Wednesday, February 01, 2006

Paul Craig Roberts on the Economy

Snipped from Counterpunch.org. Not that I really have the stomach to contemplate the state of the union this week. But I'm fascinated by the language on both sides about jobs. My own income has dropped steadily every year since 2001, and though I have a graduate degree and dress up well and have a killer work ethic and can handle myself in an interview, I have only found contract work since 2001. No health insurance: I earn too much to qualify for state plans, and too little to be able to afford coverage myself. Not whining about it: I'm just saying, it's a real, horrible, soul-crushing trend--not a private disgrace. But it feels like private disgrace--I am not wired for this kind of failure--and I think that's part of the reason people haven't taken to the street with torches.

* * *
... Least of all did President Bush tell any truth about the economy. He talked about economic growth rates without acknowledging that they result from eating the seed corn and do not produce jobs with a living wage for Americans. He touted a low rate of unemployment and did not admit that the figure is false because it does not count millions of discouraged workers who have dropped out of the work force.

Americans did not hear from Bush that a new Wal-Mart just opened on Chicago's city boundary and 25,000 people applied for 325 jobs (Chicago Sun-Times, Jan. 26), or that 11,000 people applied for a few Wal-Mart jobs in Oakland, California. Obviously, employment is far from full.

Neither did Bush tell Americans any of the dire facts reported by economist Charles McMillion in the January 19 issue of Manufacturing & Technology News:

"During Bush's presidency the US has experienced the slowest job creation on record (going back to 1939). During the past five years private business has added only 958,000 net new jobs to the economy, while the government sector has added 1.1 million jobs. Moreover, as many of the jobs are not for a full work week, 'the country ended 2005 with fewer private sector hours worked than it had in January 2001.'"

McMillion reports that the largest sources of private sector jobs have been health care and waitresses and bartenders. Other areas of the private sector lost so many jobs, including supervisory/managerial jobs, that had health care not added 1.4 million new jobs, the private sector would have experienced a net loss of 467,000 jobs between January 2001 and December 2005 despite an "economic recovery." Without the new jobs waiting tables and serving drinks, the US economy in the past five years would have eked out a measly 64,000 jobs. In other words, there is a job depression in the US.

10 Comments:

Blogger AKH said...

Does anyone really trust what the prez says anymore? I mean really, I just watch to see how much he messes up the English language.

But you are forgetting dear Inger, that this is the blame administration. We don't take responsiblity for anything. Why is the economy the worst in history, because it was the only time in history where we had 9/11 and Katrina. These are things that were beyond "shrub's" control.

Instead of making adjustments to his plan to help counteract these tragedies, we have to stay on the path, steadfast, and all those other coined words that we have been hearing for the past 5 years.

11:52 AM  
Blogger nancy =) said...

i have no degree but i can't still tell that the state of the union is "fucked"...

jon stewart was hillarious last night...there was a skit on about the economy where there's a real estate crash and everyone ends up moving into the closest wal-mart which technically makes us employees of walmart so the economie's job numbers go up...it was pretty damn funny...

i'm trying to see the humor in this shit cuz otherwise i'd be wanting to jump off the bridge...

peace...

12:17 PM  
Blogger nancy =) said...

and "can't" is supposed to be "can" up above there...negativity creeping in...

peace...

12:18 PM  
Blogger Dr. Deb said...

What a frustrating television experience for me last night.

3:49 PM  
Blogger Trudy Booty Scooty said...

The making less money phenom has effected us too, Inger....and EVERYONE I know. It DOES feel as you describe. I guess the only comfort comes from the numbers of us in the same boat.

7:28 PM  
Blogger sjobs said...

I didn't listen to the asshole and am happy about it.....

The economy sucks!!! I have a full time job that pays fairly well, not by the amount of education I have, but it pays more then Wallie-Mart. With my daycare expenses, preschool, medical insurance to cover Kiran, and just eating and clothing the dear girl it almost a full paycheck.

Inger-Damn, I wished I could find you full time employment in MN but I now the issues you would then face......

The tragedies have been terrible but the handling of them has been worse....

M

7:53 PM  
Blogger phosda said...

funny thing about failure, isn't it? everyone thinks theirs is unique, but it ain't. i think failure is the one arena in which people most insist on asserting their singularity, and it's a pity, because i think everyone would be far less misreable if they simply submitted to the fact that misery is the general trend. i've never been a joiner, but i'm all for this one. if misery loves company, why's everyone so lonely?

take heart, inger: i am failure, too.

12:40 AM  
Blogger alan said...

This should be the front page on every newspaper in the country; it should lead on CNN and the network news, instead of anything but!

alan

4:05 AM  
Blogger Grumpy Old Man said...

This post and the comments go to show that one's view of the economy depends on listening to WIIFM "What's in it for me?"

If you're working and have money to blow on lattes and trips to the Caymans, the economy is great. If you're pounding the pavement without success, and the bill collector's at the do', it's the Great Depression all over again.

I have my own criticisms of Bush, although I did vote to him over that pompous toff from Massachusetts, one of a feckless bunch, as I see it. But even those who think Bush is Chimphitler should realize that most of the time, Presidents have precious little to do with the state of the economy. Clinton got lucky during the first internet boom. Bush is either lucky or cursed, depending on whether one thinks the economy is doing well or heading for Hell in the proverbial handbasket. The business cycle chugs along, maybe moderated a bit by the Fed, but generally regardless of who's taking up chair space in the Oval Office.

Some of the comments are really over the top. Akh, the economy may have problems, but it's hardly "the worst in history." Remember FDR--"one third of a nation, ill-housed, ill-fed . . . " or "ill-"whatever?

My oldest daughter majored in Art History, and her best friend in English. When asked what they intended to work at after they graduated, they allowed as how they expected to be waitresses in Los Angeles. Neither of them is, but they were realistic; they could have majored in microbiology or electrical engineering, and anticipated rosy economic futures. Not all education makes one useful to an employer, although it may have all kinds of other virtues.

It's a market economy, in the long run the most productive. In the short run, it constantly revolutionizes things, which isn't much of a consolation if the buggy-whip factory or film-processing business fails and you're one of the folks who gets the old heave-ho. If you inhibit market changes, and shower everyone with social benefits, you get France, with 10% unemployment (much higher among the young) and a piddly growth rate.

Market changes are tough on people, and it doesn't help to emulate the drunk who kept looking for the keys under the street light, because everywere else it was dark.

9:16 AM  
Blogger sttropezbutler said...

Thank you GOM for your inspiteful view of the world.

And Inger, thank you for being you.

STB

11:38 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home