Bush, Kerry and the hard truth about jobs
The economic truth is Florida's standard of living is slip-sliding away when compared with the progress of more and more states. Maybe it's a good thing Florida is creating so many new jobs, because so many workers will need two of them to survive.
By ROBERT TRIGAUX
Published July 19, 2004
Listen to George W. Bush: The economy is back on track! New jobs are plentiful and pay well!
Now John Kerry: The economic rebound is a smoke screen! It's padded with low-wage jobs!
Plenty of economists and analysts are lined up behind each presidential candidate to lend their support. Who can you believe amid all the campaign clutter?
After all, jobs - finding one or keeping one that actually pays the bills and leaves something left over for the future - is the closest-to-your-wallet concern in the 2004 presidential race. Consumers who conclude they have been fed a bunch of campaign hooey about the quality or quantity of American jobs make for angry voters.
If only Bush and Kerry would hold a true and honest debate over jobs.
Right. When was the last time we witnessed an unscripted debate?
 |
 |
|
[AP photos]
|
|
| Above, President Bush speaks about the economy in October at the Midwest Airlines Center in Milwaukee. Below, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry addresses the same topic in March while speaking at Wayne State University in Detroit. | |
 |
Barring a dose of truth serum, here's a solution. To host a Bush-Kerry debate of our own about jobs. Right here and now. Without the political baloney. Based on their positions.
* * *
BUSH: The truth is I promised that close to 6-million new jobs would be created in the United States between January 2001 and May 2004. And we're not even close to that. But who would have figured on a recession and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001?
KERRY: As long we're being honest, I tried hard for months to paint Mr. Bush as the first president on track since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net loss of jobs in this country. But that started to change in February. And frankly, that messed up my campaign strategy.
BUSH: I got you there, Mr. Kerry! Employers already have added more than 1.2-million jobs this year.
KERRY: Your administration still has lost close to 1.8-million private sector jobs. So you may yet join President Hoover in the history books unless the number of new jobs starts picking up. But if I can no longer criticize a jobless economic recovery, I can still argue that too many of these new jobs are low-wage and lack accompanying benefits.
BUSH: This isn't true. I've seen those political ads suggesting we're only creating burger flipper jobs - not that flipping hamburgers is not honorable work! Mr. Kerry, you should take a look at factcheck.org (this is an actual Web site), run to help voters by the non-partisan Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. They cite new Bureau of Labor statistics that show "solid growth in employment in relatively higher-paying occupations."
KERRY: I must beg to differ. Increases in paychecks are so small that they have failed to even keep up with the cost of living in the past year. And if I may refer to a few Wall Street economists who concur with me? Morgan Stanley chief economist Stephen S. Roach warns that the rise in jobs but decline in wages is "one of the most serious shortcomings of this recovery."
Another recent report by CIBC World Markets confirms that since late 2002 job creation remains concentrated in low-paying industries. And finally, a recent Merrill Lynch report questioning job quality is titled - and I mean no disrespect to Treasury Secretary John Snow - Are the New Jobs Good Jobs or Snow Jobs?
BUSH: Two can play the economist game, Mr. Kerry. I have in my hand a recent report from Wachovia senior economist Mark Vitner, obviously a sharp observer of the job market. Right here in his second sentence, Mr. Vitner states that complaints about the quality of new jobs - and I quote - "appear incredibly shallow."
In fact, I like this Mr. Vitner, because he concludes with a darn good recommendation, which I will now read. "So stop whining and start focusing on what is right in the economy instead of looking for the faintest signs that something is wrong."
Well, well. (Laughing) I am George W. Bush and I approve of this message!
KERRY: We cannot ignore the growing pressures on middle-income families, which I call the middle class squeeze. Their wages are not rising enough to keep up with inflation. When they lose jobs, they often end up taking lesser-paying jobs, part-time jobs or jobs that do not come with adequate benefits. I won't even get into the scandal your administration largely chooses to ignore - that 44-million Americans have no health insurance.
* * *
Thank you, "candid" candidates Bush and Kerry. Even in a fictitious debate on jobs and wages, it seems politics must raise its partisan head.
The reality is U.S. presidents and other elected officials have far less control over the economy and jobs than they are willing to admit. Not that they don't take credit for good economic news whenever possible.
Consider Florida's economy. The official pitch from Gov. Jeb Bush is that Florida for years has been, and remains, the biggest producer of new jobs of any state. That's correct. But scratch the surface and it turns out Florida's economic boom is fueled by low-paying jobs - and some nasty implications.
First, Florida's real median household income in 2004 is only $38,325. It was $37,073 in 1987. That's a puny gain adjusted for inflation over this period of only 3.5 percent. Contrast that to the nation's real median household income. Over the same period, it rose to $43,095 in 2004 from $39,339 in 1987. That's up 9.5 percent, considerably more than in Florida.
Second, in 1987 Florida's real median household income was larger than those found in 19 other states. By 2004, nine states had surpassed Florida in household income. Now the Sunshine State is only ahead of 10 states.
The political message the candidates tout is: We're economic winners! The economic truth is Florida's standard of living is slip-sliding away when compared with the progress of more and more states. Maybe it's a good thing Florida is creating so many new jobs, because so many workers will need two of them to survive.
The fact is, economists, analysts, researchers and academics differ in opinion on the quality and quantity of new job creation just as much as - and maybe more than - the presidential candidates.
Even Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan contends an earnings gap is growing between highly educated and skilled workers and those workers with less education and fewer skills. Wages may be rising for the highest-paid workers in this country, but they are flat or falling for the bottom half of the nation's workforce.
The nation's economic cycle seems to have a life of its own, certainly more than politicians would like us to think. President Clinton loved to take credit for the longest bull run in modern U.S. history, but his role was probably rather limited.
Yes, there are more new jobs being created. Yes, many of them pay reasonably well - above the $15.64 an hour that is the average for the private sector.
But there is a flip side. A clear majority of newly created jobs do not pay well. Many are temporary, or part time, or come without such important benefits as affordable health care.
Perhaps it has become so simplistic that the economy looks strong and the future seems promising only if you have a job that pays well, includes good benefits, and leaves some savings after the house, car and credit card payments.
Looks like both presidential candidates have a lot of explaining to do in the 15 weeks left until Election Day.
- Robert Trigaux can be reached at trigaux@sptimes.com or 727 893-8405.