This Guy Isn't Out of Touch or Anything

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Thu Jul 09, 2015 4:29 pm

Yep, if the average adult would only work 60 hours per week instead of a mere 47 we'd all be better off.
Better yet, who needs a paid vacation?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/electio ... -1.2286605

Jeb Bush says Americans should work longer hours to achieve economic growth

One of the richest Republicans seeking the presidency says the path to economic growth will be forged by having Americans work "longer hours."

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who recently disclosed a net worth of up to $22 million, is catching flack for saying in a New Hampshire interview Wednesday that "people need to work longer hours and through their productivity, gain more income for their families."

Bush, who has promised to foster 4 percent growth if elected to the White House, made the comments during a sitdown with the Union-Leader newspaper that was broadcast live.

The New Hampshire Democratic Party quickly jumped on Bush's remarks, with spokeswoman Lizzy Price saying via email, "It would have been tough to make a more out-of-touch comment, considering recent polling about how many hours on average Americans work ... it's more than full-time."

Bush, according to the Boston Globe, later sought to clarify his remarks by saying he wasn't referring to people who are already carrying a full workload or working more than one job.

"You can take it out of context all you want," the Globe quoted him as saying, "but high sustained growth means that people will work 40 hours rather than 30 hours, and that by our success they have money and disposable income for their families to decide how they want to spend it rather than getting in line and being dependent on government."

According to a 2014 Gallup report, "Adults employed full time in the U.S. report working an average of 47 hours per week, almost a full workday longer than what a standard five-day, 9-to-5 schedule entails.

"In fact, half of all full-time workers indicate they typically work more than 40 hours, and nearly four in 10 say they work at least 50 hours."

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Thu Jul 09, 2015 4:39 pm

Later on he "clarified" that he was talking about part-time workers.

Maybe he should have said that employers need to hire more full time workers instead of part time, trying to avoid paying health care and other benefits.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Thu Jul 09, 2015 4:43 pm

Mikey wrote:...employers need to hire more full time workers instead of part time,

Or maybe the Democrats in Congress shouldn't have passed the godawful piece of shit called "Affordable" Health Care based on a pack of bald face lies.

So how are all those healthcare savings workin out for ya?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Thu Jul 09, 2015 4:48 pm

mvscal wrote:
Mikey wrote:...employers need to hire more full time workers instead of part time,
Or maybe the Democrats in Congress shouldn't have passed the godawful piece of shit called "Affordable" Health Care based on a pack of bald face lies.

So how are all those healthcare savings workin out for ya?

For me? Really well to tell you the truth. My monthly premiums are about half what they were and I no longer have to pay a 100% share until I reach $7,000 like I had in my former "low premium" high deductible plan.

How about you?

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Thu Jul 09, 2015 4:54 pm

Those people working another 10 hours a week will definitely help out families......with paying for all the extra daycare.

Moronic statement even when put into his adjusted context.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Thu Jul 09, 2015 5:38 pm

Madison — Wisconsin manufacturing and retail workers could volunteer to work seven days straight without a day off under a bill two Republican lawmakers are circulating on behalf of the state's largest business group.

The bill promises to ratchet up tensions between the GOP and Democrats and their organized labor allies, who are still stinging after Republicans passed Gov. Scott Walker's plan to all but eliminate collective bargaining for most public workers in 2011.

The measure's authors, Sen. Glenn Grothman of West Bend and Mark Born of Beaver Dam, say the bill brings Wisconsin in line with federal law, gives workers a way to make extra money and employers a way to boost production. But Democrats and labor leaders insisted bosses would use the bill to force their employees to work longer and effectively erase the weekend.

"Even God said rest on the seventh day," said David Reardon, secretary-treasurer for Teamsters Local 662, a union that represents about 10,000 workers across various industries in west-central and east-central Wisconsin, including manufacturing, truck driving, public workers and food service workers. "I would hate to see that Republican bill pass. Some employers would really take advantage of that."

Current Wisconsin law requires employers who own or operate factories or retail stores to give their workers at least 24 consecutive hours off every seven days. Under Grothman and Born's proposal, workers could volunteer to work seven straight days without a rest day.

Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the state's largest business organization, brought the idea to them, the two Republicans said. The organization was doing a study on discrepancies between federal and state law and discovered federal law imposes no such limits on consecutive work days as long as minimum wage and overtime payment requirements are met, Born said.

In an email to lawmakers seeking support for the bill, Born and Grothman said they had heard from businesses with employees who want to work the additional time. But when asked for names Born said the only people he met with to discuss the bill were from WMC.

"We should have worded that differently," Born said. Grothman said he has talked to a business but declined to name it.

WMC spokesman Jim Pugh didn't return messages.

Born said the bill gives workers a chance to make some extra dollars and their bosses a means to increase production.

"Here's an opportunity for folks to work together to get things done in a positive way for the employer and the employee," Born said. "It just seems like a win all the way around."

But opponents warned the only choice employees will have is work the extra hours or lose their jobs. The measure also would give workers who can work the extra day an advantage over workers who want to spend a day with their family, they said.

Rep. Cory Mason, D-Racine, called the legislation a "slap in the face to ordinary working folks in Wisconsin."

"Workers fought long and hard for a 40-hour work week and the weekend," Mason said. "People deserve at least a day off a week. It's a legal protection for a reason."

Grothman dismissed their concerns, saying he's never heard of any business where pressuring employees to work extra hours has been a problem. He, too, insisted the bill would help workers make extra cash.

"It's ridiculous when people want to work extra hours why Democrats would stand in the way of that," he said. "I don't know why some people want some people to remain poor."

The bill's prospects are unclear. Republicans control both houses of the Legislature but caucus leaders haven't committed any support for the measure and a Walker spokesman was noncommittal.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Thu Jul 09, 2015 8:01 pm

Nope, unions aren't needed anymore...

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Thu Jul 09, 2015 8:13 pm

Bush =

Only not as well dressed.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Thu Jul 09, 2015 9:14 pm

He did a shitty job saying it but he is absolutely right. This alleged recovery and 5 % unemployment is because they no longer count long term unemployed and they count millions of part timers as employed. They are not part time because they want to be or to save on childcare. They are part time because those evil corporations have been put in a position where it makes sense to hire part timers.

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Thu Jul 09, 2015 9:58 pm

Does he rope off press reporters? He needs to get more "in touch."

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Thu Jul 09, 2015 10:16 pm

Wolfman wrote:Does he rope off press reporters? He needs to get more "in touch."

Why are you obsessed with both Hillary Clinton and making it about one party or the other? It's fucking creepy.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Thu Jul 09, 2015 10:37 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote:
Wolfman wrote:Does he rope off press reporters? He needs to get more "in touch."
Why are you obsessed with both Hillary Clinton and making it about one party or the other? It's fucking creepy.

Rooster · Post by **Rooster** » Fri Jul 10, 2015 12:39 pm

<--- 72 hours a week. However, I do a 28/28 schedule or a variant thereof, but that's just normal for the aviation industry. It has been worse. I once did a five month stint with no days off, 14-18 hours a day, but my income put me into the top 1% for the year. So based on that, then, yes, Jeb (is that pronounced "Heb" since he's a transracial Hispanic?) is correct that more work equals more income.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Jul 10, 2015 12:42 pm

Rooster wrote:I once did a five month stint with no days off, 14-18 hours a day, but my income put me into the top 1% for the year.

Makes me feel real safe.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Jul 10, 2015 2:31 pm

Rooster wrote: more work equals more income.

Thanks Marcus.

Rooster · Post by **Rooster** » Fri Jul 10, 2015 4:32 pm

So if it's such a Marcus Allen comment, then why are you hammering Bush about it? There are entire nations that haven't figured that out yet. (S'up Greece?) Shit, the left side of our political system still hasn't figured it out yet. They think that wealth is a zero sum game and that the Baltimores and Detroits of the world are the product of evil Republican Capitalists. If only they could run the universe without those pesky Right Wingers getting in the way, a socialist Utopia would bloom where everyone would have a meaningful and satisfying job working cheerfully for rainbow colored unicorn shit and granola. Never mind that these cesspools are and have been the domain of those helpful Democrats for generations.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Fri Jul 10, 2015 5:07 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Fri Jul 10, 2015 5:10 pm

Rooster wrote:more work equals more income.

How long do you think it took for ol Jeb to arrive at this bit of economic brilliance? He is probably the first politician to ever think this up.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Jul 10, 2015 5:31 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
Rooster wrote:more work equals more income.
How long do you think it took for ol Jeb to arrive at this bit of economic brilliance? He is probably the first politician to ever think this up.

Seems like it was an amazing revelation to Rooster.

Problem is, not everybody's dumb enough to want a 72 hour work week.

I'm on a fixed salary and put in probably 43-44 hours average. Sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less, depending on the workload. But then I'm actually DOING SOMETHING ~~the whole~~ most of the time I'm here.

If my boss told me he expected 72 hours a week I'd tell him to hire another person, or shove it.

But then, they would never do that because they're not assholes and realize that their employees need a life.

Carson · Post by **Carson** » Fri Jul 10, 2015 8:22 pm

Diego in Seattle wrote:

I blame Carter.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 4:34 pm

Diego in Seattle wrote:

I would like to see trade deficit/surplus added to this chart. Bet you'd see a pretty strong correlation.

Once Trump gets back on this topic, the 800 lb gorilla in the room that everyone in DC since Ross Perot has avoided, you will see his numbers climb further. I think he will get a good bit of run from minorities as they are the group most affected.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 5:14 pm

Computers have also had a dramatic effect on productivity.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 5:51 pm

Is that a good or bad thing?

I'd say I-phones have had a dramatically bad effect on productivity based on how many people seem to have time to post on FB or whatever social media outlet they use whilst they are supposedly "working".

If I were in charge, cell phones would not be allowed in the workplace. Leave your fucking toy in the car, assholes.

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 7:01 pm

Right .......because no one fucked off at work before iPhones.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 7:10 pm

There was less reason or opportunity to do so.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 7:18 pm

War Wagon wrote:There was less reason or opportunity to do so.

Bullshit.

Wasting time or being a lazy fuck is about the worker's attitude, not the device they use nor how they do it.

And it's partially the supervisor's responsibility for such shit, since they should know what's going on.

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 7:33 pm

Diego in Seattle wrote:
War Wagon wrote:There was less reason or opportunity to do so.
Bullshit.

Wasting time or being a lazy fuck is about the worker's attitude, not the device they use nor how they do it.

And it's partially the supervisor's responsibility for such shit, since they should know what's going on.

^^^^this
Take a wild stab at what the slacker looking at porn at work was doing before computers and smartphones. He was sneaking a Hustler into work or drawing tits in a notebook.

No one has more opportunity. They have a more visible opportunity.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 7:42 pm

R-Jack wrote:no one fucked off at work before iPhones.

True dat...

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 3:21 pm

mvscal wrote: So how are all those healthcare savings workin out for ya?

everyone I know likes them a lot....premiums are significantly lower (just like Obama said they would be) and all have retained the same physicians as their primary doctors (which he said they would)....so I don't get the "pack of lies" or are you just pissed because this program actually works.....sure it has kinks, but a massive undertaking like that is bound to have issues.....but I know probably six or seven people that are utilizing it and they all pay significantly lower premiums without sacrificing care....maybe they're the lucky ones or maybe the program actually works.....that's why the Republicans want to dismantle it so they can put in their own program which consists of nothing.....

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 3:43 pm

Sure they are....liar.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 3:54 pm

I get my insurance through my employer and my premiums increase every year. That was happening long before Obamacare came along.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 4:44 pm

KC Scott wrote:I believe certain people who bought through the exchanges got their insurance cheaper - at the expense of those of us that work and get ours through our employer

Mine monthly premiums increased, so did most of my friends that I've asked about it

according to my employer, the premiums increased although not significantly, but if me paying a few dollars more so my brother in law can pay $352/mo instead of $675, I'm good with that....

KC Scott wrote:One of the promises of Obamacare was "Since everybody will be required to buy coverage, the price will go down"

And We see how well that artificial demand creation has worked

yeah and the government is responsible for the insurance companies jacking their rates up.....why are you blaming the Affordable Health Care Act and blame the fucking insurance companies.....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolynmccl ... obamacare/

fucking insurance companies are ass raping everyone knowing full well that affordable care will receive the blame

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 5:11 pm

Funny how Republicans do everything they can to sabotage a program, and then complain when it doesn't work as well as it would if they had butted out.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 5:21 pm

Felix wrote: yeah and the government is responsible for the insurance companies jacking their rates up....

The government is responsible for the rate increases, you brainless fuck puddle.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 5:39 pm

Wait, the government reduced market competition AGAIN, and prices went up... AGAIN?

Takes an econ major to figure that one out.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 6:12 pm

Dinsdale wrote:Wait, the government reduced market competition AGAIN, and prices went up... AGAIN?

Takes an econ major to figure that one out.

And how, exactly, did ACA "reduce market competition?"

Don't forget the thing about correlation and causation...

This should be good.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 6:52 pm

One thing I use my smartphone for a lot is to make and receive calls.

It's a big advantage over land lines when you're not at your desk.

(Sin, MA)

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:48 pm

KC Scott wrote:
Mikey wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:Wait, the government reduced market competition AGAIN, and prices went up... AGAIN?

Takes an econ major to figure that one out.
And how, exactly, did ACA "reduce market competition?"

Don't forget the thing about correlation and causation...

This should be good.

They mandated everyone must buy insurance

When health insurance was optional - there was increased competition

By mandating it, the insurance companies knew everyone must buy it, regardless of price

That has nothing to do with decreasing competition between providers.

It would more logically increase the opportunity for competition by enlarging the pool of customers.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:24 pm

Right wing wackos shutting it down economically, for whatever reason, is a good thing. Welcome to San Franchusetts asshats.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:33 pm

mvscal wrote: The government is responsible for the rate increases, you brainless fuck puddle.

no they're not....the insurance companies are blood sucking vampires looking to maximize their profits and giving the least amount of care.....our health care costs are the most expensive in the world by a long way and the health care we receive is pedestrian....do you know why government provided health care works in so many European countries.....because the insurance companies are less concerned with profits and more concerned about actually providing decent health care.....do you think unitedhealth group or aetna group gives a flying fuck about you? they don't....trust me on this

edit
just for fun, I thought I'd take a look at the stocks of a couple of the healthcare giants

gee whiz, it looks like Aetna is doing quite well
lets take a look at united healthcare

well what do you know.....united healthcare seems to be doing quite well too.....
I can see why the insurance companies love the affordable healthcare act....yeah, it's all the governments fault.....