The U.S. Economy and the Anti-Idleness Ideologues

The U.S. economic news since late spring has been dour to say the least. Growth in the latest quarter hovered just over 1 percent, when historic post-recession recoveries could be as high as nine percent in a given quarter. Add to this the drawn-out nature of this recovery: it's been humming along (barely) for the last three years since the official close of the Great Recession.

This doubtless has a dire impact on jobs hiring. The White House itself now projects an 8-plus percent unemployment rate through the close of 2012 (H.W. Bush losing with a 7 percent rate in 1992), a White House that should be readying to change occupants in short order. Yet, most polling as of today yeilds no clear-pathed victory for GOP challenger Mitt Romney.

As social service spending has increased monumentally in these three years, with combined state and federal social services now placing the U.S.'s welfare expenditures well within the range of many so-called European "welfare states," has emerged some notable impatience with those utilizing this system in some way.

Thus has emerged the so-called Anti-Idleness Ideologues. These are oft well-meaning folks who maintain that, simply, "there are still plenty of jobs out there." This is surely true, and there is broad understanding that many of such jobs only hire those with a precise skill-set (usually quite technical in some way), that exclude from consideration most of those now out-of-work.

But the ideologues here tend to speak more to low-skilled, somewhat unsteady, often seasonal "jobs that no one else wants": these are heavily concentrated in food service, often restaurant-based and service fields. These are low-wage (and often really no-wage, tip-based pay) that offer largely fluctuating schedules that are seasonally adapted and over-sensitive to consumer use and demand. A popular bistro may be hopping through Labor Day -- hirees offered copious earning opportunities -- to find themselves effectively laid off thereafter.

Sarah Palin and former Senate candidate Sharon Angle of Nevada have made such notable commentaries, though one man is leading this charge: John Stossel of Fox Business and News channels.

Stossel, a former ABC News consumer reporter and noted libertarian, recently interviewed several largely minority social service beneficiaries in a line outside of the Manhattan welfare office. Make no mistake, there were dozens lined up, though Stossel interviewed a handful about their social condition: all noted a lack of gainful job opportunities.

Stossel then interviewed a good number of cafe and restaurant managers within a decent radius of the welfare office. No fewer than a couple of dozen said they were presently hiring in some capacity. Stossel then took this as an opportunity not only to rightly bash the welfare state, but also the individuals at the receiving end for their presumed sloth. But even the several openings he discovered still do not provide enough individual opportunities for the many more lined up, out the door, on welfare in North America's wealthiest city.

Whether Stossel and this cadre (and they can be of any ideology, really) care to admit it, those who take these sorts of jobs are STILL eligible for a host of nanny-state benefits, even under past administrations, due to the low wages: Medicaid for certain; also subsidized housing and perhaps even cash subsidies. These people may be more or less "justifying" their benefits through their labor efforts, but does this scenario raise anyone out of the hole?

To Stossel, it does. Within the segment, he asked many Fox News personalities what their first jobs in life were: They included cleaning parking lots of Dairy Queens, lifeguarding, dishwashing, landscaping, waitressing, and on and on. But why should this be of any real surprise? They were ALL KIDS when they took these positions. These sorts of jobs absolutely induce an essential work ethic in life, no doubt about it. But a dignified long-term livlihood?

The Anti-Idleness Ideologues rightly demean the socialist welfare policies of Obama, but often wrongly demean those individuals at the receiving end. Make no mistake, emotion governs their thoughts in this matter, raw anger over the "free rides" so many are getting at the expense of the perpetually motivated throught their tax dollars. But by identifying and promoting these "plenty of jobs" and opportunities line, these anti-welfare philosophizers are also giving tacit promotion to Obama's re-election. Why elect someone else as president, upsetting the apple cart, with so many available jobs and ample, ultimate opportunities for meteoric rises in life?

Stossel presents the obvious as the obvious for sure, but so often with such wallops of profundity in tone.