If I'd gotten a job at Walmart it would have been the same thing. I wouldn't have expected to make $60,000 a year as a check out clerk (not that check out clerks, or anyone who has to deal with the public, don't deserve $60,000 a year!) I wouldnt' have thought of trying to support a family on Walmart money... I wouldnt' have even started a family until I'd gotten a decent education and a decent job!
But that seems to be people's beef with Walmart. They can't make a living working at Walmart, and they've got families to feed, so Walmart needs to raise their wages. And for this they want a Union. And I"m thinking that if they can't afford to feed their families...they shouldn't have families in the first place! Don't start a family until you can afford to have one!
RUSH: According to Mark Hemingway at a blog, the Weekly Standard: "Half of Last Month's New Jobs Came from...McDonald's -- According to the unemployment data released this morning, the economy added only 54,000 jobs, pushing the unemployment rate up to 9.1 percent." By the way, speaking of which I guess I ought to share with you the way the AP is reporting this. Here's their headline (excitedly) "Employers Add 54,000 Jobs, Rate Ticks up to 9.1 Pct." The AP's reporting this as though jobs are being created here. Wow! The casual reader will think that the number of employed has gone up, when it hasn't -- the number of employed has gone down -- and they did the same exact thing last month.
"Employers hired only 54,000 new workers in May, the fewest in eight months. The employment rate rose to 9.1%. The Labor Department report offered startling evidence the US economy is slowing." What is "startling" about any of this? I'm getting blue in the face asking this question: What recovery? So, anyway, 54,000 jobs. Here's a report from MarketWatch. As you remember, "McDonald’s ran a big hiring day on April 19 -- after the Labor Department’s April survey for the payrolls report was conducted -- in which 62,000 jobs" were created at Mickey D's. "That’s not a net number, of course," because they added some jobs and people quit.
There's always fluctuation, there's seasonal adjustment, and so the number is fluid. So Morgan Stanley is estimating that McDonald's hiring the 62,000 jobs nets out to an increase of actually 25 to 30,000 jobs, by the time you tabulate people quit and retired, what have you. The Labor Department will not detail an exact McDonald's figure. (They won't identify any company in the survey; it's not they're avoiding it, just they don't do it.) But here's the point: If Morgan Stanley's right, we got 54,000 jobs created, and McDonald's may account for 25 to 30,000 of them, that would be over half of them, and we remember.
We remember what the left said about McDonald's jobs. "They're worthless! No health care! They're hamburger-flipper jobs. No future, can't feed a family of four on one of those jobs!" They were always deriding those jobs, putting them down.
____________
My Schedule of Regular Posts:
*Monday through Friday morning - schedules of President, VP and Secretary of State and her diplomats
*Monday through Friday afternoon - List of topics Limbaugh discussed on his program that day
*Monday through Friday throughout the day - My posts on anything that I feel like talking about. At least one or two a day, sometimes more.
*Saturday through Sunday morning - An addition to my booklist of political books - covering Democrats, Republicans and other interested parties.
No comments:
Post a Comment