Letter: No, we’re not better off

Let’s do the “ritmatic,”as former President Bill Clinton said. Available jobs not there!

At the Democratic National Convention, Vice President Joe Biden asked if we were better off than four years ago. To rousing applause he said: “Yes, we are.” A pro-Obama news medium called the 96,000 new jobs in August “anemic.”(“Terrible” is a better word.). The Wall Street Journal says it takes 150,000 new jobs a month just to keep up with population growth. (The feds say 110,000).

But wait! The jobless rate dropped from 8.3 percent to 8.1 percent. The “ritmatic” must be wrong. How can the jobless rate drop when there are not even enough new jobs to keep up with population growth? An explanation was due. It was because more people just got fed up and quit looking for work. The Wall Street Journal says about 250,000 folks did that in August. And the spinmeisters of government do not include them as “looking for work,” so the unemployment rate drops. Brilliant “ritmatic.”

This has been going on for decades, so it is not Barack Obama’s doing. But it does not help the claim that “We are better off.” Statements lauding the “drop” are already making the rounds, conveniently ignoring the only 96,000 jobs created.

It is time the media educates the people about the real jobless rate (about 14.7 percent) and starts making a pitch for transparency and better “ritmatic.” The official jobless rate should count those who are seeking work and those who just gave up and are sitting at home collecting unemployment and/or welfare checks because there is no work.

Then there should be a rate that includes folks who are “underemployed” (working in a job below their capabilities just to put food on the table). Gallup Economy estimates that rate was 18.4 percent in July. And for those under 29 years of age, it is 28.4 percent. Until that happens Americans will not get a true idea of how bad off we are.

Rudy MacDonald

retired engineer

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by RALLEN - 16/09/2012

The USSR couldn't make the system supported some listed here in 70 years of devotion to that system. History tells much to those who will only listen and heed.

2) Comment by gvm - 16/09/2012

But the downward spiral was a direct result of the Bush administration's failed policy of kissing the hind parts of the "job creators." Not to mention spending money the country simply didn't have. That's what the irresponsible practice of massively increasing spending while massively decreasing revenues will do for you.

3) Comment by RALLEN - 15/09/2012

All of the things going bad 4 years ago came to fruition under Obama. Congratulations.

4) Comment by gvm - 14/09/2012

Many of the people who don't think they're better off today than four years ago ought to take a hard look in the mirror. It was apparent to me as early as 2006 that the housing market was about to go bust. So much so, that my wife and I sold our house in 2006 and paid off all of our debts with the money we made. At the time folks were flipping houses like pancakes, up-sizing every three or four years and borrowing like drunken sailors against the equity they had in their homes. It was obscene and it was irresponsible. The same is true for many who had excessive exposure in the stock market. People were practically begging cheats and scoundrels like Madoff and Sanford to take their money and invest it for them because they promised astronomical returns. For me, that didn't pass the smell test. Also, because of Republican intransigence during the debt ceiling debate and the fact that, even then, it was clear parts of Europe were headed for catastrophe, I opted out of the market. Consequently, I have not taken a financial hit during these trying times. My point is simply this: most of the president's detractors are blaming him for problems they were complicit in bringing on themselves. The lure of easy money, bigger homes, new cars and anything else one can imagine caused too many people to lose perspective. Greed and a lack of regulation on Wall Street coupled with lack self-control on Main Street caused this problem - not the president.

5) Comment by RALLEN - 14/09/2012

The "bleeding hearts" have sympathy for the unemployed unless they are the cause. Interesting picture!

6) Comment by gvm - 13/09/2012

Those who think that the answer to this country's fiscal woes is simply to cut entitlement spending display a fundamental lack of understanding. Admittedly, reduced spending is needed but that must be combined with increased revenues. Responsible implementation of both of these is the only viable way for the country to regain solid financial footing. For those who like to compare (wrongly in my opinion) the federal budget to household budgets, consider the following: when families get into financial difficulty they usually stop unnecessary spending and mom or dad, maybe both, get part-time jobs in order to bring in extra money to pay down their debt. This, in effect, is what the president is advocating and the GOP is obstructing. So who's the adult in the room?

7) Comment by ScotB - 13/09/2012

It certainly depends on what measure you prefer to look at. The labor participation rate is the lowest it has been in three decades. If the participation rate were that same as when President Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 11.2%. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this administration has had the longest record of high unemployment since the Great Depression. Overall nationally, American wealth has declined 40% in the last 4 years. The United States has gone $5.3T deeper in debt during this administration, which has made absolutely zero effort to reform entitlement spending. Every employee of the federal government is paid with borrowed money. You couldn't balance the budget if you shut the whole federal government down, because entitlement spending and interest on the debt is greater than all federal revenues. Congress has not approved a budget at any time during this administration. So, based on these objective facts, I'd say we are not better off.

8) Comment by Scrooge - 13/09/2012

The road remark was self-explanatory, why an explanation is even necessary is actually absurd, besides if these politicians like Romney and Ryan hate government so much, why don't they get out? Denying the necessity of govemnment is pure delusion. There must be a balance, that is what the forefathers foresaw. It is gratifying to see that people are starting to recognize the greed-driven intent of the billionaire propaganda. But let them spend the money, won't hurt the economy. "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." Thomas Jefferson

9) Comment by gvm - 13/09/2012

@LSUinVail: "The problem is that there are a lot of closed minds out there and they won't let the facts get in the way of their emotions...too many of these types believe that roads created business success, and not the other way around.." Actually the two are interdependent: businesses need infrastructure and infrastructure improvements require a vibrant business community. That's what the president was alluding to in his recent, albeit infamous, remarks.

10) Comment by DMJ - 13/09/2012

Concise?!

11) Comment by LSUinVail - 13/09/2012

@speakthetruth: very well put, concise and well thought out. The problem is that there are a lot of closed minds out there and they won't let the facts get in the way of their emotions...too many of these types believe that roads created business success, and not the other way around.

12) Comment by speakthetruth - 13/09/2012

This is an attempt to not attack Republicans or Democrats, but to stop people from thinking of "sides" and think of what is best for America. Are we better off than we were 3 years ago? Each person will have a different answer depending on their situation. If you are fortunate enough to have mutual funds and they are doing well, that is great for you. But lets look at the basic needs to live. Food prices are higher, gas prices are higher, the dollar is worth less, we are in more debt, there are more people than ever before on welfare, more people on food stamps, higher medical costs, higher higher....everything is higher. It doesn't matter how much money the IRA's and stocks are making if the aren't keeping up with the cost of living. We can blame Bush, Clinton, Obama, Congress, the world etc. The bailouts, Bush started them and Obama continued them. But are they working, that depends on if you can afford to buy a new car, or if you can afford to pay the additional fee's banks charge. If you can't then they aren't working for you, if you can then you can say they are working. We (the people) have gotten away from looking at reality and instead pick sides. Some past presidents did a horrible job and were voted out after their first term, both democrat and republican. I voted against Carter and Bush 1. I would have voted against Bush 2 if he ran for re- election due to the bailouts. Chevy would not have gone out of business if the government didn't bail them out. Look at Chrysler. Instead there would have been a correction in their business. I cannot afford a vehicle built by a company that pays its employees $75 per hour. I look a Obama, do I see things changing? Do I see us paying less for gas, for food? No I don't. Do I see higher taxes coming to keep up with government spending? Yes I do. Do I see a divided country? Yes I do. Whether Democrat or Republican you have to point to the leaders of the county for dividing us so. I will vote for Romney only because I have not seen Obama say anything other than what is wrong. If Romney makes it and there is no change in 4 years I will vote to get rid of him too. That is the way its suppose to work, but instead we are headed towards a divided country because ALL politicians prey on the people that don't keep open minds and pick sides. I didn't intend to offend any person or party, but would hope people vote without thinking of party lines.

13) Comment by DMJ - 13/09/2012

Agreed.

14) Comment by Whatchange - 13/09/2012

Boring comments, same old from the same old people, me included.

15) Comment by DMJ - 13/09/2012

When Barack Obama took office, we were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month. Now, we're adding private sector jobs (granted, not as much as we'd like). Also, in 2008, my mutual funds were in the toilet. Now they're almost back to pre-crash levels. Clearly, we are better off. Do your 'ritmatic again, Rudy. This re-hashed Ronald Reagan catch phrase is coming back to bite you guys, isn't it?

16) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 13/09/2012

From the use of the "ritmatic" to put down President Clinton (I listened again, and he properly pronounced it every time) to the idea that we just don't have a "true idea of how bad off we are" this writer is wrong. I wonder if Rudy would have people who are retired counted in the unemployment roles. No, of course not. The bottom line is that many people on radio and television programs, in order to put down President Obama, suddenly want to include all sorts of numbers in the unemployment number. I don't disagree with the idea of perhaps reframing the unemployment number, redefining it. BUT, you cannot have it both ways, just because it serves a political agenda. It isn't right when Democrats do it. Or Republicans do it. Or Libertarians, or Greens, or ANY party does it. What I have seen, over and over... is people comparing pre-Obama numbers (which did not include all of the "under-employed" and those who were no longer seeking work) under President Bush to current numbers that include all of these other numbers. It's not honest. It's not fair, and, to put it bluntly, in a word, it is a lie. So, in summary, do you wish to change the way a particular measure is computed? Fine, let's have the discussion, and then compare apples to apples. I battle this temptation of people wanting to compare apples to zebras all the time in education. (Why apples to zebras you ask? Well, it is because apples to oranges would be a much closer comparison, at least they are both in the fruit family.) How does it work in education? So-called "education reformers" take a high-poverty school and call it "failing" based on the test scores of students (in spite of overwhelming evidence that test scores are more closely tied to out of school factors than to anything happening within the school) and then they turn the school over to profiteers or "turnaround" specialists and suddenly claim the school is a success. So, is the school no longer failing the measure of test scores. Well, no. BUT, the reformers say, parents are happier, the "percentage growth of scores is highest in the state" and we have "proven" that poverty doesn't matter. If you want to measure what effect something has, you have to isolate the effect and use constant measures. Changing the measure gives us nothing. Or worse. It can do harm.

17) Comment by Bighug - 13/09/2012

Whether or not you are better off depends on the individual situation. Most of my retirement funds are investments in the stock market, so I am better off financially than when Bush left office. US military personnel who were in danger in the war in Iraq, started by Bush and based on lies, are better off. Admit it, Rudy, you are better off.

18) Comment by chem - 12/09/2012

Well, Rudy MacDonald, just like the republicans, is playing with numbers. The republicans have blocked every piece of legislation proposed by the Democrats, so in affect, the republicans got their way. But regardless of all that, the general public sees through the right-wing crazies. Romney got no "bounce" after his convention, but Obama went up an additional 3 points after his convention. The people are not as stupid as the republicans think they are.