海角大神

For salaried assistant managers pulling 55 hour workweeks at big-box retail chains for no additional pay (for now), Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush鈥檚 comments Wednesday evening that 鈥減eople need to work longer hours鈥� probably stung. But when it comes to part-time workers, he鈥檚 right: A quick look at any monthly jobs report shows there are millions of hourly employees who want and need a longer workweek.

Mr. Bush鈥檚 comments came during a campaign stop in New Hampshire, where he outlined his goals to grow the economy. 鈥淢y aspiration for the country and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see,鈥� he told the newspaper 鈥淭he Union Leader,鈥� in an interview streamed over the Web. 鈥淲hich 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.鈥�

Opponents quickly seized upon the comments, framing them as an indictment of the American work ethic. Hillary Clinton tweeted that 鈥淎nyone who believes Americans aren鈥檛 working hard enough hasn鈥檛 met enough American workers,鈥� and attached a graph showing how worker productivity has risen far faster than hourly wages over the past few decades.

The Democratic National Committee called Bush鈥檚 remarks 鈥渆asily one of the most out-of-touch comments we鈥檝e heard so far this cycle.鈥澛�

Bush鈥檚 camp was quick to clarify that he was referring to part-time hourly workers, but shot back by blaming the Obama administration for reduced worker hours.

鈥淯nder President Obama, we have the lowest workforce participation rate since 1977, and too many Americans are falling behind,鈥� a Bush aide said in a statement. 鈥淥nly Washington Democrats could be out-of-touch enough to criticize giving more Americans the ability to work, earn a paycheck, and make ends meet.鈥�

鈥淵ou can take it out of context all you want, but high sustained growth means people work 40 hours rather than 30 hours and that by our success they have disposable income for their families to decide how they want to spend it rather than standing in line and being dependent upon government,鈥� Bush added in a statement Thursday.

Interestingly, the widely derided 鈥渓onger hours鈥� snippet of Bush鈥檚 Wednesday comments is probably the most agreeable. Despite major gains for the labor market over the past year and a half, the average US workweek for all employees was 34.5 hours in June, according to the Labor Department. Additionally, 6.5 million workers are what the Labor Department calls 鈥減art time for economic reasons,鈥� meaning they are working part-time because they either had their hours cut or can鈥檛 find a full-time job.

The Bush campaign is also accurate in saying that Obamacare has played some role in limiting worker hours, though the effect on a nationwide scale hasn鈥檛 borne out. The healthcare law requires employers to provide health benefits to full-time workers, which it defines as those who work 30 hours a week or more, and several public and private employers, from Burger King to the Iowa School Board, have cut worker hours in response, according to the Wall Street Journal. But as of November, 12.6 percent of workers logged between 15 and 29 hours per week 鈥� little changed from the 12.9 percent when Obamacare became law in 2010.

Beyond that, however, his comments start to get a little murky. First off, US 鈥渨orker productivity,鈥� used in the traditional economic sense doesn鈥檛 necessarily correspond to more income for workers, as Clinton pointed out.

鈥淏ush is blaming the wrong people for a significant national problem, which means he鈥檒l find a solution hard to achieve,鈥� Erik Sherman wrote in Forbes Thursday. 鈥淭he move to a greater part-time workforce was not the intent of any administration. It was the calculated push of more employees into difficult economic straits by employers to avoid healthcare responsibility鈥�Maybe Bush should try wagging his finger at employers.鈥�

What鈥檚 more, critics say, Bush has yet to outline a plan for his economic goals. 鈥淗e wants higher productivity and he wants the underemployed to work more hours," Kevin Drum wrote for Mother Jones. 鈥淚t's like saying his goal is to lose weight, and then 鈥榚xplaining鈥� that this means more exercise and fewer calories. No kidding. But what's the plan for making it happen?聽That's聽what we're interested in.鈥�