On the question of Jeb Bush saying that Americans need to work more hours I've been a little ambivalent. I mean many liberal critics have skewered him for this but I'm not sure it's been wholly fair.
I mean there are many Americans who would benefit by working more hours. I should know as I've been there-I was for many years an American who would have happily worked 50 or 60 hours but my employers were dead set against it.
Many take his comment here as similar to Romney's 47%. I'm not sure. Don't get me wrong I think that Jeb lives in the same basic world as Mitt does and there is plenty Jeb says to not like. Like what he said today about building a fence around the border.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/03/politics/jeb-bush-immigration-policy-2016/
But many Americans would benefit from working more hours. To be sure, the question is why does Jeb think Americans don't in fact currently work more hours? The reason is largely that employers don't want to pay the overtime.
There is unquestionably a chronic problem in the US of undermployed workers-as well as those who have given up looking for work.
In the context of undermployed Americans his comments might then seem reasonable. However, the followup question for him would be what he intends to do about it. What is causing undermployment?
I do think that this critical article of Jeb runs the risk of miniminzing underemployment which is a real problem.
"Bush then backpedaled and said he was referring to the 6.5 million people who wanted full-time work but couldn't find it. The only problem with that number -- 6.5 million -- is that it constitutes less than 5% of America's total workforce of 148.7 million."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/13/opinions/wheeler-jeb-bush/
This is a strange comment by David Wheeler. He thinks that if only 6.5 million Americans are undermployed they don't matter? Again, I know it's not an obscure problem as I've been there. Try kissing off 6.5 million people in the electorate and tell me they don't matter.
Jeb is not wrong to bring them up-I applaud him for doing so. What we need to know though is what he plans to do about it. How do you get these underemployeds more work?
However, the liberal critics of Jeb's comment are right that as a nation we have a lot of overworked Americans as well. This is the problem that might be called 'the leisure shortage for American workers.'
Yes, I'm actually finding the Neoclassical idea of leisure useful here. The only caveat as that leisure needs to be differentiated from unemployment and undermployment.
Unlike the RBCers who chalk up the Great Depression and the Lesser Depression to everyone taking a vacation for years.
What's happened is that with the drop in wages, Americans have had to work longer hours to keep up with the level of money balance they used to maintain.
So they are still behind as they are at best keeping up with what they used to do in 40 hours in 50 or 60 hours. Meanwhile they have less leisure-ie, family time, recreation time, quality personal time-they used to have which leads to other social ill effects like family breakdowns.
Meanwhile these overworked Americans took extra hours offered to them after their employers let the now underemployed workers go or cut their hours.
In a simple world, you would simply cut the hours of the overworked Americans and give them to the undermployed Americans but of course life, especially in economics is not that simple.
Part of the trouble is that the overworked are working through economic necessity. And the employers benefit from these underemployed workers who don't work enough hours to qualify for healthcare, and other full-time benefits.
So it seems to me that both Jeb and his liberal critics are only getting half of the story.
1. He gets that there is an undermployment problem
2. They get that there is an overworked problem.
What no one seems to understand is that you can have both at once. Just like the fable of the superstitious man who became frantic when he saw someone blow on their hands for warmth and then blow on their soup to cool it down.
http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/type1342.html
P.S. No question, however, that Jeb's talk of 4% GDP is absurd. Either he didn't listen to his economic advisers-Mankiw, Glen Hubbard, etc.-or they are really falling down on the job.
I mean there are many Americans who would benefit by working more hours. I should know as I've been there-I was for many years an American who would have happily worked 50 or 60 hours but my employers were dead set against it.
Many take his comment here as similar to Romney's 47%. I'm not sure. Don't get me wrong I think that Jeb lives in the same basic world as Mitt does and there is plenty Jeb says to not like. Like what he said today about building a fence around the border.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/03/politics/jeb-bush-immigration-policy-2016/
But many Americans would benefit from working more hours. To be sure, the question is why does Jeb think Americans don't in fact currently work more hours? The reason is largely that employers don't want to pay the overtime.
There is unquestionably a chronic problem in the US of undermployed workers-as well as those who have given up looking for work.
In the context of undermployed Americans his comments might then seem reasonable. However, the followup question for him would be what he intends to do about it. What is causing undermployment?
I do think that this critical article of Jeb runs the risk of miniminzing underemployment which is a real problem.
"Bush then backpedaled and said he was referring to the 6.5 million people who wanted full-time work but couldn't find it. The only problem with that number -- 6.5 million -- is that it constitutes less than 5% of America's total workforce of 148.7 million."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/13/opinions/wheeler-jeb-bush/
This is a strange comment by David Wheeler. He thinks that if only 6.5 million Americans are undermployed they don't matter? Again, I know it's not an obscure problem as I've been there. Try kissing off 6.5 million people in the electorate and tell me they don't matter.
Jeb is not wrong to bring them up-I applaud him for doing so. What we need to know though is what he plans to do about it. How do you get these underemployeds more work?
However, the liberal critics of Jeb's comment are right that as a nation we have a lot of overworked Americans as well. This is the problem that might be called 'the leisure shortage for American workers.'
Yes, I'm actually finding the Neoclassical idea of leisure useful here. The only caveat as that leisure needs to be differentiated from unemployment and undermployment.
Unlike the RBCers who chalk up the Great Depression and the Lesser Depression to everyone taking a vacation for years.
What's happened is that with the drop in wages, Americans have had to work longer hours to keep up with the level of money balance they used to maintain.
So they are still behind as they are at best keeping up with what they used to do in 40 hours in 50 or 60 hours. Meanwhile they have less leisure-ie, family time, recreation time, quality personal time-they used to have which leads to other social ill effects like family breakdowns.
Meanwhile these overworked Americans took extra hours offered to them after their employers let the now underemployed workers go or cut their hours.
In a simple world, you would simply cut the hours of the overworked Americans and give them to the undermployed Americans but of course life, especially in economics is not that simple.
Part of the trouble is that the overworked are working through economic necessity. And the employers benefit from these underemployed workers who don't work enough hours to qualify for healthcare, and other full-time benefits.
So it seems to me that both Jeb and his liberal critics are only getting half of the story.
1. He gets that there is an undermployment problem
2. They get that there is an overworked problem.
What no one seems to understand is that you can have both at once. Just like the fable of the superstitious man who became frantic when he saw someone blow on their hands for warmth and then blow on their soup to cool it down.
http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/type1342.html
P.S. No question, however, that Jeb's talk of 4% GDP is absurd. Either he didn't listen to his economic advisers-Mankiw, Glen Hubbard, etc.-or they are really falling down on the job.
No comments:
Post a Comment