NY Times: Say, Good Paying Jobs Are Missing In The Obameconomy

Obviously, the NY Times Editorial Board won’t blame Obama, like they would have had it been Bush in office, or any Republican, but, as the saying goes “who’s President?” Remember back to June 7, 2005, when the Times published this

The Bush Economy

….

Mr. Johnston’s article quotes a prominent economist who argues that people care more about the chance to move from one income class to another (upward, of course) than about income distribution. But during the Bush years, the two main sources of class mobility – a good job and money for higher education – have increasingly failed to materialize for those who most need them. Last week’s jobs report from the Labor Department confirmed that a strong labor market recovery has not taken hold. Wages for most working people failed even to outpace inflation in the past year.

You won’t find the word “Obama” anywhere within this editorial

Jobs Stall and So Does the Economy

The employment report for August suggests that any remaining hope for an economic upsurge in the second half of 2014 is largely unrealistic. The new data, which shows job creation down sharply last month, is consistent with more of the same sluggish growth that has long been the norm. Plentiful jobs at good pay — the critical underpinning of a strong economy — are still not in the cards.

On average, the economy added 207,000 jobs a month from June through August, exactly even with average monthly job growth over the past 12 months. That’s a holding pattern, not acceleration. Similarly, the jobs report for August showed flat wages, stagnant hours and elevated long-term unemployment, as has been the case in previous reports.

The latest data also underscore how incremental improvements in labor conditions have failed to undo the damage from the recession and the prolonged slow recovery. For example, the share of adults in the labor force is no longer declining, as it did in 2013, but it remains at levels last seen in 1978.

So, no mention of Obama, but a subtle dig at Bush. Who saw the economy crash after Democrats took over Congress. Anyhow, the Times notes that this economy essentially stinks. Wages are flat. It is an employers paradise with so many people unemployed.

They fail to note that a big reason for stagnant hours and slow hiring is Obamacare.

Obviously, they trot out the income inequality meme, which, let’s face it, is a hallmark of the Obama Years. Big Company and Wall Street are doing quite well, thank you very much, while the rest of us are just getting by. And, yes, blame of Congress, which means “Republicans”

The situation is not self-correcting. In fact, in the absence of government policies to foster balance, it is self-reinforcing. The Fed should continue to try to stimulate the economy with loose monetary policy. But only Congress can put in place the broad new policies on taxes, labor standards and immigration that will give all Americans a shot at a rising standard of living.

True. Congress should deal with those issues. The Times would prefer that it means raising taxes on the wealthy, creating more unions, and amnesty for all. Republicans should do the exact opposite.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

9 Responses to “NY Times: Say, Good Paying Jobs Are Missing In The Obameconomy”

  1. Jeffery says:

    The evidence is clear, income and wealth inequality in the US is a long term problem, not just a 2009 problem.

    It is not a natural result of “the market” but a result of Democratic and Republican policy that supports the wealthy and corporations at the expense of all others.

    That said, the handling of the economy since the collapse of the housing market has been poor. Obama should have pushed and pushed and pushed for a massive economic stimulus rather than the tepid program he was able to push through a reluctant do-nothing Congress. A strong fiscal stimulus could have pushed unemployment down by 2% points. No guts, no jobs. We did not institute strong regulation to control the big banks – this mess could happen again.

    Just as the NYT said, the war on labor unions, the Fed, immigration law, trade policies, strong dollar policies, patent law, tax code have each incrementally harmed the working classes and favored the capitalist class. It cumulative damage has gotten so bad that it’s harming the overall stability of the nation.

    The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street have the same enemies – the unresponsive Federal gov’t and the elites that own our gov’t.

  2. Jeffery says:

    from Dean Baker at CEPR:

    “… one of the main reasons that more skilled workers have done better in the era of globalization is that they have been largely protected from the same sort of competition faced by less-educated workers. While trade agreements were explicitly designed to put manufacturing workers in direct competition with the low-paid workers in the developing world, there has been no similar effort to subject our doctors, dentists, lawyers and other highly paid professionals to the same sort of competition.

    Trade agreements could have focused on reducing barriers that make it difficult for qualified professionals from the developing world to work in the United States. For example, we could have fully transparent sets of standards to become a doctor or lawyer in the United States, with tests administered in other countries (by U.S. certified test givers). Anyone from Mexico, India, or China who passed these tests would have the same ability to work in the United States as someone who grew up in Kansas.

    The potential benefits to consumers and the economy would run into the hundreds of billions of dollars annually. And this would have the effect of shifting income downward rather than upward. …

    … Trade agreements did not put professionals into competition because they [professionals] are a powerful enough lobby to block such actions. However it is important to be clear in our understanding. It was not “globalization” that redistributed income upward. It was a pattern of trade that was intended to put downward pressure on the wages of the bulk of the population while protecting those at the top.”

    These policies can be corrected by Congress.

  3. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    I was going to comment to correct some of what you have said, but it is impossible in the limited space. Besides, you would clearly not understand. Suffice it to say that you are wrong on every point that you made. As I have said before, go to your local college, take a course in economics and related issues. You will understand the world much better and it will decrease your level of hate.

    Then we have the issue of your not liking the “protection” of the wealthy. Yet, you clearly formed two corporations with the intent of reducing your tax burden and obligations. If you want the government to get more money, why don’t you give it to them?

  4. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    Thanks again for the bad advice, but I prefer to keep my hatred of willful ignorance such as yours.

    The wealthy deserve legal protections, but it’s bad policy to reward them at the expense of the mass of Americans.

    We incorporated to limit the potential liabilities of our families and investors. You should know that.

    I understand your desire to have me pay more taxes so you can pay less. It’s quite common among conservatives to want others to pay taxes and fight their fights for them.

    I also understand your habit of attacking me personally rather than discussing issues.

  5. gitarcarver says:

    I understand your desire to have me pay more taxes so you can pay less.

    Actually, the idea is that if you think that people should pay more in taxes, you should back up what you want with your own actions.

    It’s quite common among conservatives to want others to pay taxes and fight their fights for them.

    It is quite common amongst liberals to take more money from people as long as money is coming from their pockets.

    It is always that other guy who liberals want to pay the freight for liberal follies and programs.

  6. Jeffery says:

    gc,

    Nope, not yet. Keep trying. Look up the work “relevant”.

  7. gitarcarver says:

    You’re welcome Jeffery.

    And I do appreciate you conceding the argument that liberals want to take from others because they won’t do what they want others to do.

  8. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    I hate to bear bad news, but if you think that a corporate structure limits you liability, then you are living in a dream world (considering the content of your comments, you probably are). Your assets are still open to discovery and attachment in any court. Corporate lawyers always justify the corporate structure with the liability issue, but just ask a liability attorney and you will find that protection is a myth. The only benefit from corporate structure is to shape taxation and set authority structure.

    Now, to say that conservatives want others to pay their tax burden??? Conservatives want less government and less tax for all.

    You remind me of something Steve Martin once said about raising a baby. He thought is would be interesting to start out talking backwards and see what would happen. I am afraid someone has done that with you.

  9. RGB says:

    I have a liberal friend who owns a retail shoppe and she is very pro-tax even though she spends hours each day playing with figures and tax forms and complaining about not being able to keep up with all the changes, not to mention how she hates the thought of processing 50 states’ sales taxes from internet shopping someday, which is being legislated now. She hopes to earn enough profit soon to make this all worthwhile, but that’s what she’s been saying for almost 20 years now. She feels this is what makes her patriotic. I call it struggling and to wish that upon yourself is nothing short of retarded. LOL.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9219 access attempts in the last 7 days.