Reply #12: The Washington Post Justifies The Jobless Recovery [View All]

[mhr]

Here is today's WP editorial and my letter to the editor.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50822-2004Jan26.html?na...

The Jobless Recovery
Washington Post Editorial
Tuesday, January 27, 2004; Page A16

AS THEY AWAIT the results of the New Hampshire primary, Democrats should take a lesson from the nation's central bankers. Out on the campaign trail, the candidates (with the honorable exception of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut) have been blaming the "jobless recovery" on President Bush, the trade system and the new phenomenon of "offshoring" service jobs to India. In rather less arresting tones, meanwhile, the Federal Reserve has been trying to explain why this blame is exaggerated. As Chairman Alan Greenspan said yesterday, the United States has lost jobs to foreigners before, yet it has always created others. The Fed committee that sets interest rates meets today and tomorrow, and will demonstrate one of the reasons why the new protectionism is misguided.

Snip ......

It's true that the shift of service jobs to countries such as India, like other trade-related dislocation, adds to the temporary pain of structural unemployment. But, as Mr. Greenspan says, new jobs will be created. If a U.S. firm shifts employment abroad, the savings flow back to the United States in the form of lower prices for consumers and higher dividends for shareholders; the consumers and shareholders will direct their new spending power at things that create employment. Meanwhile, the fall in prices will allow the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates lower, boosting the job-creation engine. At its meeting today and tomorrow, the Fed is almost certain to keep short-term interest rates at a rock-bottom 1 percent because forces such as "offshoring" are keeping inflation in check despite a rebounding economy. Offshoring, like trade, creates winners and losers, which is why open trade should be accompanied by social safety nets. But the winners will outnumber the losers, because the adjustment creates new efficiencies. Each worker can produce more, meaning that he or she can be paid more. Do the Democrats really mean to oppose that?

Snip ......

WP Editors,

The WP editorial from the Tuesday, January 27, 2004 edition titled The jobless Recovery is one of the most insensitive and callous missives printed.

To suggest that a jobless recovery is good mystifies me. To further suggest that the Bush Administration is not culpable is mind boggling.

I have been unemployed for 43 months. I have sent 1,430 resumes out the door. My resume is posted on 105 job boards. I have over networked all known acquaintances. Regrettably, I have not had a serious employment inquiry in two years. Past colleagues are having similar experiences.

Some would claim that one must not have enough education or experience. I must assume that a Masters in Business Administration and a Bachelors in Electrical Engineering are irrelevant today. An experienced Naval Officer just does not rate any consideration. Honorably discharged veterans are of no consequence. And, experienced commercial pilots are too trivial to mention.

Sadly, the Washington Post editors are truly out of touch with the economy. If a dose of reality is needed, come spend a week with me. After experiencing the umpteenth pot of beans, the Spartan accommodations, the threadbare clothes, the ever diminishing savings account, and repeated job rejections, one just might come to the conclusion that a jobless recovery is not good or justifiable.

Sincerely,
MHR