Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Bain, Barack and Jobs
America’s recovery from recession has been so slow that it mostly doesn’t seem like a recovery at all, especially on the jobs front. So, in a better world, President Obama would face a challenger offering a serious critique of his job-creation policies, and proposing a serious alternative.
Instead, he’ll almost surely face Mitt Romney.
Mr. Romney claims that Mr. Obama has been a job destroyer, while he was a job-creating businessman. For example, he told Fox News: “This is a president who lost more jobs during his tenure than any president since Hoover. This is two million jobs that he lost as president.” He went on to declare, of his time at the private equity firm Bain Capital, “I’m very happy in my former life; we helped create over 100,000 new jobs.”
But his claims about the Obama record border on dishonesty, and his claims about his own record are well across that border.
Start with the Obama record. It’s true that 1.9 million fewer Americans have jobs now than when Mr. Obama took office. But the president inherited an economy in free fall, and can’t be held responsible for job losses during his first few months, before any of his own policies had time to take effect. So how much of that Obama job loss took place in, say, the first half of 2009?
The answer is: more than all of it. The economy lost 3.1 million jobs between January 2009 and June 2009 and has since gained 1.2 million jobs. That’s not enough, but it’s nothing like Mr. Romney’s portrait of job destruction.
Incidentally, the previous administration’s claims of job growth always started not from Inauguration Day but from August 2003, when Bush-era employment hit its low point. By that standard, Mr. Obama could say that he has created 2.5 million jobs since February 2010.
So Mr. Romney’s claims about the Obama job record aren’t literally false, but they are deeply misleading. Still, the real fun comes when we look at what Mr. Romney says about himself. Where does that claim of creating 100,000 jobs come from?
Well, Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post got an answer from the Romney campaign. It’s the sum of job gains at three companies that Mr. Romney “helped to start or grow”: Staples, The Sports Authority and Domino’s.
Mr. Kessler immediately pointed out two problems with this tally. It’s “based on current employment figures, not the period when Romney worked at Bain,” and it “does not include job losses from other companies with which Bain Capital was involved.” Either problem, by itself, makes nonsense of the whole claim.
On the point about using current employment, consider Staples, which has more than twice as many stores now as it did back in 1999, when Mr. Romney left Bain. Can he claim credit for everything good that has happened to the company in the past 12 years? In particular, can he claim credit for the company’s successful shift from focusing on price to focusing on customer service (“That was easy”), which took place long after he had left the business world?
Then there’s the bit about looking only at Bain-connected companies that added jobs, ignoring those that reduced their work forces or went out of business. Hey, if pluses count but minuses don’t, everyone who spends a day playing the slot machines comes out way ahead!
In any case, it makes no sense to look at changes in one company’s work force and say that this measures job creation for America as a whole.
Suppose, for example, that your chain of office-supply stores gains market share at the expense of rivals. You employ more people; your rivals employ fewer. What’s the overall effect on U.S. employment? One thing’s for sure: it’s a lot less than the number of workers your company added.
Better yet, suppose that you expand in part not by beating your competitors, but by buying them. Now their employees are your employees. Have you created jobs?
The point is that Mr. Romney’s claims about being a job creator would be nonsense even if he were being honest about the numbers, which he isn’t.
At this point, some readers may ask whether it isn’t equally wrong to say that Mr. Romney destroyed jobs. Yes, it is. The real complaint about Mr. Romney and his colleagues isn’t that they destroyed jobs, but that they destroyed good jobs.
When the dust settled after the companies that Bain restructured were downsized — or, as happened all too often, went bankrupt — total U.S. employment was probably about the same as it would have been in any case. But the jobs that were lost paid more and had better benefits than the jobs that replaced them. Mr. Romney and those like him didn’t destroy jobs, but they did enrich themselves while helping to destroy the American middle class.
And that reality is, of course, what all the blather and misdirection about job-creating businessmen and job-destroying Democrats is meant to obscure.


35 Comments so far
Show AllWhat?!? Romney's a fabricator and a liar?!?
.
Thank god we leebrulz have good ol' Honest Obama looking after our interests....
Hopefully if Romney is elected we'll get a few more Scalia's and Thomas' to reaffirm the Citizen's United. I'm sure that keeping the continuity of Supreme decisions is UNQESTIONABLY a good plan.
Oh good! It's the "Vote For [Insert Democrat candidate here] for the Sake of the Judges" canard! It's a personal favorite of mine. A real classic.
.
But I guess you forgot about the time that half the D's in the senate voted for John Roberts and then the other time when half of them voted for Alito (by breaking a smoke 'n mirrors filibuster) .. before they cast a meaningless no vote against him.
.
Oh, and then there was President Borat who took the opportunity to move the court to the right by replacing liberal judges with ones that we are supposed to believe are "moderates."
.
And then there's that inconvenient little fact that both the liberal judges that Obama replaced were nominated to the court by republican presidents. hmmmmm .....
.
The D-team has been complict in moving the court to the right ... But don't let facts get in the way of a good fabrication.
I agree. I also notice that so-called liberals who support Obama and the Ds consider Howard Zinn a great man. Yet they ignore his main messages: both parties operate under a consensus and that civil disobedience is what brings change, not voting in a rigged duopoly system.
This is similar to neo-lib/neo-classical advocates of trickle down eonomics who mis-quote Adam Smith and ignore Smith's warnings about unchecked greed and monopolies.
But you left out my favorite!
The ivory tower insanity of worrying over Supreme Court appointees when the President has just asserted and won the right to wage Executive Wars AND the "National Defense Act" has been updated to make protest treason!
Or, to put it more loudly:
WHO THE HELL CARES ABOUT JUDGES WHEN THE REPUBLIC HAS BEEN DESTROYED RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR EYES!!!
Excuse the shouting. ;)
Franciszek2, one of my 'moderate' heroes is Noam Chomsky. Prior to Obama's election Noam urged voting for Obama (with no illusions) because history has shown that when democrats are in office things get better for the working class. As Noam states, over time it does make a real difference. And your bs about Roberts and Alito totally sidesteps the fact that they are now Justices because they were nominated by REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS. It's total bs to think there is no difference. Your "facts" are laughable. You have NO leg to stand on when it comes to the difference in nominees in today's world of wacko conservative republicans and moderately conservative democrats. Things pretty much are as they always have been. James Madison insisted that wealthy elites should have the power in the US and warned against letting the majority have any real control. This is how it works and always has. We fight to keep things from getting worse, and hopefully have the small 'win' every now and then.
Chomsky was wrong ... Obama is a corporate trogoldyte just like McCain and Bush and Romney and any other republican that has a shot of winning the white house. He is not the lesser of two evils. And even if he was ... all your lesser evilism has managed to deliver is ... what? An extension and expansion of Bush's II's policies ... across the board.
.
I'm ashamed to say that I voted for Obama in 2008 .. thinking that at the very least he would be an improvement over Bush ... that he wasn't McSame. Well guess what ... he is McSame.
.
A vote for Obama is an act of criminal negligence.
Blah, blah, blah. Sure, cherry pick some issues and ignore others. Pretend Republicans in control would have meant nothing worse. You're a fool.
And, just to gratuitously belabor the point:
The presumption that a Democratic administration will surely nominate more humane, enlightened SCOTUS justices, and that this is a-- perhaps the-- pivotal issue in which there's a real difference between the abominable Party of Cain and the intolerable Party of Judas, is self-vindicating.
By this I mean that once you're on this trolley, even the successful nomination of a corporatist, careerist, enigmatic, time-serving place-holder like Elena Kagan is, and indeed MUST be, touted as a "win" that proves the proposition.
The trolley is primed to the gills with knowing, supercilious "realpolitik" rationalizations that can be hurled from the windows at skeptics: the justice in question has a far better judicial philosophy than people realize, or critics will admit; as a matter of history, justices who at first seem unimpressive, not to say dangerously conservative or reactionary, "blossom" on the bench and become champions of civil liberties and justice for ordinary unprivileged citizens.
And in any case, the justice was really the best, if not only, candidate that the administration could safely and "realistically" back in an arduous, highly politicized adversarial nominating process, and so on... ad nauseam.
'By this I mean that once you're on this trolley, even the successful nomination of a corporatist, careerist, enigmatic, time-serving place-holder like Elena Kagan is, and indeed MUST be, touted as a "win" that proves the proposition.'
A win indeed. And when the justice's corporate career forces her recuse herself from 50% of the court's upcoming cases [surely vetting point in the choice of nominee], she must be touted for her ethics.
Thus honor is satisfied.
Ah, Greg...take that old canard out of moth-balls, dust it off, and serve it up as wisdom. Both Clinton & Obama have grossly disappointed in the Supreme Court Department by not appointing any real Progressive. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is okay, but all the others recently elected are corporatist apologists. They wouldn't recognize a meaningful law unless it had a pricetag stapled to its corner.
This is one of Krugman's most naked apologia to Democrats. Sometimes it seems like he's had The Wake-up Call, but then he turns the alarm clock off and returns to the bipartisan sleep cycle.
(I wrote this without having read down the thread, and now realize others beat me to the punch.)
Do you know that one of Obummers Supreme Court choices was 1st named to the federal bench by Bush 1 and the other was on the payroll of Obama biggest contributor Goldman Sachs.
They Are Not Liberals.
Hope you're paid well to skew the facts and aren't pushing this highly flawed and failed ideology for free!
Sorry Dr. Krugman, your relatively poor track record and superficial treatment of political economy has eroded your credibility. Dean Baker, Prof. Steve Keen, Prof. Michael Hudson have proven much more insightful and accurate about macro economic issues and political economy in recent years. These three successfully predicted the financial collapse, however Krugman did not. (for example)
Right now I am reading "Debunking Economics" by Steve Keen. So far it is quite compelling I recommend it.
I seem to remember reading Krugman on the side of the concerned toward the end of the boom...
Besides, he's not writing as an economist here, is he?
And I very much doubt Baker for one would disagree with the facts in the article.
Yeah, the article is just superficial political fluff. He is writing as a cheerleader for the duopoly. Now have you read Hudson and/or Keen?
Don't think so.
I might have read some articles based on Hudson, or by Hudson.
But the bell is only ringing dimly. ;)
Maybe you could give us a quick summary?
It would be nice if this Krugman piece prompted a genuine economics discussion despite Krugman's avoidance of one. ;) ;)
Website for Dr. Michael Hudson http://michael-hudson.com/
Prof Steve Keen: http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/
Prof Richard Wolff: http://rdwolff.com/
Hudson has appeared on RT TV and even DemocracyNow! but will never be heard from or shown on US Corporate Media Cartel for obvious reasons. Same with Dr. William K. Black, Steve Keen and Richard Wolff
Steve Keen's new book I mentioned is really good stuff.
Links?
But I'm too LAZY to follow links!
Just kidding, thanks. ;)
Krugman's agenda is to support the old tired status quo of two-party korporatist rule, by depicting the contest as between two elite contestants, one that will surely destroy the empire with its corruption and stupidity, and one that will steer the empire to further plunderous prosperity with its intelligent and steady hand. In both cases the empire must continue in a destructive frenzy, feeding like a giant parasite from the people's energy and the planet's resources. But the news today is that everyone is realizing that the people and the planet are actually smarter than Krugman and his ilk. The wisdom of the ages, the indigenous wisdom, is being revealed, and the people are picking up on it. Exciting times for the people. Dead-end doom for Krugman and his elite peers.
Yes, he works for the propaganda rag of record after all.
Mutt Robotney
"So, in a better world, President Obama would face a challenger offering a serious critique of his job-creation policies, and proposing a serious alternative."
If only Krugman would have stopped here a minute, and realized that he should be writing about THIS, not the nuances between Romney's and Obama's records as Corporate Overlords!
The resignation and fatalism contained in this sentence do more to demonstrate the deadness of the Republic than a 3,000 word recitation of crimes against the Contitution ever could. ;(
If prominent Citizens (and indeed the majority of Citizens) are resigned to never having a chance to vote for Presidents or Representatives that would actually do what the People want, then where the hell is democracy? Where the hell is Government For, By, and Of, the People?
An Empire can give us JOBS, a Corporatocracy can give us JOBS, people in friggen' Authoritarian Communist CHINA have JOBS!!
People didn't fight and die in the Revolution and all the struggles for Rights in the 200 years since for effin' JOBS!
They fought and bled, suffered and died, struggled and triumphed for FREEDOM and EQUALITY.
Right now everyone's JOB is the REVOLUTION.
We must find money and resources as best we can and where we must.
DO NOT GROVEL LIKE A PATHETIC SLAVE AT THE FOOT OF THE EMPIRE FOR "JOBS"!!!
We can find you a nice dull career with a retirement package once we have won our country back and turned the species away from pointless, stupid, greedy disaster.
Thank you. ;)
I recently read a few of Chris Floyd's essays on his blog, and I thought these words felt appropriate here:
"So many millions upon millions of pointless words spent on the "horse race" of the presidential election -- which will be decided solely on the basis of which two corporate bagmen spend the money of their masters most effectively -- and all of them nothing more than witless blather raising blood in the eyes of good people, to keep them from seeing the reality of the evil being done in their names, by the very "progressive leaders" they champion."
Mr Krugman, did you know that both Obama and Romney support the recent signing of our 4th amendment rights being taken from us? Mr Krugman, did you know that both Obama and Romney support the countless illegal wars of aggression that are slaughtering thousands of innocent children? Mr Krugman, did you know that both Obama and Romney support the same foreign policies that are bankrupting this nation - which in turn help to desecrate social welfare programs here at home?
No, I guess you are oblivious, or something...
Krugman is anachronistic, not oblivious. A paleo-liberal, he has outlived his fellow liberals, the majority of whom have opted for privilege and career success, and that means neo-classical economics, neo-liberal policies, and shitting all over the working mena and women of this country. The last liberal. Must be lonely.
When push comes to shove Krugman is like that damn hypocrite Tom Hartmann - NO LIBERAL at all -
Krugman is a Democrat -
Democrats voted for or rolled over every hit the working man has suffered in the last few decades.
Democrats support and are financially supported by the worst of the worst predators like Goldman Sachs and Blackwater etc......
Ever wonder why the Comcast merger went thru but the ATT merger got cancelled?
Because Comcast is a huge Democratic supporter.
Fascists picking and choosing the financial winners - and We the People are the losers.
Fact the facts the democratic party of old is DEAD.
Congratulations, Paul, you jumped ahead and then hit the nail on the head. Your analysis is brilliant ... Focus again ... We've outgrown predatory capitalism and can use standard accounting to look at national profit and loss. Now take a leap into the future. Accent the positive, eliminate the destructive. Switch from endless war to the same level of national energy directed at world-wide universal public education free to any academic level or student age. Knowing how supremely profitable universal public education is, public transportation is included. Quite wisely, I believe. Now straight to Econ 101_2012 : Increased education leads to decreased family size and a gently declining population. A gently declining human population yields less economic intensity and reduced stress on the environment. Earth begins to heal. Natural bounty grows and begins to replace chaotic economic friction from environmental decay. The subset human economy rebounds, in reality, at peace with planet earth, with a new focus on quality of life. Vivir Bien. It is possible to grow to qualitative infinity within a bounded thermodynamic system existing on one beautiful finite planet hurtling through space in a galaxy traveling in some direction toward somewhere.
Rainbow stew.
Krugman makes an excellent point in his partisan diatribe.The jobs the mighty US economy creates are largely piss-poor: non-tradeable service jobs, temporary jobs, jobs with no benefits. US mertrics count quantity, but the quality is the issue as well. Private equity firms that do LBOs are very harmful to workers, families, communities, enriching very few. Oh, of course: that's why Americans love them. But in fact, Bain is a bane.
What a POS article.
Funny but people comment on a POS article Like this twice as much as an article on true economics and predators like Blackrock.
That alone tells me the left will continue to wallow in the excrement of partisan uninformed politics.
Then let's look at this poorly written skewed article.
Jobs lost in 1st few months - 3.1 million
Jobs gained since then - 1.2 million
How does he come up with the 2.5 million? Out of thin air!
Even if you start the Obama job #'s at the low point he has still only gained 1.2 million jobs. Not 2.5. Those are the jobs the Oilybomber 'saved' - of course that was by bailing the predators and fraudsters etc....
Krugman is a Propagandist and should be working for the Ministry of Truth.
When a football or baseball coach gets hired it's not because the team he now works for is Great - it's because they fired the last coach because they were LOSERS.
But the new coach gets the wins or loses regardless of the team he has - to pretend otherwise is for LOSERS!
Which by the way fits the damn demonrats to a T.
Hey demonrats go sail away on the ship of fools with your buddies the republicans - you BOTH are to blame.
So many new obamabot posters lining up for the election season.
Hypocrites.
mtdon, your reading skills and comprehension are poor (non-existent?). Krugman clearly states the time frames on his job's claims, which totally were ignored by you. Some people have reasoning skills and some do not.
Greg you are an obamabot troll plain and simple.
Krugman offers No Proof of the 2.5 mil - only says it has occured since march of 2010. BUT where does he mention the employment numbers in regards to that?
He doesn't.
Trollish behavior - aka Greg R
1. Throw out insults
2. Argue about definitions
3. Argue about facts but when proved wrong argue about Where people get tier facts
4. Be a hypocrite
In regards to Greg - check, check, check and check
Your are ignorant. Krugman has 800 words allowed him by the NYT. If he is to lay out some or all of his research footnotes in his 800 words he would lose a lot of valuable space for the facts and ideas. I've been posting here for a full decade. Calling me a troll is more ignorance. In another comment you said Obama's nominees were not liberals. My point is that whatever they are, they are not conservative assholes in the vein of Scalia and Thomas, but I guess you didn't read what I said.
If you aren't a troll then why resort to the list of trollish behavior?
I know facts don't mean sh*t to you BUT Sotomayer was named to the federal bench by Bush sr - how liberal can she be? Do You really think that bush would name a liberal?
You are the ignorant one and a jerk at that!
And kagan worked for Goldman Sachs - so there are a few facts you can ignore at your own peril.
If it walks like a troll and talks like a toll then it must be a troll - and you Greg R are the DEFINITION of a TROLL!
I don't always agree with him, but Paul Krugman is the one voice of reason in the New York Times op-ed pages. Some of you see him as completely pro-Obama. In fact he has been very critical of the Administration - for example, in predicting that the stimulus package wouldn't go far enough. He has viewed Obama as timid in most financial matters, and has said so forcefully. I must admit, it is a pleasure to see him take on neanderthals like George Will.
But for Heaven's sake, folks, come up with some new lines - Obamabot, troll, corporatist and troglodyte became stale some time ago!