Bitcoin Forum

Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush said Wednesday that in order to grow the economy "people should work longer hours" -- a comment that the Bush campaign argues was a reference to underemployed part-time workers but which Democrats are already using to attack him.

During an interview that was live-streamed on the app Periscope, Bush told New Hampshire's The Union Leader that to grow the economy, "people should work longer hours."

He was answering a question about his plans for tax reform and responded:

"My aspiration for the country and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours" and, through their productivity, gain more income for their families. That's the only way we're going to get out of this rut that we're in."

Already the Democratic National Committee has pounced, releasing a statement that calls his remarks "easily one of the most out-of-touch comments we've heard so far this cycle," adding that Bush would not fight for the middle class as president.

In a statement, a Bush aide clarified that he was referring to the underemployed and part-time workers: "Under President Obama, we have the lowest workforce participation rate since 1977, and too many Americans are falling behind. Only Washington Democrats could be out-of-touch enough to criticize giving more Americans the ability to work, earn a paycheck, and make ends meet."

Bush commented on this issue speaking before the Detroit Economic Council back in February.

"For several years now, they have been recklessly degrading the value of work, the incentive to work, and the rewards of work. We have seen them cut the definition of a full-time job from 40 to 30 hours, slashing the ability of paycheck earners to make ends meet," he said. "We have seen them create welfare programs and tax rules that punish people with lost benefits and higher taxes for moving up those first few rungs of the economic ladder."

A 2014 Gallup poll found that already many Americans employed full-time report working, on average, 47 hours a week, while nearly 4 in 10 say they work at least 50 hours a week.

US workers toil more hours than workers in any other large, industrialized country, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

There are 6.5 million people in the country who, according to the Bureau of Labor, are working part time for economic reasons. This means they are involuntarily working part time because they can't find full time employment and presumably would work more if they could.

Some took Bush's comments as an opportunity to pounce.

The Clinton camp weighed in, with campaign chair John Podesta tweeting:

Rick Tyler, the national spokesman for Ted Cruz's campaign also issued a statement.

"It would seem to me that Gov Bush would want to avoid the kind of comments that led voters to believe that Governor Romney was out of touch with the economic struggles many Americans are facing," he said. "The problem is not that Americans aren't working hard enough. It is that the Washington cartel of career politicians, special interests and lobbyists have rigged the game against them."

http://abc7chicago.com/news/jeb-bush...-hours/836256/

Is this guy for real? Is this really who the Republicans want as president?

This is worse than George.

Of course republicans want people working more hours, then they don't have time to watch what other skullduggery is taking place in congress, due to everyone being so tired they can't keep track of much else.

If the REPS nominate this delusional Little Lord Fauntleroy............they might as well just fold up the tent and prepare for a third party.

The Egyptian pharaohs also thought people needed to work longer hours building pyramids to the pharaoh's god complex.

I agree with the title. And the only way to do it is to put "time" on the metric system. Give us 10 days to the week and 10 hours to the day.

 ;D

EDIT: Dividing the same day, from midnight to midnight, into 10 hours rather than 24 hours, gives us longer hours. Get it?

I don't like Bush but the media is spinning what he was actually talking about.

He was speaking out against the practice of companies hiring part-time employees for 30 hours or less and we need to get more people back to full-time work.

That doesn't even make the slightest sense economically. People working longer generally means fewer people working - if demand for goods stays the same. People earning more for longer working times translates to either more inflation or more saving.

None of this has an impact on economy. The economy can only grow if there is more demand for production. The main sources of more demand is either a rising population or access to new sales markets. Working times are totally out of the equation here. Working more, to produce more products that nobody buys doesn't help the economy.

ya.ya.yo!

I've been reading that less hours same wage is better and somewhere between a 32-35 hour workweek instead of the standard 40.
So it would be an argument that the economy can grow with less work hours and more efficiency so your right longer hours make no sense from this view considering that 32 hours can be considered part time so they might need to tweak the measurement a bit.

_
32-Hour Job Sharing
The U.S. Department of Agriculture uses many 32-hour weekly employees, although they are classified as part-time workers. It says such job sharing gives managers more flexibility in assigning duties. In Europe, the workweek has steadily declined since World War II, but productivity has continued to increase.
_

http://www.today.com/money/32-new-40-reason-why-ceo-makes-his-employees-work-t30976

So, Carson put an end to the standard 40-hour schedule and tried something different, for both himself and his family: the 32-hour workweek.

"Every moment that I have with my kids I realize is something that I can't — I can never buy back," he said. "No matter how much money I make or how powerful I get, I can't buy time."

So far, his method has been successful. Carson says the decrease in time spent in the office has actually led to an increase in levels of productivity: "We've proven that you can take it from an experiment into something that's doable for real companies and real people in highly competitive markets."

http://work.chron.com/benefits-32hour-work-week-3676.html

Less Stress, More Productivity
Among the benefits touted for a 32-hour week are reduction in stress, which could reduce disability claims and absenteeism, improved family life and employee morale and increased productivity. A study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology shows that American productivity has increased so much that a worker today needs only 11 hours to produce as much as 40 hours took in 1950.

Cut Unemployment
Unions and others tout a 32-hour workweek as a way to reduce unemployment. Cutting the workweek by 20 percent might enable a company to reduce its costs without laying off workers. More than a dozen states now have job-sharing programs that provide some unemployment benefits to workers whose hours are cut but enable them to keep company insurance programs.

Etc.

Seriously, any minute that government wants to really make the economy grow, all they need to do is entirely drop the income tax. Government doesn't need it, since they get enough from investments in bonds, etc.  People would invest more in bonds if government gave them the money and incentive through dropping the income tax.

:)

Everything about Jeb seems to indicate "Romney-II".

From that kind of tin-ear attitude towards working people....

to the fact the Far Right today think they can "stop him" from becoming the Nominee...as they thought they could stop Romney in 2011.

Jeb's going to be the Nominee....the RNC wants it. The Big Money Boys want it. And he's leading in the polls...even with Trump in the mix now.

The RNC got me thinking about switching parties when McCain was the nomination. I inched closer when it was Romney. If Jeb gets it, I'm done with them.

I wasn't a fan when he waffled on the one question that you'd think he would have been prepared for... about his brother's decision to invade Iraq.

Jeb is a very, very flawed candidate. I will give him a slight bit of credit, just because he's providing specific examples of what he'd do if elected president. Aside from that, yeah. If he in fact gets the nomination, get ready for Hillary.

In 2011, you predicted if the GOP nominated Mitt Romney, a white separatist "Nationalist Party" would be created "within months of Obama's re-election."

Where is it?




I'm saving all the "pure conservative" "If it's Jeb, I'm going 3rd Party" claim posts....

for re-posting one year from now.

You don't mind, do you?

Not at all. Doesn't mean I'm just to turn liberal though.

Jeb Bush is another corporate sellout, just like Hillary.

"Longer hours". Sure. Just wait, Hillary will say the same thing eventually.

What he was trying to say is that employers should be hiring full time employees, not part time ones. Read beyond the headlines.

I like Romney better than Bush. Romney made his money himself, Jeb had a family with money and connections.

Just remember, it was Grandfather Prescott Bush who supported Hitler in WWII. I don't understand why anyone would ever trust a Bush in any governmental office.

Google "Bush Nazi" and get the facts.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

:)

Jeb Bush Primary Winner = Surfer Voting Libertarian Again

This is what people want to hear from their presidential candidate
And spoken like a true client of the Chamber of Commerce. Well done, Bush.

And if Bush didn't say what he meant to say, whose fault is that? Loser.

Bush is wrong. Middle class people need to make more money, not work more hours.

Obama definitely took a step in the right direction expanding the FLSA.

Of course they do. I don't mind workin' in the fields so Jeb can live in the mansion. How 'bout you.

Yep. If Jeb wins the primary, I won't be voting Republican.

Not that it will matter as I see your from California(same as me). Our votes have already been counted for whatever loser lowlife the Democrats trot out as their nominee.

Romeny's last name was his money maker...

My other home is in Henderson, NV. I am a resident there now. California is my vacation home.

Like people who are a called asst. managers so they are non-exempt and can be worked 60-70 hours per week, for $20,000 per year. (and yes there are several million employees in this category around this nation)

Does anybody even care that Grandfather Bush supported Hitler?

:)

You took it completely out of context on purpose. I don't even like Bush, but I'll defend him when his words are twisted.

Got it saved. Again, you don't mind if I re-post your post exactly one year from now....uh...just in case?

Sure. I have not voted Republican for years with the exception of Romney. Prior to him I have voted Libertarian. Browne, Bednarik, etc..

Good for you. BTW, that also means if Jeb is the Nominee....and he comes under attack by Hillary, Democrats, the "Lib'rul Media".....you won't defend him....
uh....right?

As far as "growing the economy," working longer hours would do it.

A 1% increase in total hours worked and in labor income, assuming the 1% was spent, would grow the economy.

A 1% increase in population, resulting in a 1% growth in labor income, such as through illegal immigration, would grow the economy.

Putting unemployed back to work would have the same effects.

A 1% shrinkage in government would grow the economy more than either of these.

Yes of course, and he need to charge 50 times less.

Ofcourse people need to work for longer hours , get  out of their comfort zone and work the hell out to make the country progressive . But this all is coming from someone who pretty much defy it in the first place. Interesting.

Don't you think that would be dependent on the work being necessary though? Hours worked seems to me to be dependent upon the amount of work there is to be done, not the other way around. The question isn't as simple as just working more hours, it's how do we create policies that create more work that necessitate more hours to be worked? If it was a simple as just working more hours, FDR's New Deal would have been a smashing success, and I don't find too many conservatives who think that it was.