The private sector created 321,000 private sector jobs in November, making 2014 the best year for job creation since 1999. Businesses have now added 10.9 million jobs during the six-year Obama administration (though that number is partially offset by the elimination of 1 million public sector jobs via misguided austerity policies). Compare that to just 1.1 million net jobs created during President George W. Bush’s entire eight years in office.
“November was the 50th consecutive month of positive job growth – the best stretch since 1939 – and the 56th consecutive month in which we’ve seen private-sector job growth – the longest on record,” says MSNBC’s Steve Benen, who created the chart below. “It remains very difficult for President Obama’s critics to explain these numbers: the hiring boom is underway after tax increases and full implementation of the Affordable Care Act.”
Until Democrats get behind labor, we have an uphill battle. Women’s reproductive rights, marriage equality, are issues that are settled, not for all, not for certain, but enough for the voting public to move on. Labor is where it’s at and by labor I don’t mean “Jobs and the economy”. Building the pyramids was “jobs and the economy”. The cotton plantations were all about “jobs and the economy”. Walmart is “jobs and the economy”.
Democrats need to be able to canvass the guy raking the leaves on his front lawn in October, on his day off from working at the auto repair shop while his wife is working at Target and he’s got a second job moonlighting at his buddy’s office cleaning company and say, “Hey, we’ve got a plan to get you back to one job for your family that will support all of you”.
“Jobs” ain’t the answer.
I agree one job per person would be great, but there are still the unemployed and under employed too. Last time I checked unions still mostly back Dems for which I assume they have good reason. Dems are also the party of earned sick time, raising the minimum wage, and expanding health coverage which all speak to labor. Reproductive rights and marriage equality may be settled in MA, but are still very much fights in some other states. Besides we can multitask and I would argue that standing up for women, minorities, and workers all fall in the category of giving voice to those who have historically not had as much of one.
In the 2010 Senate race, 49 percent of union members voted for Brown compared with 46 percent for Coakley. It’s not that Dems are not behind labor, it’s that labor does not believe that Dems are behind labor, according to the polls.
From today’s Washington Post: Obama says he willing to defy Democrats on his support of Trans-Pacific Partnership
I like the idea of one job to support the family. In no way am I saying women belong in the home-I am saying that parents (in any gender configuration) should have the option of staying home if they want to, since one job should be enough to support a family again.
No family left behind as I said after the election-that should be our motto and we should strive to make this state as great as it could be for every family.
Few of us have “careers” as much as most of have a job and that job provides us with the means to live our life as we like. The whole emphasis on careers is foolish, in my opinion. Mike Rowe said it best recently when he said “follow your passion” was the worst advice he’d ever received. The emphasis on career over the individual takes away our humanity. We’re more than cogs in the machine, eh? If people ask me what I “do”, I usually reply that I’m a dad. Yes, I do go to work at a place where another man pays me wages for my time, but that’s not who I am, it’s just what I do to support who I am.
I was disappointed with Hillary Clinton when she remarked, “I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession….” Being a parent is so much more than that and most of us are not lucky enough to have a “profession”, so disparaging us is rude and ignorant.
I like the saying, “Do what you love and you’ll never work a day in your life.” Unfortunately, that statement does not apply to my present circumstances, but it is still a nice aspiration.
Economics is an inexact science but it seems to me all the players in the game should get some credit. If the House had passed a jobs bill and increased spending it might have “overheated” the economy and led to high inflation. (I know the Fed also influences inflation). Business cycles are inevitable and Presidents get far too much credit (Obama,Reagan) and far too much blame. If you change any one factor you may change the outcome, so the Republicans in the House deserve credit for their restraint. What we need is leadership that recognizes that when we have seven years of surplus we need to get ready for the seven years of famine to follow.
Because wages, which tend to drive the inflationary pressures, are a majorly lagging indicator here. Even back in the 90s people testified at the Fed that we had “full” employment without major inflationary concerns because workers were too insecure and too docile to demand wage increases. As now, it was a time when decently-paid jobs were being eliminated and replaced by low-wage jobs.
Only for a brief period when U3 unemployment was lowest (97-98) did we see any kind of upward motion in the real median wage and economists are now studying the possibility that we’ll ONLY see upward wage pressure in those rare instances when we have what economists would call full employment. Otherwise there’s just too much slack in the labor market and too much fear among workers. So I’m holding off on the victory lap. Although it’s clear the performance of the economy is better under Obama than it was under Bush, we’re a long way from “overheated.”
Of course, had the House passed a jobs bill and we did get close to “overheated,” as you say the Fed’s monetary policy would have adjusted to take account.