A well-known social scientist, a kindly man no longer among us, used to spit nails when people used the word “breakthrough.” There was something essentially dishonest in the use of that term — at least, that’s how I read his anger. “Breakthrough” means drama without substance. It’s a term used by the messengers but it’s not in the message.
So no, the latest job numbers aren’t really a breakthrough. Most commentators are saying that the upturn in employment is more like a sign that we are in a “slow and steady” recovery… finally! More often than not, recessions are followed by a “wow! turnaround!” Not this time, they’re saying.
I’ll take “slow and steady.” But not without feeling those residual fears…
What’s to fear here is an increasingly murderous rampage by Republicans who’d like to make sure Obama is destroyable in 2012. If by any chance unemployment were to slip down into the 7% area, their collective goose would be cooked. The worst thing for the right would be a growing realization that the pragmatist in the White House has, in spite of all forces working against him, managed to pull off some significant wins. Meanwhile, it’s probably smarter to avoid stirring up Republican furies with any “wows” or “breakthroughs.”
Turmoil is found in many corners of the global economy, and oil prices have been rising, so economists waited to see if these storms would affect hiring. The answer, so far, appears to be no. The gain in jobs slightly exceeded economists’ expectations.
Manufacturing continued what a few years ago would have been considered an unlikely — if still modest — revival, adding 17,000 jobs. Health care added 37,000 jobs, and professional and business services added another 78,000, although about 37 percent of that came from increases in temporary help. It was the 13th straight month of private-sector job growth.
March’s numbers, however, also offered cautionary signs that the nation’s economic ills are not entirely behind it. The number of long-term unemployed — that is, those jobless for 27 weeks or more — remained painfully high, at more than six million.
The small size of the national labor force remains a pressing concern, reflecting discouragement with the prospects for employment. It has shrunk steadily over the past few years, to a point that just 64.2 percent of adults are either in the work force or looking for a job. That is the lowest labor participation rate in a quarter-century. ...NYT
That’s more like it! The Times also reported on a phenomenon we have yet to deal with. It comes from a study — Wider Opportunities for Women — and it shows that we (not just women) have suffered from a real drop in economic security.
A separate report being released Friday tries to go beyond traditional measurements like the poverty line and minimum wage to show what people need to earn to achieve a basic standard of living.
The study, commissioned by Wider Opportunities for Women, a nonprofit group, builds on an analysis the group and some state and local partners have been conducting since 1995 on how much income it takes to meet basic needs without relying on public subsidies. The new study aims to set thresholds for economic stability rather than mere survival, and takes into account saving for retirement and emergencies.
“We wanted to recognize that there was a cumulative impact that would affect one’s lifelong economic security,” said Joan A. Kuriansky, executive director of Wider Opportunities, whose report is called “The Basic Economic Security Tables for the United States.” “And we’ve all seen how often we have emergencies that we are unprepared for,” she said, especially during the recession. Layoffs or other health crises “can definitely begin to draw us into poverty.”
According to the report, a single worker needs an income of $30,012 a year — or just above $14 an hour — to cover basic expenses and save for retirement and emergencies. That is close to three times the 2010 national poverty level of $10,830 for a single person, and nearly twice the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.
What’s needed is a new way of looking at achieving a level of stability which at least meets the fantasy we have been clinging to, more like the current nutty fantasy that we’re “the greatest country in the world.”
A single worker with two young children needs an annual income of $57,756, or just over $27 an hour, to attain economic stability, and a family with two working parents and two young children needs to earn $67,920 a year, or about $16 an hour per worker.
That compares with the national poverty level of $22,050 for a family of four. The most recent data from the Census Bureau found that 14.3 percent of Americans were living below the poverty line in 2009.
Wider Opportunities and its consulting partners saw a need for an index that would indicate how much families need to earn if, for example, they want to save for their children’s college education or for a down payment on a home. ..NYT
A realistic index sounds good. The sooner we dump fantasies and face what is needed to make sure our kids can go to college, can allow for a decent level of health care for our families, can have access to healthy food, can have meaningful elections by the people for the people, can have roads that no longer beat up our suspensions, can buy affordable cars to drive on them, and can have access to sustainable energy resources, the sooner we’ll actually become the America we can be proud of, not just dishonestly boastful about.