It’s “not fucking obvious” because it is not what she said. At all. It may be what you want to hear and what you know so you can fill it in, but amazingly most of the people she wants to convince do not already know it.
She could have said things that were true and cogent. She could have pointed out that despite the facts that unemployment is down, corporate profits are up, and that the very wealthiest are getting much more wealthy, worker real wages are pretty stagnant. It’s the false promise of trickledown yet again … it is not even trickling down. And the tariff tit for tat is going to make costs likely increase faster. Those of the middle class are still too often economically insecure and at risk of dropping down the next time the corporations sneeze (and they will); those below the middle class still have little path up. Too many still work full time yet do not make a true living wage while the fattest of the fat cats are having to let out their waistlines. Wealth inequality continues to increase and younger Americans are increasingly on the short end of that stick.
She knows this. You likely know this. The audience mostly does not. She had a soft pitch and whiffed. It happens to pretty much everyone and put immediately into the media attention All Star game it should not shock. Pretending that she actually hit a solid double when she swung and missed at one lobbed over the plate is, well, Trumpian.
IF her point was that workers are increasingly working multiple part time jobs because employers are avoiding hiring full time workers in order to avoid the costs of benefits … well that is just simply not true. Full time employment is continuing its since 2010 rise with part time at its lowest percent of the workforce since late 2008.
She’s new talent that pulled off an upset with hard work against an opponent who maybe never knew how to or had to fight for the nomination, in district that had shifted under him. That’s a great story. Progressives across the country can take heart at having scored one. All Democrats can be thrilled to have interest from and excitement in demographics that are key for D wins across the country. She’s worth watching as a potential future party (and national) leader as she builds her skill sets.
But pretending that her shit don’t stink is silly. She is not perfect and being not perfect is to be expected.
Her audience at this particular point in time is more than “the people she needs to turn out and vote for her” … this is her first 15 minutes of fame. I’m expecting she’ll have more as her career continues but she has, for a short period of time, a national soapbox.
I’m giving her a B+ on how she has used it and I think that expecting a perfect performance from the rookie in her first game is idiotic and unrealistic. B+ is a pretty good start!
So what does she mean when she claims everyone is working two jobs (a figure standing at a low 5%)?
What does she mean when she bemoans long working hours (never mind the fact that longer working hours would suppress employment) when working hours have decreased for at least a century, and probably longer?
Yes we aren’t talking about the cream of the crop here. We just want her to recite her list of free stuff so everyone will get on board because “life isn’t fair” and this person travels 60mph in a BMW while I travel 60mph in a Kia.
What makes her more ridiculous is she describes working two jobs and long hours as something undesirable, when much of the rich people she envies do just that.
No, but the number of people working multiple jobs is at a nearly 2-decade high.
Granted, it’s one economist, but it does lend support to what Ocasio Cortez said in the interview. Technically speaking, yes, she’s factually incorrect in that her statement lays out a direct causal relationship between one variable and another variable. She’s incorrect in the sense that that one variable by itself does not explain the outcome.
That being said, it’s entirely possible that people taking multiple jobs at least partially explains that said outcome. That’s because in the end, the reports for employment and filing for unemployment are based on decisions about opportunity costs that millions of individuals make on a regular basis, like whether stay in the market by stringing together several part-time and temporary jobs, or whether to drop out of the market, or whether to file for unemployment assistance.
I take her point to mean - and I would agree - that our current low rate of unemployment is good in one sense, but that a large segment of the population isn’t seeing a full employment in the classic sense; they’re having to work longer hours just to keep up with rising rents, rising inflation, and rising debt levels.
I don’t doubt that the rich do work long hours and multiple jobs, but the difference is that the working poor are working the same number of hours for a lot less money. Consequently, they have less disposable income, and they are much more vulnerable to job losses or even hours lost on the job. They are more vulnerable to sudden hikes in the price of rent. They are more vulnerable to unexpected healthcare costs.
Click the source links and look at the figures and numbers.
June '18 4.8% of the total employed, same as in June '17 (out of a bigger total employed so an absolute increase).
Long term trend down ever since 1995 when it peaked at about 6.8%. To quote from the source material:
And again, the rate has dropped more since then.
WillF why is it such a big deal that a political novice new to such attention said one thing that was incorrect? Is that a standard you are willing to hold seasoned politicians whose opinions you agree with to?
She didn’t just say one thing wrong. Her entire economic program is like the Creature from the Black Lagoon. I singled out this particular episode because she plays up her supposed economics education.
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of how many of the 5% working two jobs are doing it voluntarily. For example, I work a part time job about ten weeks out of the year. That helps me enjoy trips to Europe as well as a lot of concerts and musicals. Another person I know plays in a band.
There certainly are people that struggle to make ends meet and they have to work a fast food job as well as work at UPS overnight. But, not every person that works multiple jobs is near poverty.
Possible alternate interpretation: the 5% who get to break their backs working two jobs to make ends meet are the lucky ones. The unlucky ones are in the red with one job or don’t have one at all.
Fair enough, I don’t dispute the statistics, and I appreciate DSeid’s and even WillF’s due diligence and looking it up beyond the link that I posted. Indeed, whatever ‘trend’ that was cited in the 2017 BusinessInsider article does not appear to be a negative trend at all in the overall 20-year grand scheme of things, and in fact is comparatively better - at least statistically - than it was a decade ago. So her literal statement that we’re at full employment because people are holding 2 or more jobs is factually without merit.
Having acknowledged the falsity of that statement, her comments more generally about the economy were not really off base. She spoke about the concentration of wealth, which is generally accepted to be at highs not seen in decades. She spoke about flat wage growth and she spoke about how we lack access to healthcare - those are pretty mainstream economic concerns and political themes these days.
What’s well out of the mainstream is her skepticism about capitalism. She’s openly and boldly pointing out a truth which are coming closer to confronting, and we are inevitably going to find ourselves confronted with a crisis of capitalism. And that moment is closer than any of us realize.
I’d have thought you’d be praying for her to win! The Republibubble, and especially the fair 'n balanced media, desperately needs a new Hillary upon whom to pin all the world’s tribulations— not that they aren’t still trying to wring a few more drops of blood out of the desiccated original model on a daily basis, of course, but you can tell by the weary look in their eyes that their hearts aren’t in it. And it’s just a Congressional role, nothing she could cause serious damage in.
Come on, admit it… aren’t you itching for a fresh new punching bag?
Probably something like “too many people are working two jobs out of desperation”, like the folks in this article. The figure being low doesn’t do you any good if you’re one of those 5%. The prison population is something like .01% of the adult population, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care about those people and their problems.
Probably something like “too many people are working long hours out of desperation”. Animal cruelty has decreased for at least a century, that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t care if my neighbor runs a dogfighting ring.