printThe excerpt is from my new WorlNetDaily.com column, “Those Invisible Jobs”:
“Let’s suppose a business employed ten workers in June. Along came Barack Obama and huffed and puffed and blew six jobs away. Four employees now run a pared-down operation. The next round of retrenchments will invariably entail fewer than six people. The president, or any other wolf in sheep’s clothing, may declare that our proprietor has shed fewer jobs in the month of July. But he may not frame a mathematical inevitability as a sign of economic recovery.
Fewer jobs lost probably means that there are fewer jobs to lose.
Nevertheless, this is exactly how the president spun the static employment market—and, to be fair, this is the way all presidents, aided by statisticians at the Bureau of Labor, finesse unemployment. …
The fig leaf of a “jobless recovery” is yet another unbeatable bit of political fraud.
A jobless economic recovery is the equivalent of a housewarming for the homeless. …
READ THE COMPLETE column, “Those Invisible Jobs,” on WND.COM. And on Taki’s Magazine, every weekend.
Update (August 28): Today, on Chuck Wilder’s nationally syndicated CRN show, “Talkback,” we briefly discussed “Those Invisible Jobs.” I immediately tackled, without being asked to, a possible argument against the case I make in the column’s first paragraph:
Let’s suppose a business employed 10 workers in June. Along came Barack Obama and huffed and puffed and blew six jobs away. Four employees now run a pared-down operation. The next round of retrenchments will invariably entail fewer than six people. The president, or any other wolf in sheep’s clothing, may declare that our proprietor has shed fewer jobs in the month of July. But he may not frame a mathematical inevitability as a sign of economic recovery.
Fewer jobs lost probably means that there are fewer jobs to lose.
The employment market is not static; it’s dynamic. Jobs are destroyed and created all the time. Efficiencies and productivity also reduce and improve the labor force. However, it’s safe to say that if ever the labor market was static, it’s now. And for a good reason. As a snapshot in time, the logical example I give above holds. Because—again, for good reasons—there are fewer jobs to be had, the number of jobs lost will also diminish. But this is because of 1) a relatively static job market. 2) A private economy, “penetrated and enervated by a tentacular bureaucracy.”
For ideologues out there slowly learning, on BAB, to meld reason, reality and ideology, don’t be rigid Postrelians (from Virginia Postrel’s dynamism folly).
Everything done by Obama and his minions is counter productive and illogical. The results he promises aren’t the results realized. What most people don’t realize is the negative results are what he actually wants. The welfare of the country and the citizens are not his goal, it would seem. His goal is state takeover and he needs chaos to smoke screen his intentions.
ilana Mercer writes
“Prices are not being allowed to fall to reflect reality and permit people to purchase the same amount of goods with less available funds. Legislative intervention is delaying the liquidation of bad debt and worthless, illiquid assets at prices set by the market, not manufactured by government.”
This is a very important point that needs to be repeated until people get this concept.
Whenever Governments try to meddle in the free market they distort the free market.
If you let the free market work , The strong Company’s will survive, The weak ones will fail and allow new Businesses to be created and then you can go from 10 to 12 people working which equals real potential economic growth.
But if Government distorts the free market as Ilana points out you go from 10 to 6 people working , which equals real potential economic decline.
As I posted on 8/12 – a healthy and dynamic free market DESTROYS JOBS when it responds to consumer demands and technological improvements by becoming more efficient. In the process, living standards rise and create new jobs, funded by the profits generated by the improvements. The invisible hand of freedom creates more jobs than all the economic czars ever will.
Obammunism saves and creates pseudo jobs which lowers the standard of living. It destroys real jobs and sacrifices industry to corruption and government control. The problem is not with the specific politicians running a government command economy but with the nature of a command-driven economy. (i.e. replacing Bush with Obama and vice versa does not make a difference) It simply is NOT the business of government to create jobs.
Like the expression from the Vietnam War, Obama may wind up destroying the economy in order to save it.
But is your government actually creating jobs? If I take the parallel reports in our country, the government states that it has created 30 000 jobs, yet independent polls (yes we still have them for now) show that we have lost 500 000.
I’ll only believe it if I can see the raw data myself and draw up my own charts.
[Yes, but by definition, government cannot create jobs.]