Mighty Jalapeno wrote:And yet, still ahead in the polls.
This early on, name recognition from beforehand is still huge. Betting against Trump getting the nom seems pretty safe and wise. He's simply too much of a jackass.
So recently Bush got a lot of flack for stating that Americans aren't working enough, then he later said that he was talking about involuntary underemployed. His full quote is here:
Jeb Bush wrote:My aspiration for the country, and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours.
Well, that's one approach, sure. Productivity and folks working do go hand in hand. It's not a terribly novel approach, and it of course raises the question of how he'll improve workforce participation, but there's nothing really crazy about that.
Personally, reading that quote, I don't buy it. It's a pretty common Republican narrative to blame our economic troubles on lazy people who are staying at home collecting welfare checks (it was his Brother who told a Single Mom how great it was that she was working three jobs, and that it was "uniquely American", after all), and the wording "we have to be a lot more productive" rather than "we need to invest in technology to improve productivity" and "people need to work longer hours" rather than "we need to create more full time jobs" seems to suggest that he believes it's the workers who are the problem.
Judging him by what his relatives have done/republican steriotypes is...ehhh. He may blame lazy people in the future, but this statement isn't hatred directed towards the poor.
Talking about unemployment rates is really, really common, and updating that to include underemployment is basically common sense. It doesn't mean one is necessarily blaming everything on lazy people. Your suggestions are more specific, and include assumptions that he may not share(for instance, technology can improve productivity, but tech investment isn't the ONLY way to do so).
Thesh wrote:Also, it should be stated that the comment is stupid regardless of the intent. It ignores that workforce participation and average hours worked are down because older people are retiring or taking part time jobs to supplement social security, and that we are still barely below 2007 in average annual hours worked (1789 in 2014 vs 1797 in 2007, according to the OECD) and that only a complete moron would think that focusing on those areas to achieve sustained 4% growth is realistic; this is especially true given the highest productivity growth ever seen for any 10 year period since 1947 was 3.1% (for 1959-1968), compared to the 2000s which had 2.6% growth in labor productivity which beat out every 10 year period starting after 1973 and ending before 2003, and the 2000s had poor economic growth - even if we did 3.1% productivity growth every year in the 2000s, we would have still only averaged 3% GDP growth from 2000-2007.
He is unlikely to be president for ten years. A four year term of consistent average growth is, while still optimistic, far more frequent.
Also, strictly speaking, post recession is a good time to be making that kind of statement. Regardless of his tactics, it's simply easier to pull off higher growth once you've gotten over a big correction. Making the same promise just after the housing bubble burst would be much harder, because you've got to deal with that mess first.
Again, I'm more interested in the "how" than the specifics of the promise.