"[W]ithout trivializing the psychic trauma involved, there's no getting around the fact that it is in many respects much easier to be unemployed now than it was in the Reagan-Volcker era . . . Is it the president's fault that Americans are better off than they were 30 years ago, and are thus not desperate to take whatever job that comes along?http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-04-08/the-dirty-secret-about-unemployment/
In 2010, there are far more two-earner households than there were in 1981, which means that many households now have an added economic cushion to help withstand the impact of a job loss. . . An income shock that cuts that number in half or two-thirds would represent a significant blow to a family's economic prospects. But it's a far less serious blow than an income shock that cut the number down to zero.
. . . While it's certainly true that many workers have taken jobs that involve huge salary cuts, many others are holding out hope for a job that matches expectations in a sunnier labor market. This isn't necessarily a bad thing for society. One can imagine workers using an extended spell of unemployment as an opportunity to gain new skills and to spend time with loved ones.
The pro Obama opinion-shaper quoted above seems to think unemployment per se is better under Obama than Reagan, because now we get to be unemployed under an awesomely cool president.
I remember when unemployment was thought to be unacceptable, soul destroying and the source of all social ills (crime, broken families, illegitimacy, homelessness, spousal abuse, substance abuse, etc.) Now? According to this Obama apologist, it's an "opportunity to gain new skills and to spend time with loved ones".
I can't imagine any candidate being dumb enough to try to sell that spin in the upcoming November elections.