By Manifesto Joe
News came out Friday that the U.S. unemployment rate, as measured by nonpartisan sources, had fallen from 8.1% to 7.8%, a 44-month low, with the main reason being people moving into new jobs.
No sooner had the news been announced than right-wing Republicans were up to their usual bilge. Most notably, former General Electric CEO Jack Welch, infamous for cooking the books at the corporate conglomerate when he was there, was accusing those biased nonpolitical appointees at the Bureau of Labor Statistics of cooking the books right before the election.
Here's a link to an Alternet story on the right-wing response to the loss of one of their big talking points.
One of Scumney's bogus debating points Wednesday night was the notion that he will create 12 million jobs if elected. He neglected to mention that a lot of economists already project that the economy itself will create something like 11.8 million jobs in the U.S. no matter who is elected president next month.
Here's a link to a story on Scumney's assorted inaccuracies at Wednesday night's debate.
Scumney has to distort thusly, because he's got no record of his own to run on. Massachusetts wasn't overly prosperous during his single term as governor there, and as head of Bain Capital he did much more to cut the unemployment rate in places like China than to do anything to help Americans get jobs. The objective of Bain Capital was, in his own words, to "harvest" companies. Lots of U.S. jobs are sent overseas with that kind of harvesting.
But, something it appears we can expect from Republicans for at least another month is this habit: They blame Obama for anything "bad" that ever happened on any day of his watch, even for the calamities he obviously inherited from Il Doofus (Bush 43). But he gets no credit for anything "good" that has happened during the same period. That kind of thing either had to have been done by his hapless predecessor, or in spite of Obama.
Obama was very dry and lackluster for the first debate. I hope he'll be loaded for bear for the second and third ones.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Showing posts with label unemployment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unemployment. Show all posts
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Monday, June 28, 2010
America, 2010, and America, 1934: How Are We Different?
By Manifesto Joe
The America of 1934 was much worse off than the America of today. But there are some parallels: stubbornly high unemployment, pay cuts, political polarization, a field day for demagogues, a right-wing Supreme Court confronting a liberal Democrat in the Oval Office ... above all, a general feeling among the populace of, "When did my life become a horror movie?"
Today's America has Keynesian economic precedents, and something of a social safety net, with food stamps as the centerpiece. At least few people could actually starve, unlike the situation in '34. And the official unemployment rate is hovering at only around 10 percent. Even if one factors in the underemployment and other differences of today, the job situation of 1934 was certainly worse. There are no bums coming to my door, begging to do whatever work I have here for some food. My mother, who was 7 in 1934, had vivid memories of them. And, beans and cornbread was mostly what my grandmother had to offer a Depression-era tramp. My grandfather was making about a dollar a day.
But one of today's crucial differences, the social safety net -- such as it was at the start of "The Great Recession" -- now seems in peril.
Last week, the extension of unemployment benefits to the long-term unemployed failed to clear the Senate. I've created a link. The vote was 57 for, 41 against, with 40 smug Republicans plus Nebraska Blue Dog Ben Nelson blocking the bill. Nearly 1 million jobless Americans will lose their unemployment benefits because the Democrats could not muster the 60 votes needed to overcome a threatened Republican filibuster.
If this had happened in 1934, I would dare say there would have been a lot of people out on the streets all over this country the next day, and quite possibly bloody violence. It's true that Americans were remarkably stoic through 10 miserable years during the Great Depression. But in those days, there was at least enough turbulence to show that people basically knew who their enemies -- and friends -- were. In the America of 2010, at least half the country doesn't seem to get it.
Because of the Senate's inaction, there will be a spike in homelessness and hunger. There will be many more foreclosures and evictions.
There are doubtless some right-wingers who think that unemployment benefits encourage people to remain jobless. I don't think that such people have ever had to try to live on the meager sum that unemployment insurance pays. But even if their notions were so, there are few jobs compared to the number of jobless. This will force many people out of their homes, into shelters, into already-stressed food banks -- and into suicidal despair.
I find it a bit ironic that the one Senate "Democrat" who sided with the Republicans on this is from the very state where a Depression-era food riot occurred. The eruption that took place in 1932 in Lincoln, Nebraska, is now barely a footnote in history. It was one instance in which the stoicism of heartland Americans was finally exhausted.
But, history doesn't exist for many Americans of today. It's interesting to note that one of the most active Communist Party cells in America during the 1930s was in Oklahoma City, capital of what is now one of the nation's most rock-ribbed Republican states, represented by two of the most dimwitted right-wingers in the Senate. Not that being a communist was an especially bright thing, even then -- but it's understandable when you realize what daily life was like for most Oklahomans during the Depression. I lived in that state briefly during the 1980s, and by then, you couldn't tell there had ever been a Dust Bowl. Nobody seemed to remember it.
So, what's the difference between America of 1934 and America today? Back then, people seemed to have a collective memory, at least of sorts. Today, many can't remember back any further than whatever Glenn Beck told them on Fox News yesterday. And, while there were indeed demagogues back then, and right-wing ones -- they seem to have more muscle now.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
The America of 1934 was much worse off than the America of today. But there are some parallels: stubbornly high unemployment, pay cuts, political polarization, a field day for demagogues, a right-wing Supreme Court confronting a liberal Democrat in the Oval Office ... above all, a general feeling among the populace of, "When did my life become a horror movie?"
Today's America has Keynesian economic precedents, and something of a social safety net, with food stamps as the centerpiece. At least few people could actually starve, unlike the situation in '34. And the official unemployment rate is hovering at only around 10 percent. Even if one factors in the underemployment and other differences of today, the job situation of 1934 was certainly worse. There are no bums coming to my door, begging to do whatever work I have here for some food. My mother, who was 7 in 1934, had vivid memories of them. And, beans and cornbread was mostly what my grandmother had to offer a Depression-era tramp. My grandfather was making about a dollar a day.
But one of today's crucial differences, the social safety net -- such as it was at the start of "The Great Recession" -- now seems in peril.
Last week, the extension of unemployment benefits to the long-term unemployed failed to clear the Senate. I've created a link. The vote was 57 for, 41 against, with 40 smug Republicans plus Nebraska Blue Dog Ben Nelson blocking the bill. Nearly 1 million jobless Americans will lose their unemployment benefits because the Democrats could not muster the 60 votes needed to overcome a threatened Republican filibuster.
If this had happened in 1934, I would dare say there would have been a lot of people out on the streets all over this country the next day, and quite possibly bloody violence. It's true that Americans were remarkably stoic through 10 miserable years during the Great Depression. But in those days, there was at least enough turbulence to show that people basically knew who their enemies -- and friends -- were. In the America of 2010, at least half the country doesn't seem to get it.
Because of the Senate's inaction, there will be a spike in homelessness and hunger. There will be many more foreclosures and evictions.
There are doubtless some right-wingers who think that unemployment benefits encourage people to remain jobless. I don't think that such people have ever had to try to live on the meager sum that unemployment insurance pays. But even if their notions were so, there are few jobs compared to the number of jobless. This will force many people out of their homes, into shelters, into already-stressed food banks -- and into suicidal despair.
I find it a bit ironic that the one Senate "Democrat" who sided with the Republicans on this is from the very state where a Depression-era food riot occurred. The eruption that took place in 1932 in Lincoln, Nebraska, is now barely a footnote in history. It was one instance in which the stoicism of heartland Americans was finally exhausted.
But, history doesn't exist for many Americans of today. It's interesting to note that one of the most active Communist Party cells in America during the 1930s was in Oklahoma City, capital of what is now one of the nation's most rock-ribbed Republican states, represented by two of the most dimwitted right-wingers in the Senate. Not that being a communist was an especially bright thing, even then -- but it's understandable when you realize what daily life was like for most Oklahomans during the Depression. I lived in that state briefly during the 1980s, and by then, you couldn't tell there had ever been a Dust Bowl. Nobody seemed to remember it.
So, what's the difference between America of 1934 and America today? Back then, people seemed to have a collective memory, at least of sorts. Today, many can't remember back any further than whatever Glenn Beck told them on Fox News yesterday. And, while there were indeed demagogues back then, and right-wing ones -- they seem to have more muscle now.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
DeLay Brings Yet More Shame Upon Texas -- Those Shiftless Unemployed
By Manifesto Joe
Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay embodies a chapter of Texas history that I wish could be forgotten. But, he keeps resurfacing in all sorts of repulsive ways, including his embarrassing turn on Dancing With the Stars. Then on Sunday, he goes on CNN's State of the Union and basically says that people are unemployed because they want to be.
Here's the Huffington Post report on this, including a brief transcript.
DeLay, while he was out and about making an ass of himself, also voiced admiration for senile Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning for tying up the Senate and screwing around hundreds of thousands of people, federal employees as well as the jobless, for days before finally backing down.
Mr. DeLay obviously needs to be enlightened about a few things. Let's just start with my own situation.
If I were to lose my job tomorrow, catastrophe would soon follow. Unemployment benefits generally run about $300 a week. That's not exactly an incentive to stay jobless. With the mortgage payments I've got to make, and the debt I have to service because of past illnesses in my family, and my own chronic health condition stemming from severe allergies, that wouldn't go far at all. Job loss for me, now, would likely mean bankruptcy, and probably having to sell my home for much less than it's worth.
Mr. DeLay also has obviously never known any common person who has endured a prolonged period of unemployment. I know a man who went through this ordeal, and he's a Type 1 insulin-dependent diabetic, too. He went through months of sleepless anxiety over his situation. And, ever since rebounding from this job loss, he's been scraping by on part-time jobs. He's never had money to retrain for something else -- not on the bare subsistence that unemployment benefits provide.
Leaving office in a cloud of scandal apparently wasn't enough to shame Mr. DeLay into private life. He seems to feel a compulsion to make a fool of himself again and again, years after his initial disgrace.
Texas has already had plenty of people, including one of the worst U.S. presidents ever, to make us look bad. Put a sock in it, Mr. DeLay.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay embodies a chapter of Texas history that I wish could be forgotten. But, he keeps resurfacing in all sorts of repulsive ways, including his embarrassing turn on Dancing With the Stars. Then on Sunday, he goes on CNN's State of the Union and basically says that people are unemployed because they want to be.
Here's the Huffington Post report on this, including a brief transcript.
DeLay, while he was out and about making an ass of himself, also voiced admiration for senile Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning for tying up the Senate and screwing around hundreds of thousands of people, federal employees as well as the jobless, for days before finally backing down.
Mr. DeLay obviously needs to be enlightened about a few things. Let's just start with my own situation.
If I were to lose my job tomorrow, catastrophe would soon follow. Unemployment benefits generally run about $300 a week. That's not exactly an incentive to stay jobless. With the mortgage payments I've got to make, and the debt I have to service because of past illnesses in my family, and my own chronic health condition stemming from severe allergies, that wouldn't go far at all. Job loss for me, now, would likely mean bankruptcy, and probably having to sell my home for much less than it's worth.
Mr. DeLay also has obviously never known any common person who has endured a prolonged period of unemployment. I know a man who went through this ordeal, and he's a Type 1 insulin-dependent diabetic, too. He went through months of sleepless anxiety over his situation. And, ever since rebounding from this job loss, he's been scraping by on part-time jobs. He's never had money to retrain for something else -- not on the bare subsistence that unemployment benefits provide.
Leaving office in a cloud of scandal apparently wasn't enough to shame Mr. DeLay into private life. He seems to feel a compulsion to make a fool of himself again and again, years after his initial disgrace.
Texas has already had plenty of people, including one of the worst U.S. presidents ever, to make us look bad. Put a sock in it, Mr. DeLay.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Unofficial Economic Indicator: Food-Stamp Use At Record Levels
By Manifesto Joe
Food stamps have been distributed in the U.S. since the 1960s. I'm fortunate enough to have never needed them -- although my family had a very close scrape, when my dad became terminally ill and disabled when I was 11. One thing I've learned is that things have to go very badly, for a while, for one to even qualify for the program.
Those who follow business news have no doubt heard the bad news about economic indicators such as retail sales, durable goods orders and the like. I propose to add one to the list: food stamp use. It is projected to reach, this year, its highest level since the program started over 40 years ago. I'll repeat -- just qualifying for this program is tough. So this is a very significant economic development.
This is from today's New York Times:
Driven by a painful mix of layoffs and rising food and fuel prices, the number of Americans receiving food stamps is projected to reach 28 million in the coming year, the highest level since the aid program began in the 1960s.
The number of recipients, who must have near-poverty incomes to qualify for benefits averaging $100 a month per family member, has fluctuated over the years along with economic conditions, eligibility rules, enlistment drives and natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina, which led to a spike in the South.
But recent rises in many states appear to be resulting mainly from the economic slowdown, officials and experts say, as well as inflation in prices of basic goods that leave more families feeling pinched. Citing expected growth in unemployment, the Congressional Budget Office this month projected a continued increase in the monthly number of recipients in the next fiscal year, starting Oct. 1 - to 28 million, up from 27.8 million in 2008, and 26.5 million in 2007.
Federal benefit costs are projected to rise to $36 billion in the 2009 fiscal year from $34 billion this year.
"People sign up for food stamps when they lose their jobs, or their wages go down because their hours are cut," said Stacy Dean, director of food stamp policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington, who noted that 14 states saw their rolls reach record numbers by last December.
One example is Michigan, where one in eight residents now receives food stamps. "Our caseload has more than doubled since 2000, and we're at an all-time record level," said Maureen Sorbet, spokeswoman for the Michigan Department of Human Services.
Officially, U.S. unemployment isn't very high now. To wit, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics on March 7:
Nonfarm payroll employment edged down in February (-63,000), and the
unemployment rate was essentially unchanged at 4.8 percent, the Bureau of
Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Employment
fell in manufacturing, construction, and retail trade. Job growth continued
in health care and in food services.
With a 4.8% jobless rate, there is now more food stamp use, both in totals and in percentage of the population, than during the now-underestimated recessions of the mid-'70s and the early '80s. Back then, joblessness sometimes topped 10 percent. I recall those recessions well -- I was in college working summer jobs during the first, and a recent M.A. graduate looking for work during the second. I think there's something wrong with this picture. Why wasn't food-stamp use greater then than it is now?
Let's read between the lines. "Employment fell in manufacturing, construction, and retail trade. Job growth continued in health care and in food services."
A lot of this probably has to do with the types of jobs people can get now, and how the U.S. economy has been essentially restructured for wage- and salary-busting.
Fewer jobs in unionized manufacturing -- they're being rapidly offshored to nonunion and lower-wage settings. Fewer jobs in construction -- those jobs tend to pay well while they last, but when they're not there, times get tough. Retail -- people have to have money to buy things.
On the plus side: health care? I've spent enough time monitoring elderly people at nursing homes and assisted-living facilities to know that many of the workers are barely getting minimum wage. Food services? Forget it. In college, I had a girlfriend who was a waitress, and she complained about the pay and tips even back then, in a college town. You won't make much unless you're a certified chef, or better still, if you own that relatively rare asset that is a successful eatery.
As for the unemployed -- the stats reflect only those we know about. Not reflected are those who have, in despair, quit looking for work. Nor do they include those who have found some niche in the underground economy.
I would dare say that another factor is the so-called "welfare reform" by the Congress in 1996. The welfare rolls are indeed down sharply -- but people still feel the urge to eat. Forced to work in low-wage jobs, the erstwhile recipients generally still need the food subsidy. And, by the way, with all those new people dumped into the low-wage labor pool over the past 12 years, is it surprising that wages have declined? And with that, food-stamp use has increased?
And of course, let's not forget what effect the subprime mortgage crisis has probably had on millions of family situations. I suspect it hasn't helped.
I've had enough dealings with the business press to know that my proposal here will never fly. But I'll have a go at the windmill anyway. Food-stamp use should be included on the list of leading economic indicators. Perhaps our business-page readers should know how things are going for the bottom 10 percent, not just the fat cats.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Food stamps have been distributed in the U.S. since the 1960s. I'm fortunate enough to have never needed them -- although my family had a very close scrape, when my dad became terminally ill and disabled when I was 11. One thing I've learned is that things have to go very badly, for a while, for one to even qualify for the program.
Those who follow business news have no doubt heard the bad news about economic indicators such as retail sales, durable goods orders and the like. I propose to add one to the list: food stamp use. It is projected to reach, this year, its highest level since the program started over 40 years ago. I'll repeat -- just qualifying for this program is tough. So this is a very significant economic development.
This is from today's New York Times:
Driven by a painful mix of layoffs and rising food and fuel prices, the number of Americans receiving food stamps is projected to reach 28 million in the coming year, the highest level since the aid program began in the 1960s.
The number of recipients, who must have near-poverty incomes to qualify for benefits averaging $100 a month per family member, has fluctuated over the years along with economic conditions, eligibility rules, enlistment drives and natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina, which led to a spike in the South.
But recent rises in many states appear to be resulting mainly from the economic slowdown, officials and experts say, as well as inflation in prices of basic goods that leave more families feeling pinched. Citing expected growth in unemployment, the Congressional Budget Office this month projected a continued increase in the monthly number of recipients in the next fiscal year, starting Oct. 1 - to 28 million, up from 27.8 million in 2008, and 26.5 million in 2007.
Federal benefit costs are projected to rise to $36 billion in the 2009 fiscal year from $34 billion this year.
"People sign up for food stamps when they lose their jobs, or their wages go down because their hours are cut," said Stacy Dean, director of food stamp policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington, who noted that 14 states saw their rolls reach record numbers by last December.
One example is Michigan, where one in eight residents now receives food stamps. "Our caseload has more than doubled since 2000, and we're at an all-time record level," said Maureen Sorbet, spokeswoman for the Michigan Department of Human Services.
Officially, U.S. unemployment isn't very high now. To wit, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics on March 7:
Nonfarm payroll employment edged down in February (-63,000), and the
unemployment rate was essentially unchanged at 4.8 percent, the Bureau of
Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Employment
fell in manufacturing, construction, and retail trade. Job growth continued
in health care and in food services.
With a 4.8% jobless rate, there is now more food stamp use, both in totals and in percentage of the population, than during the now-underestimated recessions of the mid-'70s and the early '80s. Back then, joblessness sometimes topped 10 percent. I recall those recessions well -- I was in college working summer jobs during the first, and a recent M.A. graduate looking for work during the second. I think there's something wrong with this picture. Why wasn't food-stamp use greater then than it is now?
Let's read between the lines. "Employment fell in manufacturing, construction, and retail trade. Job growth continued in health care and in food services."
A lot of this probably has to do with the types of jobs people can get now, and how the U.S. economy has been essentially restructured for wage- and salary-busting.
Fewer jobs in unionized manufacturing -- they're being rapidly offshored to nonunion and lower-wage settings. Fewer jobs in construction -- those jobs tend to pay well while they last, but when they're not there, times get tough. Retail -- people have to have money to buy things.
On the plus side: health care? I've spent enough time monitoring elderly people at nursing homes and assisted-living facilities to know that many of the workers are barely getting minimum wage. Food services? Forget it. In college, I had a girlfriend who was a waitress, and she complained about the pay and tips even back then, in a college town. You won't make much unless you're a certified chef, or better still, if you own that relatively rare asset that is a successful eatery.
As for the unemployed -- the stats reflect only those we know about. Not reflected are those who have, in despair, quit looking for work. Nor do they include those who have found some niche in the underground economy.
I would dare say that another factor is the so-called "welfare reform" by the Congress in 1996. The welfare rolls are indeed down sharply -- but people still feel the urge to eat. Forced to work in low-wage jobs, the erstwhile recipients generally still need the food subsidy. And, by the way, with all those new people dumped into the low-wage labor pool over the past 12 years, is it surprising that wages have declined? And with that, food-stamp use has increased?
And of course, let's not forget what effect the subprime mortgage crisis has probably had on millions of family situations. I suspect it hasn't helped.
I've had enough dealings with the business press to know that my proposal here will never fly. But I'll have a go at the windmill anyway. Food-stamp use should be included on the list of leading economic indicators. Perhaps our business-page readers should know how things are going for the bottom 10 percent, not just the fat cats.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
