During the 2004 presidential campaign, the Democratic candidate made much mention of millions of “lost jobs”. Although unemployment ran only 5.6%, not at all high when seen in historical perspective, there were really less people employed than in the recent past — hence the claim of “lost jobs”.

The Democratic Party’s explanation of the conflict between normal levels of unemployment and the claim of “lost jobs” was that millions were so disenchanted with their job prospects that they had simply given up looking. To claim this is to assume that if someone stays at home and says they are not looking for work, they must be lying.

However, the candidate’s wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, “the pickle heiress”, correctly, if inadvertently, revealed the true source of the discrepancy when she remarked that Laura Bush, the President’s wife, had never held a real job — thereby offending millions of American housewives, not to mention librarians and school teachers.

About Inherited Sinecures

However, Teresa Kerry’s own job history consisted of working for the United Nations and sitting on the board of foundations financed by her own wealth — essentially an inherited sinecure.

For liberal millionaires, this is “real work”.

Also, for many labor economists, fixated upon the Gross Domestic Product as representing the world, the efforts of housewives to raise children and keep house were activities outside the money economy, the reach of the Federal Reserve, and the unions and therefore incommensurate and irrelevant.

Since the 1960s, the percentage of the American population in the paid workforce has increased as more and more women have taken up paid jobs outside of the home.

However, in recent years, the negative effects of this practice upon the character and education of children has become increasingly noted and many women have left paid employment to return to the home. Symptomatic of this movement has been the increase in home schooling, now estimated by the government as reaching as many as one million children, as conservative families flee the immorality, danger, and radical agendas of public schools.

The result, of course, is that when a women leaves paid employment to stay home and bring up her children, she no longer is included in the Gross Domestic Product or on the income tax roles, now becoming part of that expanding number of “lost jobs”.

Support of Unionized Teachers

From the point of view of the Democratic Party (ten percent of the 2004 convention delegates were unionized teachers), avid supporters of big government and dependent upon a work force within the monetary system and subject to taxation, these “lost jobs” were serious, not because the unpaid workers themselves were necessarily unhappy, but because “lost jobs” mean less government revenue to support the permanent bureaucracy on which the Democratic Party depends.

Therefore, we have the pickle heiress to thank for reminding us that many economists and liberal politicians do not regard housewives as performing “real work” and for recognizing that what may be happening has nothing to do with the ups and downs of the business cycle but may be rather a sociological phenomenon — a reaction to precisely the liberal values that the elitists would prescribe for the rest of us.

If more women decide to stay home to bring up the kids, while the number of unfireable government employees and their benefits increase, either tax rates or inflation, or both, must also rise.

This entry was posted on Saturday, October 23rd, 2004 at 5:05 am and is filed under Demographics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

|