Your “friend” is a simpleton or a shill. Obama has been Prez for less than 4 years and when he was sworn in the WORLD
I don’t think the four years/five years thing is the point. The guy is saying, “If you’re such a great president, how come the economy hasn’t improved enough that I’ve gotten a raise by now?”
I don’t know if the guy is a bad worker or not, but I agree that his situation is hardly Obama’s fault. It’s pretty naive to think that everything is going to turn around so quickly in only four years, when the economy was so bad when he took office. In fact, I think it’s just shy of a miracle that it didn’t get much worse, although I’m not sure if Obama should get credit for that. Maybe some credit.
But all he can do is tell the voters, “Please try to hang in there and be patient. The economy IS improving a little bit all the time…”
I’ve worked for the state in 2 different states. Both places I’ve been told we get raises when the Republicans win elections. I have yet to see proof of this since both states keep electing Democrats, though, so for now I consider it a myth. Nobody gives raises to state employees.
Let’s all ask Willard how much his investment income has shot up during the last 4 years.
Five years ago I didn’t have a job at all. Now I have permanent, full time employment AND I’ve gotten two raises in the past year.
The plural of anecdote is not data.
My friend didn’t finish high school, but managed to become a master electrician. He is a great employee. I think his main problem is that he has no testicles to give an ultimatum to his employer. I appreciate all your input. This MB rocks! It is full of a lot of free thinkers. Thanks to you I have a response to give to his statement.
Ah, well, if it were a survey or a poll maybe it would be data, no?
Anyhoo, I’ve gotten a raise every year for 5 years. My gf and I share a wonderful income, apt, food, etc. Better than ever!
EDIT: whoops! Ninja’d by the conclusion :smack:
Perhaps, but a valid poll or survey is more than just collecting random anecdotes.
I’m somewhat amused by the people in my life who say “Are you better off now than four (or five) years ago” in a manner that makes it clear they’re expecting a “no” and are flabbergasted when I reply that yes, I am very much better off now than I was then.
(This was mentioned yesterday - I haven’t found any credible reports this morning that debunk it, and apparently Mittens has confirmed he did profit: "Romney’s campaign did not deny that he profited from the auto bailout in an email to The Hill Wednesday afternoon, but it said the the report showed the Detroit intervention was “misguided”)
I know someone who runs a company poorly who blames Obama for its troubles. Presumably she tells her employees that they’re not getting raises because of Obama.
Also, I can see someone saying that who dislikes Obama for some other reason and is just attributing negative things to his presidency for no more reason than that.
And as has been pointed out, Obama wasn’t president five years ago. Were the first two or three years of lack of raises due to Bush?
A lot of bosses are not giving raises JUST to turn workers against Obama. : )
I guess I am not too amused about it. I think the downturn hit some fields and regions worse than others. I’m doing all right, but probably as much as I am shrewd and hard working I am also lucky. People in construction or manufacturing in the wrong place wound up out of work. A lot of financial sector workers, a lot of public workers got let go. It isn’t usually the case that a person lost their job because they were a bad person or a terrible worker.
The guy who hasn’t got a raise is at least better off than the guy who got fired. Hopefully things will improve for them. Hard to trace most success or failures directly to Obama though- he’s more of a future guy.
And yet, all too many people do regard the out of work person as just that - they want to believe that the unemployed are bad or “terrible workers”. I’ve long thought they do that to protect themselves, the idea being that if good and wonderful workers just stay they way they’ll be magically protected from being jobless.
Well, presumably it as the worst people and the worst workers who were let go … but when you’re cutting 2/3 of your workforce, well, a person can be pretty qualified and still be in the bottom 2/3. Especially if it’s second or third round of cuts.
It makes a good right-wing talking point too. If a systemic problem puts a few % of the national population out of work almost overnight, a reasonable person would conclude that we need to support those people as fellow citizens until we can sort things out. But that kind of support costs money, wealthy people would rather have a tax cut than a secure population, and so the “personal responsibility” meme gets put into the bullhorn. It is pernicious- ‘personal responsibility’ is a perfectly valid virtue, and one can often point out how a greater commitment to it could lead to greater success for an individual. OTOH, a systemic issue is not personal; the overall employment picture is clearly not a result of massive failure in personal responsibility.
So, to protection- it is tempting to conclude that the results speak for themselves. “I am doing ok, therefore I am a good person” and “That guy is going bankrupt. He must not be so smart and hard-working.” This thinking can accompany a motive to punish those who struggle (which can lead to tax cuts for the wealthy, yay!) when what they need is help. Sometimes people would rather feel like Mr. Righteous than actually help.
If you don’t mind a fairly long article, I was reading about the so-called war on coal this morning. You can see how macro trends can hit a whole community and throw everyone, good and bad, out of work all at once. So yeah, if it just so happens that you grow up and find work there, when the economy shifts suddenly you’re in the wrong place at the wrong time and you’re going to get hit no matter how responsible you are.
But the phenomenon get seized on by politicians to get the public to blame this or that person or group for it, to seize advantages for some disinterested third party. Icky, no?