People who usually visit this blog will usually come here to read on my opinions on love, romance, relationship, etc. But while I’m watching “Meet the Press” on NBC this morning, and the Republicans are continuing to blame President Obama for the economy being in the toilet, and using data, such as the unemployment rate and the net loss of jobs as their biggest set of ammo. As I write this blog, I have some ammo of my own. For starters, I have been involuntarily unemployed twice in my adult years, so I can personally attest to the unemployment life as an American. And two, as a Six Sigma Black Belt, in business and in personal life, I respond better to data (facts) than I do to emotion. With that being said, here’s what I got (as I continue to ignore every hypocritical thing Santorum just said, LOL).
NBC showed that since Obama took office, the unemployment rate has risen from 7.3% to 9.1%. I will admit that those numbers are very factual and can be confirmed by any simple Google search. But here’s what the average Joe Six Pack American doesn’t know about how the unemployment rate is calculated. I initially had questions about this when I was in my early 20′s and out of work for a year. So here’s what I found out then (and corroborated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the source in which the unemployment rate data is derived):
- The unemployment rate is initially measured by calculating the amount of Americans who have been involuntarily terminated (not due to misconduct) are currently receiving unemployment compensation (insurance) from the respective state(s) in which they reside compared to the amount of Americans who are currently working (which includes anyone 16 and up working at the mall all the way up to CEO’s). Because this number does not include those who have ran out of eligibility, the BLS will then take a representative sample of 60,000 households in the U.S. and ask them a set of questions to determine the employment of that particular household. They will use that to guess determine what the unemployment rate is. This rate is produced and published on a monthly basis by the BLS.
So here’s what the data is NOT telling you: as they admit, this does not factor in Americans who have ran out of eligibility (i.e. those who have surpassed their state benefits, and any federal extension benefits that may exist) and have to use other means in which to bring income into their household (such as depleting savings, selling their stuff, taking menial jobs to have something coming versus nothing, and yes of course, CRIME). When you factor that in, the rate of unemployed and the underemployed is MUCH higher than you think, especially in the minority communities. As someone who can personally attest to that, I know that back in 2003 George W. Bush decided to discontinue the Federal Unemployment extension program, which left every unemployed American with only the benefits of their respective states, which was usually no more than 6 months. In my opinion, he did this for two reasons: 1. He knew how the numbers worked, and cutting the federal program would reduce that number for his own political gain. And 2. In order to fund our efforts in Afghanistan and in Iraq, additional money to pad the defense budget had to come from somewhere, don’t ya think?
Now for those who are in any type of professional working setting, and you see the continual changes they make based on tone at the top, you understand why this economy is jacked up. For those who have no idea what I’m talking about, I will give you a crash course:
Any private sector company that is publicly traded has one major goal in mind: make money, which is typically measured by such things as profit margin, earnings/dividends per share to stockholders. Growth is always good for any public, and staying where you’re at, or shrinking, is bad and can affect stock price. So the constant goal is to figure out how to maintain a respectable profit margin (so that everyone gets their “cut” of the pie), regardless of the growth or shrinkage of the company. In the case where your company is shrinking, what’s the easiest way to reduce expense and maintain profit margin? YES, lay off employees. That simple, yet widely practiced, plan of action is the quickest way to reduce operating and administrative expense within any company. Some companies do it well, and some cut too deep and it will cost them quality. However, if you still need to reduce expense, but can’t afford to lose the “firepower” from a personnel standpoint, what’s your plan B? Ah YES, send those jobs overseas to countries such as India, China, or the Philippines, where you can do a 1:1 swap of domestic worker to overseas contingent worker, reduce the hourly rate charged to your bottom line, and not lose production. Soooooo…….. when those decisions are made as to who will get cut, per se, some tough decisions have to be made (and I will leave it at that, LOL).
Despite everything I just told you, there are still a lion’s share of Republicans and members of the Taxed Enough Already (TEA) Party who believe that the government should reduce income tax on the top 1% (who have 80% of the country’s wealth), maintain the tax code loopholes that allow companies like GE to not pay ANY corporate tax, while reducing the corporate tax collectively, and reduce taxes on companies that ship jobs overseas to increase company profits (in which the taxes as is still allow most companies to reduce expenses compared to keeping jobs here). The “trickle-down” theory from the 80′s was supposed to put more money in the pockets of the rich so they can spend more on those who contribute to their wealth. How has that worked out for Americans, given that most who have benefited from those tax cuts started by Reagan have kept that money? Look at Harlem in the 80′s (the poster child of the crack epidemic), the Midwest (outside of Chicago) over the last 20 years, and California since “the Governator” has been in charge.
To sum it up, America, WAKE THE HELL UP and have enough initiative to educate yourself on the facts versus just settling for the flawed information that’s being presented to you. But I understand how hard that is when we are so impatient and lazy as a country when it comes to self-education, right? Has Obama been perfect? No, of course not. But just like in most corporations in this country, Black men have to be twice as good (and/or perfect in their role) in order to be considered good enough to be next to their fair performing white counterpart, and that’s Obama’s conundrum as the first Black POTUS.
If you have a problem with what I said, in the words of The Rock, JUST BRING IT!!!
Recent Comments