WaPo strains to come up with a reason for us to hate the booming jobs economy

The booming jobs economy is Democrats' greatest problem, prompting at least some of them, such as Bill Maher, to openly hope for a crash.

Just yesterday, another roaring good jobs report came out, signaling the employment of more Blacks, Latinos, women, handicapped, discouraged, and ex-con workers, even as they have already reached historic highs, and more exodus from the party of the left. Oh the heartbreak!

Enter the Washington Post to the rescue!

In a piece titled "Is it great to be a worker in the U.S.? Not compared with the rest of the developed world," the Post wheels out the old tired canards about Europe with its padded-benefit jobs and union control, somehow being better than the U.S.

So why does a large subset of workers continue to feel left behind? We can find some clues in a new 296-page report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a club of advanced and advancing nations that has long been a top source for international economic data and research. Most of the figures are from 2016 or before, but they reflect underlying features of the economies analyzed that continue today.

In particular, the report shows the United States’s unemployed and at-risk workers are getting very little support from the government, and their employed peers are set back by a particularly weak collective-bargaining system.

Apparently, we're supposed to be upset about the great booming jobs economy here, because the jobs created aren't ... like Europe's. You know, the Europe of economic stagnation, famous for its absence of startups and lack of new jobs forming. The Europe of involuntary part-time, self-employment and contract work. The Europe that for employers is so risky to fire a worker nobody wants to hire one. (Get a load of Sweden, Belgium, Austria, and Switzerland on this chart here)  The Europe of 95%-or so migrant unemployment, where migrants take welfare because they can't find jobs. That Europe.

What's more, the report uses data only through 2016, which would be the stagnant Obama era, yet runs the report now as if to suggest the problem is Trump and all those booming jobs now being created.

What makes this stupid is that what we are seeing are tradeoffs. And this is from a WaPo blog called 'WonkBlog' which should have plenty of respect for the 'on the one hand, on the other hand' thinking of actual economic wonks. You can have padded do-nothing jobs and union featherbedding all you like, which is a great deal for workers on the inside, and certainly moves to ensure reliably Democrat or socialist votes for the establishment. Or, you can have a mobile economy, where workers have their choices of jobs, and benefits are earned as a function of performance. The first rung up on the ladder may not have the benefits or pay ofthe higher rungs, but for an entry level worker, it's a godsend because it leads to a second rung and a third. For Europe's zero-skill migrants, that's not an option, so down they stay, moldering in the banlieue, dreaming of terrorism. And yes, the latter choice leads to President Trump's ever-climbing political numbers and ever growing support from women, blacks, Latinos, Asians, and other often overlooked members of the workforce.

You'd think they'd be honest about that. Instead, we see shilling for the left in a preposterous bid to persuade us that we really, really, really don't like tax cuts and we absolutely can't stand having more jobs.

What bozos.

Update: Read this.

 

 

The booming jobs economy is Democrats' greatest problem, prompting at least some of them, such as Bill Maher, to openly hope for a crash.

Just yesterday, another roaring good jobs report came out, signaling the employment of more Blacks, Latinos, women, handicapped, discouraged, and ex-con workers, even as they have already reached historic highs, and more exodus from the party of the left. Oh the heartbreak!

Enter the Washington Post to the rescue!

In a piece titled "Is it great to be a worker in the U.S.? Not compared with the rest of the developed world," the Post wheels out the old tired canards about Europe with its padded-benefit jobs and union control, somehow being better than the U.S.

So why does a large subset of workers continue to feel left behind? We can find some clues in a new 296-page report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a club of advanced and advancing nations that has long been a top source for international economic data and research. Most of the figures are from 2016 or before, but they reflect underlying features of the economies analyzed that continue today.

In particular, the report shows the United States’s unemployed and at-risk workers are getting very little support from the government, and their employed peers are set back by a particularly weak collective-bargaining system.

Apparently, we're supposed to be upset about the great booming jobs economy here, because the jobs created aren't ... like Europe's. You know, the Europe of economic stagnation, famous for its absence of startups and lack of new jobs forming. The Europe of involuntary part-time, self-employment and contract work. The Europe that for employers is so risky to fire a worker nobody wants to hire one. (Get a load of Sweden, Belgium, Austria, and Switzerland on this chart here)  The Europe of 95%-or so migrant unemployment, where migrants take welfare because they can't find jobs. That Europe.

What's more, the report uses data only through 2016, which would be the stagnant Obama era, yet runs the report now as if to suggest the problem is Trump and all those booming jobs now being created.

What makes this stupid is that what we are seeing are tradeoffs. And this is from a WaPo blog called 'WonkBlog' which should have plenty of respect for the 'on the one hand, on the other hand' thinking of actual economic wonks. You can have padded do-nothing jobs and union featherbedding all you like, which is a great deal for workers on the inside, and certainly moves to ensure reliably Democrat or socialist votes for the establishment. Or, you can have a mobile economy, where workers have their choices of jobs, and benefits are earned as a function of performance. The first rung up on the ladder may not have the benefits or pay ofthe higher rungs, but for an entry level worker, it's a godsend because it leads to a second rung and a third. For Europe's zero-skill migrants, that's not an option, so down they stay, moldering in the banlieue, dreaming of terrorism. And yes, the latter choice leads to President Trump's ever-climbing political numbers and ever growing support from women, blacks, Latinos, Asians, and other often overlooked members of the workforce.

You'd think they'd be honest about that. Instead, we see shilling for the left in a preposterous bid to persuade us that we really, really, really don't like tax cuts and we absolutely can't stand having more jobs.

What bozos.

Update: Read this.