People seem to be fixated on low unemployment numbers, as if they tell the whole story, because for so long, high unemployment reflected the fact that so many were competing for fewer and fewer jobs.
The truth is that unemployment is often simply a reflection of demographics, and given all the baby boomers who are retiring, low unemployment is to be expected as fewer people are of an age to compete for jobs. This is completely independent of government policy.
But very low unemployment does not necessarily translate into increased opportunity: it does not reflect the jobs that have been automated due to labour shortages, and are thus never coming back, or jobs that might have existed but don't exist because of lack of innovation or start-up opportunities. It doesn't reflect the skills gap between an undereducated labour force and high-skilled jobs desperate for high quality workers.
A higher demand for labour may be good for some members of the labour force, but it can be crippling for small businesses, causing many to fail, which stifles competitiveness and dampens the effectiveness of economic stimulus measures.
It used to be that if you had a job, you could expect a decent salary and benefits, save for retirement, a comfortable life.
But thanks to union-busting and "right-to-work" legislation (God how I hate that term), so few of those good jobs exist now, and those that do exist require higher education, leading to academic debt, and lower standards of living: a vicious circle.
Also keep in mind the number of people who now need to work 2 jobs, (or at least moonlight) just to survive, and the picture is bleaker still.
Today, holding down a minimum wage job, or even two jobs, is closer to indentured servitude than the American dream.
Now if you could show me how lower unemployment leads to a reduction in the gap between rich and poor, then I'd be on board.
But sadly, I have yet to see this play out.
The truth is that unemployment is often simply a reflection of demographics, and given all the baby boomers who are retiring, low unemployment is to be expected as fewer people are of an age to compete for jobs. This is completely independent of government policy.
But very low unemployment does not necessarily translate into increased opportunity: it does not reflect the jobs that have been automated due to labour shortages, and are thus never coming back, or jobs that might have existed but don't exist because of lack of innovation or start-up opportunities. It doesn't reflect the skills gap between an undereducated labour force and high-skilled jobs desperate for high quality workers.
A higher demand for labour may be good for some members of the labour force, but it can be crippling for small businesses, causing many to fail, which stifles competitiveness and dampens the effectiveness of economic stimulus measures.
It used to be that if you had a job, you could expect a decent salary and benefits, save for retirement, a comfortable life.
But thanks to union-busting and "right-to-work" legislation (God how I hate that term), so few of those good jobs exist now, and those that do exist require higher education, leading to academic debt, and lower standards of living: a vicious circle.
Also keep in mind the number of people who now need to work 2 jobs, (or at least moonlight) just to survive, and the picture is bleaker still.
Today, holding down a minimum wage job, or even two jobs, is closer to indentured servitude than the American dream.
Now if you could show me how lower unemployment leads to a reduction in the gap between rich and poor, then I'd be on board.
But sadly, I have yet to see this play out.
