I’M SO DIZZY…
From all the spinning.
A lot of right-wing publications have picked up this Heritage Foundation column about the “Myth of the Jobless Recovery.” I have no idea if the basic premise is correct, but this example is surely not evidence of job creation.
One could think of the payroll survey as counting all the “brown-eyed” workers at traditional firms and “blue-eyed” workers at start-ups. It does not count “green-eyed” individuals who are self-employed, consult 20 hours a week, or simply home-school their children.
If that’s the best that the VRWC can come up with, expect to see a lot of John Kerry for the next four years.
10 Responses to “I’M SO DIZZY…”
![]() Comment by meep March 26th, 2004 at 10:12 am |
Um, huh? People get paid to homeschool? Well, in a manner of speaking, I’m “paying” my husband to stay at home to bring up the kids, but I don’t think housespouses were counted in employment in the past… |
![]() Comment by izzy March 26th, 2004 at 12:31 pm |
Heritage Foundation is also the employer of Rebecca Hagelin, Sean Hannity gushee. |
![]() Comment by Rae March 26th, 2004 at 12:32 pm |
What the heck is that supposed to mean? “Green eyed?” |
![]() Comment by Daryl Cobranchi March 26th, 2004 at 2:24 pm |
Jealous of the g-schools? |
![]() Comment by Laura March 26th, 2004 at 7:00 pm |
It kind of makes sense to me. It’s one thing if a person is at home because she can’t find a job. It’s something else again if she’s at home from choice. That shouldn’t be used to try to prove that it’s a jobless recovery. I think unemployment numbers are more relevant. Those are people who, in theory at least, are employable and seeking work. |
![]() Comment by Daryl Cobranchi March 26th, 2004 at 8:51 pm |
As stay-at-home moms have NEVER been counted in the workforce, this is just an attempt to fudge the numbers to make the recovery look better. Remember, these are the same folks whol wanted to reclassify McDonald’s into the manufacturing sector because they “manufacture” hamburgers. |
![]() Comment by Laura March 27th, 2004 at 7:21 pm |
But Daryl, if the economy truly is getting better, more people may be finding that they can make it on one income. I am now contradicting myself, because I griped at work about an article in Time Magazine. It was all about how moms are now opting out of the rat race and staying home with their kids. My daughter will be 17 years old next week, and I remember reading almost the identical article when she was a baby, and at intervals in between. They recycle this like it’s a new phenomenon. There have always been women who have stayed home with their kids. |
![]() Comment by Daryl March 27th, 2004 at 7:28 pm |
Perhaps. But my lovely wife pointed out the obvious- a job means you GET PAID. Bush is vulnerable on the jobs issue. I expect to see a lot of spinning between now and November. |
![]() Comment by Laura March 28th, 2004 at 2:08 pm |
Well, your lovely wife is right, of course. But suppose that she could walk out of the house right now and get a well-paying job. She’d still choose to be at home with the kids instead, right? So should her joblessness be used as an example of how bad the economy is? Especially considering that if the ecomony was really very bad she might feel pressured to go get that job, fearing that you could be laid off at any time? |
![]() Comment by Daryl March 28th, 2004 at 3:18 pm |
Laura, |