Isn’t the term “jobless recovery” an oxymoron? I mean, how absurd is that? It’s like Fig
Newtons without the figs (the company just changed the name to “Newtons,” there’s apparently little to no figs in them anymore). And so, there are little to no jobs in the “recovery.” But, what is a recovery anyway? Isn’t it the measure of how many people go back to work? As far as I can remember, that was always the measurement: in a recession, people get laid off, in a recovery, people go back to work. It’s that simple. We need an official Jobless recovery definition.
In the Orwellian world of good is bad, and bad is good, recoveries are without jobs. They [politicians and government statistics bureaus] want to make you thing there’s a recovery but they have to cover themselves with this new double speak, jobless recovery. Could there be a recession without job losses? Have you ever heard of that? Did you ever hear on the news something like: “well, the country is in a recession but nothing really to worry about because no one got laid off?” I never heard anything that absurd. But, they want us to believe that there’s a recovery without jobs! Give me a break and stop insulting my intelligence
The Dismal Figures
In an article I read on clevelend.com, put out by AP, it has some pretty dismal figures about the economy and the so called recovery. Aside from the interesting figures in it, it does say ” Job creation has been frustratingly slow since the Great Recession ended.” Really? When did it end? The Obama administration says that it ended but when? And how? In my previous post, Obama’s Plan Leaving Millions of Unemployed Dejected, I talked about the massive numbers of people simply dropping out of the workforce because they gave up looking for work out of frustration, which made the unemloyment figures go down. How is that a recovery?
The same report says that the average increase in pay was only one penny in in April. One Penny!? That’s a recovery? It didn’t say if executive pay and bonuses went up or not, but judging from past experience, I would assume they went up more than one penny. And here is another statistic from the Cleveland.com article: “The problem this time isn’t that companies haven’t been hiring: They’ve added more than 1 million jobs in the past six months. It’s that the Great Recession killed so many jobs in the first place — 8.3 million. By contrast, the 2001 recession eliminated 1.6 million jobs.”
So, I’m missing something here. A famous commercial, years ago, said “where’s the beef?” And we can say here: where’s the recovery? Well, it’s just not there. Abraham Lincoln said that you can fool some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time. It looks like they’re trying to fool all the people all the time with their faked statistics and Orwelian recovery double speak.
I always refer back to the Roosevelt [Franklin] and Kennedy periods when they actually did create real, productive, high paying, measurable, tangible jobs. They both had to fight Wall Street every step of the way to do it. But, with Obama being a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street, and Romney (most likely the Republican front runner, at this point) who made his money on Wall Street, there won’t be any actual, real recovery policies coming out of Washington for at least another four years. Jobless recoveries, as the article points out, will become the norm.
What do you think about this recovery? Are you buying into it? Do you think there can be a recovery without jobs?