• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Jeb Bush: "You Need To Work Longer Hours"

Newell Steamer

Newell Steamer

Diamond Member
Wow, Conservatives aren't cutting the American worker any slack!

http://abc7chicago.com/news/jeb-bush-people-need-to-work-longer-hours/836256/

"My aspiration for the country and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours" and, through their productivity, gain more income for their families. That's the only way we're going to get out of this rut that we're in."
Click to expand...

A 2014 Gallup poll found that already many Americans employed full-time report working, on average, 47 hours a week, while nearly 4 in 10 say they work at least 50 hours a week.
Click to expand...

So, we've got jobs. We aren't crack smoking fiends. We pay more taxes than the rich. And, we work hard.

Yet, that is not good enough.

Seriously, what is up with the smear campaign against the American people?
 
Newell Steamer said:
Wow, Conservatives aren't cutting the American worker any slack!

http://abc7chicago.com/news/jeb-bush-people-need-to-work-longer-hours/836256/

So, we've got jobs. We aren't crack smoking fiends. We pay more taxes than the rich. And, we work hard.

Yet, that is not good enough.

Seriously, what is up with the smear campaign against the American people?
Click to expand...

I don't know why he's sticking with this 4 percent growth thing. People who don't understand economics won't get what 4% growth means to them and anyone who does understand economics would laugh at his idea for being hopelessly stupid.
 
eskimospy said:
I don't know why he's sticking with this 4 percent growth thing. People who don't understand economics won't get what 4% growth means to them and anyone who does understand economics would laugh at his idea for being hopelessly stupid.
Click to expand...

People not understanding economics is pretty much the story of the Bush family.
 
I think more people can be put to work. The OP reported "full time" numbers, but a large number of people are stuck doing part time work. I would believe he means people that are part time need help getting full time work, which would help the economy.
 
Newell Steamer said:
Wow, Conservatives aren't cutting the American worker any slack!

http://abc7chicago.com/news/jeb-bush-people-need-to-work-longer-hours/836256/





So, we've got jobs. We aren't crack smoking fiends. We pay more taxes than the rich. And, we work hard.

Yet, that is not good enough.

Seriously, what is up with the smear campaign against the American people?
Click to expand...

Jeb Bush just gave up any shot at the presidency.
Something in that Florida air really does a number on you.
 
Agreed with Bush. American's today just aren't productive enough! Not like their parents were. Productivity must have been great back then.
 
Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours" and, through their productivity, gain more income for their families. That's the only way we're going to get out of this rut that we're in.
Click to expand...

ROFL, that's funny. He says it like it's all up to the worker. The workforce participation being at all time lows is due to boomers retiring, outsourcing of our jobs abroad, and crappy economy all around. Yes, we should strive for higher workforce participation, but just because a person wants a job, doesn't mean there is one for him. Next, I don't know anyone who's working full time who's working 40 hours or less. The 42-47 seems to be accurate based on my experience. This may not sound like much but 48 hours for example is like working 6 days a week already. He wants workers to work more than that? And then there is also implication that if workers just become more productive then that will translate into more income for their families. That has not been the case for the last 20 years. US workers have seen huge productivity gains in the last 10-20 years and yet inflation adjusted salaries are stagnant. Most of the productivity gains went to the top 0.1%. What makes him think it will be different this time around? Ugh...
 
Subyman said:
I think more people can be put to work. The OP reported "full time" numbers, but a large number of people are stuck doing part time work. I would believe he means people that are part time need help getting full time work, which would help the economy.
Click to expand...

I think most people other than the slobbering, knee jerk political hacks thought that's what he meant. However, you know how the hacks from either side work, grab an out of context phrase or statement and run with it like it means something.
 
imagine how many part time workers could be made full time if the executives making millions, whether they are successful or not, shifted some of their pay to the people who actually do the work.
 
fleshconsumed said:
ROFL, that's funny. He says it like it's all up to the worker. The workforce participation being at all time lows is due to boomers retiring, outsourcing of our jobs abroad, and crappy economy all around. Yes, we should strive for higher workforce participation, but just because a person wants a job, doesn't mean there is one for him. Next, I don't know anyone who's working full time who's working 40 hours or less. The 42-47 seems to be accurate based on my experience. This may not sound like much but 48 hours for example is like working 6 days a week already. He wants workers to work more than that? And then there is also implication that if workers just become more productive then that will translate into more income for their families. That has not been the case for the last 20 years. US workers have seen huge productivity gains in the last 10-20 years and yet inflation adjusted salaries are stagnant. Most of the productivity gains went to the top 0.1%. What makes him think it will be different this time around? Ugh...
Click to expand...

Darn lazy American Part timers!! Go get a full time Job!!
 
Um... Jeb is dumb, but there is not a need to twist his words.

Many people are not working right now and not even looking for work which means they do not count as unemployed. Many are also not working full hours. If you look at the average working person that does 47 hours a week, you have to look at those who are working part time or not working at all. You are trying to say that his implication was that those whom work 47+ hrs a week would need to work more, and that does not logically follow.

If more people were to work and those working part time were to work more hours then there would not be a need to push people beyond 47 hrs. The average would change because the distribution would change, but it would not require any more hours at the top which seems to be the problem you have.

Also, we really should get more people working don't you think?

The republicans are bad enough without having to make shit up. Hell, just look at your signature links about Obama being a Muslim or Ebola coming from Central America.

When Jeb tries to pander to the crazy part of the republican party, call him out then because he will have to go full retard to get those votes. But man up and don't become just like those you dislike.

So seriously, whats up with the smear campaign against people that are dumb enough when they stand on their own?
 
Subyman said:
I think more people can be put to work. The OP reported "full time" numbers, but a large number of people are stuck doing part time work. I would believe he means people that are part time need help getting full time work, which would help the economy.
Click to expand...

Agreed, will likely be a clarification coming on this very thing. "Work more hours means that those who are unemployed have jobs, part-time workers who want full time jobs can get them, etc."

Of course that clarification will do nothing for people to determine whether he actually believes everyone in general should work harder including full-time people. That would be a gaffe in the true sense in that it's something that's objectively truthful (akin to "you really should lose weight and exercise more") while still being completely tone-deaf because people resent the implication of saying it ("are you calling me fat?"). Saying we should work more means the audience will say "but I'm already working pretty hard, are you saying I'm lazy?"
 
Seems right to me.

People need to work instead of taking handouts, otherwise we're going to end up like Greece.
 
Subyman said:
I think more people can be put to work. The OP reported "full time" numbers, but a large number of people are stuck doing part time work. I would believe he means people that are part time need help getting full time work, which would help the economy.
Click to expand...

Drako said:
Seems right to me.

People need to work instead of taking handouts, otherwise we're going to end up like Greece.
Click to expand...

I think Subyman's view of this is probably the closest to correct and Drako's is the most backwards view.

Honestly this is like Obama's "you didn't build that", Hillary's "what difference does it make", or Pelosi's "We have to pass it to know what's in it" comments. If you take it out of context, sure it sounds bad, but taken in context it isn't bad at all. But that works if you take pretty much anything out of context. So we know if Obama had said this exact same thing then Hannity would be attacking him. It'd be nice if politician's and the media didn't want to twist everything. I don't even like Bush, but this is absolutely nothing to make a big deal out of.

I do wonder how many people on this forum who defend this comment were ones that attacked the examples I used above, and vice versa for the ones attacking Bush here.
 
Even monkeys know when a game is rigged against them:

In fact, a study released this year from the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute found worker productivity rose 74% between 1973 and 2013, while rages were only up 9%. In other words, Americans were indeed doing more work with scant increase to their compensation. And among the top earners—the 1%—incomes were up 138% since 1980, while the bottom 90% of workers saw wages rise just 15%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top