Most economists agree that the U.S. left its recession sometime last summer. Yet with each passing month, the employment news remains grim. Looks like we’re in a jobless recovery.
The December job numbers released Friday were of little comfort. True, November’s payroll loss was revised upward to show a minuscule gain of 4,000 jobs. But December’s loss of 85,000 was about twice what Wall Street expected, and the unemployment rate remained at 10%.
For key groups, the news is far worse. Teens, for instance, suffer a 27% unemployment rate. If you’re a construction worker, it’s little better ”” one in four workers in that industry are without work.
Overall, those “underemployed” ”” lacking either a job or not working full time when they would like to ”” now stands above 17%. Also last month, emergency filings for jobless benefits surged 43% nationwide ”” a scary statistic if ever there was one.
What is truly frightening is the now urgent push by the Obama team for “comprehensive” immigration reform. This is commonly taken to mean legalizing some 10 million or so illegal immigrants. Add them to the multi-trillion dollar witches brew of government support programs that will be required to tend to their employment/support needs and you are looking at national bankruptcy, confiscatory taxation of the 50% of the population that actually still pay income tax, or some combination thereof.
I predict that the American public, particularly those who are unemployed or under-employed, when they understand what this means, will react with a ferocity that makes their rejection of Obamacare look mild by comparison.
The only folks I see being big supporters of open borders and government largesse for anyone who can get here, are the ones who directly benefit by increased power and money; i.e., the Democratic party’s left wing, unions like SEIU who will organize all the flood of newly legal, minimum wage service workers and new, low level government workers, and, of course, the standard church contingent of ECUSA, UMC, ELCA, UCC, PCUSA, etc.
If I didn’t know better, I would think that some people in government are really trying to destroy our county’s foundations. The only thing that can accelerate this looming train wreck is if the government gives in to unions and erects significant trade barriers to artificially inflate U.S. worker wages. Boy, we really do live in interesting times!?
[blockquote]If I didn’t know better, I would think that some people in government are really trying to destroy our county’s foundations. [/blockquote]
What convinces you that you know better? I believe that free enterprise, or more precisely industriousness prompted by enlightened self-interest and illuminated by faith, makes up the foundations our nation. That is exactly the principle the current administration is undermining by implementing it’s stated political objectives.
Hopefully voters will be allowed to explain that that is not the “Change” that they expected from the results of the last election.
#2 I’m not sure I understand your point you seem to agree with Daniel.
#1 Personally I favor restrictive immigration policies and some level of trade barriers, i.e. fair trade, not free trade. Otherwise I think we are simply in a ract to the bottom.
On the other hand if you are truly a free trader you should also be in favor of a mostly open border immigration policy. Allowing workers willing to work for lower wages into the country drives down the cost of labor and increases the profit of the corporations. It is pure capitalism, and that is why most large corporations favor open borders. They will benefit from cheap labor.
We have our philosophies mixed up in this country. Free Trade and open borders go together as economically they are the same policy. Both are designed to drive down the cost of operating a business and minimize the cost of goods to the consuming public. Likewise, restrictive immigration and trade barriers are essentially the same policy. Both are designed to protect the life style of Americans by using government action to support worker pay and the price of domestic products.
Favoring restrictive immigration and free trade makes no economic sense as favoring trade barriers and open borders makes no economic sense. The policies fight each other.
In Obama’s case, he appears to be taking the capitalistic approach, free trade and open borders. If we are going that route we certainly need to have reform, as we need to make sure all these new workers are taxed and pay for their fair share of the infrastructure of the nation and are insured so we do not have to pay for their health care.
By the way #2 exactly what change did American’s want?
MCPLAW:
I was simply pointing out that the Obama administration is indeed attempting to destroy our countrie’s foundations, as a brief review of our current executive’s sparsely decorated resume could have predicted before his election. Free trade (by definition) cannot be implemented by a what our constitution defines as government. It can only be allowed or curtailed. It shouldn’t be a surprise, given the background of the extra-constitutional and unregulated “czars” that have been placed in control of executive policy that our culture is being undermined in an attempt to replace it with one that was thoroughly repudiated in the last century. In retrospect, the only conceivable benefit of Marxism/socialism was the consolidation of power in the supposedly benevolent elite that imposed it. This benefit does not convey to the citizen.
As a self admitted paleo-conservative, I emphatically favor immigration over isolationism. But is is imperative that we regulate who is allowed to join our experiment in democracy. It is not in anybody’s interest to perpetuate or import social dysfunction by allowing ourselves to be exploited by indigents who have no intention of participating in our culture as anything other than wards of the state. Neither is it beneficial to allow the immigration of criminals ( which includes by definition those who enter our country without legal documentation). We have a Christian responsibility to help those less fortunate and in need, including those who reside to the south. That responsibility will not be assisted if the current administration permanently succeeds in consolidating an un-christian polity by annexing the votes of 20 million illegal Latin American immigrants. “Render Unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” has a reverse implication.
It would be difficult for me to believe that anyone could consider an administration that would forcibly take a majority ownership stake in two large industrial companies and the entire commercial banking system by executive fiat as taking a “Capitalist Approach” to anything.
As to what “Change” did Americans want? If I knew the answer to that I could be a politician. But I believe that those of us old enough to remember Jimmy Carter’s “Malaise” speech didn’t want a reprise. Some lessons need to learned by every generation.