Weathering the economic storm

Bonnie Willis's picture

We are now approaching five years since the recession has supposedly ended, but it just doesn’t feel like it.

Husbands and wives are fighting about finances more than ever. Children are losing their homes and seeing their families torn apart. Small businesses are cutting back work hours trying to keep afloat. And fewer large businesses are talking about significant growth.

We are all living under a blanket of fear waiting for an economic storm to hit. Some of us are relying on government to save us; others of us are trying to hunker down financially and praying we have enough to weather the storm.

Last week, there were more indicators of this economic storm when the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) announced that over the next 10 years, the Affordable Healthcare Act (AHA), otherwise known as Obamacare, which, in 2011, was estimated to lead to a loss of 800,000 jobs, was revised to an estimated loss of over 2.3 million jobs.

Additionally, the Bureau of Labor Statistics recorded that only 113,000 jobs were added in January. December’s job totals were revised down to only 75,000 while new filing claims for unemployed stayed steady between 300,000 to 350,000 per week. With such poor economic indicators, it begs the question, why are they not being reported as such?

The answer to this question is inseparably linked with the fact that media outlets generally position each of these economic stories in the most optimistic light.

In terms of the CBO’s report, I was not surprised that we would lose jobs as a direct result of Obamacare. Admittedly though, I was surprised that from the beginning it was known we would lose jobs (i.e., 800, 000). From the coverage I remember when Obamacare was passed was that this act would help the economy.

However, media outlets parsed the news to say that the 2.3 million reflected a loss in full-time work hours, not necessarily jobs. The proponents of Obamacare argued that people can now move to working part-time and still maintain their health insurance subsidies, and these workers can also spend more time with their families or pursue other occupational interests.

What?! Are you kidding me?

When it came to the poor monthly jobs numbers, media outlets positioned these numbers in contrast to the more heartening news that the unemployment rate was dropping. While the latter is true, for according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the employment rate is now below 7 percent, the first time since 2008, reporting last week rarely provided the context that this is primarily due to an estimated 90 million people dropping out of the employment pool. This 90 million number correlates with the job participation rate dropping to just over 62 percent of eligible Americans-the lowest rate since the late 1970’s. I marvel how media outlets can cite a job growth in the low to mid 100,000s while moments later share that new unemployment claims filings is in the low 300,000s and not see the disconnect.

How in the world can anyone look at these economic indicators with any type of objectivity and not seriously consider how devastating their implications may be, especially given the current economic climate of our country?

And when they all converge at once, how does one not entertain the possibility that the economic policies that are currently in place are moving us in the wrong direction?

When faced with the cold facts of numbers, defenders of current economic policies used to say, “It’s Bush’s fault.” Then, the defense progressed to obstructionist Republicans.

Now, the villain seems to be the nebulous entity of “income or economic inequality.” Their proposed solution to these economic challenges is to have even more government regulation and more spending as the president seemed to proudly indicate that he would simply write executive orders to accomplish his objectives.

At first, I did not believe what I was hearing; because, surely anyone could see our nation, by design, is a divided government with distinct powers and representations so that we are forced to work together and find solutions for the good of the American people.

But when I heard the president’s remarks in full context, I stood incredulously.

When it comes to leadership, such audacity is not an admirable trait. Rather than assigning blame and stubbornly doubling-down on one’s agenda, given the current economic storm we are facing, we have to be humble enough to admit that maybe our policies may not be what are needed for the American people right now.

And rather than belittle, or deny the solutions posed by other political leaders who propose more private-based solutions, as opposed to more government-based solutions, we may actually have to face the notion, as Ronald Reagan so eloquently put it, “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem, government IS the problem.”

Rather than shielding our political parties from political fallout, true leadership considers the implications his/her policies have on the American people and their families, not just in this present day, but also in years and generations to come.

Having fewer jobs, greater economic uncertainty, and greater dependence on government is not a good thing.

[Bonnie B. Willis is co-founder of The Willis Group, LLC, a Learning, Development, and Life Coaching company here in Fayette County and lives in Fayetteville along with her husband and their five children.]

borntorun
borntorun's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/28/2005
ACA and Lost Jobs

"However, media outlets parsed the news to say that the 2.3 million reflected a loss in full-time work hours, not necessarily jobs. The proponents of Obamacare argued that people can now move to working part-time and still maintain their health insurance subsidies, and these workers can also spend more time with their families or pursue other occupational interests."

That is exactly what the CBO said. Those aren't lost jobs. Those are the number of hours reduced as a result of people of their own accord moving from fulltime to part time jobs. Even the Republican ACA opponents acknowledged this. The fact is a lot of people stay tethered to their job for the health insurance. Those people will now have the option to move to part time jobs to take care of children and parents with serious illnesses.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
BTR-Of the peoples own accord?
Quote:

Those aren't lost jobs. Those are the number of hours reduced as a result of people of their own accord moving from fulltime to part time jobs.

They are lost jobs. A part time job is not an equal replacement for a full time job. While this "logic" may work for a few, most people that I know are trying to support families. And part time jobs usually pay less than full time jobs. As a result most people are working 2-3 part time jobs (i.e. more hours) to survive. Also part time jobs usually don't have any benefits. Miss work, no pay, no retirement, etc. And how in the world can you say that this is of the people's own accord? WOW !!!

borntorun
borntorun's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/28/2005
Yes G35 Dude

There are some people that this will be of their own accord. Not all...didnt say all. But there are people that this applies to.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
BTR-No one had a choice!

Maybe some will like this but they are the minority. And life will be harder on the majority. For it to be of someones accord implies that they had a choice and they chose this. Nobody had a choice!

borntorun
borntorun's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/28/2005
G35-Yes They Did

Yes they did. Maybe not in your circle of friends, but there are people out there who work a job mostly for the health insurance benefits. I know of one couple who has a severely physically disabled child. Both work but the wife is the only one with a job tied to health insurance. She now has a choice. And there are a lot of people who now have that same choice. Am I fan of ACA? No not overall but there are good things in ACA....allowing your children to remain on your policy until 26 (God knows with the lack of jobs that's a good thing), no longer being disqualified for pre-existing conditions (imagine being a 30 year old diagnosed with diabetes losing his/her job finding a new job but the new job insurance refusing to cover you due to a pre-existing condition). You may choose to disagree and that's fine. I'm not trying to change your mind. As I said earlier time will tell whether or not ACA is a success. For the time being there is too much incorrect information out there to accurately judge where or not ACA will work. Movin' on.....

rmoc
rmoc's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/22/2006
how many are going to Part Time of their own accord

This is mostly BS many of those with hours reduced are not doing because they want to. Many families have a hard time even with full time employment and the cost savings from the exchanges seems to be a sham except for the working poor.

borntorun
borntorun's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/28/2005
Good Question moc

My point was the media skewed what the CBO report said. The CBO report says more than 2 million people will decide not to work, or will decide to work less, due to the law – not that they will “lose their jobs." Big difference. I've always been a fan of Bonnie's columns but sad to see her just lazy reporting with this one. Good question regarding how many are going to part time of their own accord. In CBO’s judgment, there is no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA. On the one hand, there have been anecdotal reports of firms responding to the employer penalty by limiting workers’ hours, and the share of workers in part-time jobs has declined relatively slowly since the end of the recent recession. On the other hand, the share of workers in part-time jobs generally declines slowly after recessions, so whether that share would have declined more quickly during the past few years in the absence of the ACA is difficult to determine. Time will tell.

rmoc
rmoc's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/22/2006
Thank you for an eloquent comment on the Adminstration

Great Commentary Bonnie, you nailed it

Recent Comments