployment rate, the number of new jobs gained or lost, etc. One thing they also count is people who have part-time jobs but want to work full time:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to
as involuntary part-time workers), at 6.5 million, changed little in June. These
individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part time
because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time
job. (See table A-8.)
So yeah, there are 6.5 million Americans (at least) who
want to work longer hours
It also means all the people who don't have a job but want one. This is pure partisan gotcha nonsense.
Yep, this is the left-wing version of "you didn't build that."
Exactly. A quote taken out of context and twisted to make the candidate seem "out of touch".
Found more of the original exchange.
BUSH: My aspiration for the country and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours and, through their productivity, gain more income for their families. That's the only way we're going to get out of this rut that we're in.
QUESTION: To keep us from taking it out of context, what you meant to say — when you say more hours you mean full-time work.
BUSH: Given the opportunity to work. Yeah, absolutely.
QUESTION: Not that a full time guy or somebody working two jobs needs to be working even more time.
BUSH: Absolutely not. Their incomes need to grow. It’s not going to grow in an environment where the costs of doing business are so extraordinarily high here. Health care costs are rising. In many places the cost of doing business is extraordinarily high and the net result of that is that business start up rates are at an all time low. Work force participation rates are low. If anyone is celebrating this anemic recovery, then they are totally out of touch. The simple fact is people are really struggling. So giving people a chance to work longer hours has got to be part of the answer. If not, you are going to see people lose hope. And that’s where we are today.
Linky.
Thank you for putting this in its proper context. Clearly not what Democrats are trying to spin it as.
He went a long way to explain it out of order. I cannot take it seriously as a proposal for 4% growth eternally. Rather underwhelming.
That is a legitimate criticism. To be fair, he describes the 4% growth goal as an "aspiration", but words are cheap. Campaign promises are cheap. Hey, who
isn't for 4% growth or better? Structurally, it's unlikely to do that on a sustained basis. Scott Walker promised that if he was elected, he would create 250,000 new jobs in Wisconsin in his first term.
He fell short by about half.
The final report is in on Gov. Scott Walker’s first-term promise to create 250,000 jobs. He fell short by about half of the promised amount.
Throughout his successful 2010 campaign for governor, Walker repeated in speeches and campaign ads the promise that private-sector employers would add 250,000 jobs in his first four years. Since he took office in January 2011, PolitiFact Wisconsin tracked the monthly job tally.
. . .
On May 21, 2015, the state released the full year QCEW report for 2014. It said employers created 35,736 jobs in 2014.
Combined with the three previous years, that brought the total to 127,549 jobs for Walker’s first four year term. That’s slightly more than half of his original promise.
I see no reason to take Bush's talk of 4% growth any more seriously than Walker's promise to create 250,000 new jobs. Something in the 2%-3% range would be more realistic, but the truth is that whatever the economy does, the president probably is an insignificant factor in that. Presidents and governors either get lucky with the economy or they don't. It's a roll of the dice. They get undue credit if the economy does well during their term of office and they get blamed if it doesn't.
So my critique is the same: it's an empty promise (or "aspiration" to be fair). Still, if he
does happen to get elected I think it's fair to treat it as a campaign promise that will almost certainly not be fulfilled.
(ETA: Just as a by-the-way, economic growth under his father and brother was about 2.1% and 2.2% respectively.)
