It's Not Bush's Fault. (Even Though It Is) Sometimes the media distorts, sometimes they lie by omission. And sometimes they openly whore for their masters.
From yesterday's editorial page of the Washington Post
But the bigger question is whether jobless recoveries are a bad thing. They are, after all, the flip side of good news. There is less cyclical unemployment these days, so recessions are milder; fewer jobs are being created now because fewer jobs were destroyed during the downturn. Moreover, a jobless recovery means, by definition, that each worker is producing more. Higher productivity, in turn, is the best promise possible of higher wages and employment in the future.
Are "jobless recoveries a bad thing"? Yes, they are. Fewer jobs means fewer tax dollars flowing to the various levels of government, fewer jobs less upward pressure on pay and benefits for those who have jobs. Slower job growth means slower growth of demand, and demand will grow even slower as those who do have jobs pay more for healthcare, have retirement plans cut back, and lose other perks.
Not to mention, this recovery is more than two years old. Unless the pace of jobs creation kicks upward soon, there is a possibility that the next recession will begin with fewer jobs in existence than there were when the last recession ended.
The motivation for this editorial is clear in this sentence: "Mr. Bush should not be blamed for this", but the author must have know how stupid this sounded, because he then outlines how the President is to blame: "though his irresponsible fiscal policy harms business confidence and therefore job creation". Someone is counting on numerous readers to simply skim the first lines, and not read more that the first few lines of any paragraph.
The same illogic is evident here: "Offshoring, like trade, creates winners and losers, which is why open trade should be accompanied by social safety nets". But we have seen the Republicans cut back social safety nets. Most recently, the Congress refused to extend Federal jobless benefits--which the editorial writer already told us we need ("laid-off workers are having to look for entirely new work. That takes time. Firms have to create jobs they never had before, which takes longer than re-creating old ones.")
If you read the whole piece, what it seems to say is that the current trend is good: higher productivity and lower costs will, in the long run help everyone. But it also maintains that government must help the increasing ranks of the struggling. Which is of course the one thing that the Republicans in control of Washington have refused to due. And Bush's "irresponsible" (the editorialist's words) policies have driven the deficit so high that helping the jobless will only become more and more difficult.
The keen insight we have come to expect from the Post.
7:19:33 AM 
|
|
