‘Lazy’ Americans will have to work even harder if Jeb Bush becomes president

The Republican candidate is perpetuating the mistaken ‘nation of takers’ dogma

Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush speaks during a town hall campaign stop  in Hudson, New Hampshire. Photograph: Brian Snyder/Reuters

Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush speaks during a town hall campaign stop in Hudson, New Hampshire. Photograph: Brian Snyder/Reuters

 

Americans work longer hours than their counterparts in just about every other wealthy country; we are known, among those who study such things, as the “no-vacation nation”.

According to a 2009 study, full-time US workers put in almost 30 per cent more hours over the course of a year than their German counterparts, largely because they had only half as many weeks of paid leave. Not surprisingly, work-life balance is a big problem for many people.

But Jeb Bush – who is still attempting to justify his ludicrous claim that he can double our rate of economic growth – says that Americans “need to work longer hours and, through their productivity, gain more income for their families”.

Bush’s aides have tried to spin away his remark, claiming that he was only referring to workers trying to find full-time jobs who remain stuck in part-time employment. It’s obvious from the context, however, that this was’t what he was talking about.

Nation of takers

You see this laziness dogma everywhere on the right. It was the hidden background to Mitt Romney’s infamous 47 per cent remark. It underlay the furious attacks on unemployment benefits at a time of mass unemployment and on food stamps when they provided a vital lifeline for tens of millions of Americans. It drives claims that many, if not most, workers receiving disability payments are malingerers – “Over half of the people on disability are either anxious or their back hurts,” says Senator Rand Paul.

It all adds up to a vision of the world in which the biggest problem facing America is that we’re too nice to fellow citizens facing hardship. And the appeal of this vision to conservatives is obvious – it gives them another reason to do what they want to do anyway, namely slash aid to the less fortunate while cutting taxes on the rich.

Given how attractive the right finds the image of laziness run wild, you wouldn’t expect contrary evidence to make much, if any, dent in the dogma. Federal spending on “income security” – food stamps, unemployment benefits and pretty much everything else you might call “welfare” except Medicaid – has shown no upward trend as a share of GDP; it surged during the Great Recession and aftermath but quickly dropped back to historical levels.

Paul’s numbers are all wrong and, more broadly, disability claims have risen no more than you would expect, given the aging of the population. But no matter, an epidemic of laziness is their story and they’re sticking with it.

Where does Jeb Bush fit into this story? Well before his “longer hours” gaffe, he had professed himself a great admirer of the work of Charles Murray, a conservative social analyst most famous for his 1994 book The Bell Curve, which claimed that blacks are genetically inferior to whites. What Bush seems to admire most, however, is a more recent book, Coming Apart, which notes that over the past few decades working-class white families have been changing in much the same way that African-American families changed in the 1950s and 1960s, with declining rates of marriage and labour force participation.

Some of us look at these changes and see them as consequences of an economy that no longer offers good jobs to ordinary workers. This happened to African-Americans first, as blue-collar jobs disappeared from inner cities, but has now become a much wider phenomenon thanks to soaring income inequality. Murray, however, sees the changes as the consequence of a mysterious decline in traditional values, enabled by government programmes which mean that men no longer “need to work to survive”. And Bush presumably shares that view.

The point is that Bush’s clumsy call for longer work hours was’t a mere verbal stumble. It was, instead, an indication that he stands firmly on the right side of the great divide over what working American families need.

There’s now an effective consensus among Democrats – on display in Hillary Clinton’s speech on the economy – that workers need more help in the form of guaranteed health insurance, higher minimum wages, enhanced bargaining power and more.

Party consensus

And while Jeb Bush may sometimes sound like a moderate, he’s very much in line with the party consensus. If he makes it to the White House, the laziness dogma will rule public policy. – Copyright New York Times 2015

The Irish Times Logo
Commenting on The Irish Times has changed. To comment you must now be an Irish Times subscriber.
SUBSCRIBE
GO BACK
Error Image
The account details entered are not currently associated with an Irish Times subscription. Please subscribe to sign in to comment.
Comment Sign In

Forgot password?
The Irish Times Logo
Thank you
You should receive instructions for resetting your password. When you have reset your password, you can Sign In.
The Irish Times Logo
Please choose a screen name. This name will appear beside any comments you post. Your screen name should follow the standards set out in our community standards.
Screen Name Selection

Hello

Please choose a screen name. This name will appear beside any comments you post. Your screen name should follow the standards set out in our community standards.

The Irish Times Logo
Commenting on The Irish Times has changed. To comment you must now be an Irish Times subscriber.
SUBSCRIBE
Forgot Password
Please enter your email address so we can send you a link to reset your password.

Sign In

Your Comments
We reserve the right to remove any content at any time from this Community, including without limitation if it violates the Community Standards. We ask that you report content that you in good faith believe violates the above rules by clicking the Flag link next to the offending comment or by filling out this form. New comments are only accepted for 3 days from the date of publication.