It must be the weekend of false equivalencies. First, over at The Daily Beast, Ana Marie Cox equated Bernie Sanders with Donald Trump. Now at Mother Jones, Kevin Drum equates Jeb Bush's "people need to work longer hours" statement with Barack Obama's out of context "you didn't build that".
"Maybe I'm just being naive here, but I wonder if liberals could give it a rest mocking Jeb Bush for saying "people need to work longer hours"? Yeah, he really did say it, but then again, Obama really did say "You didn't build that." Little snippets taken out of context can make anyone sound dumb."
"Naïve", Mr. Drum, is the most charitable explanation for your post. President Obama's statement was contained within a painstaking dissertation on how individual initiative, although required, does not exclusively produce success without assistance from government and society.
"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
Clearly the point Obama was trying to make was that you did build that, but not entirely on your own.
Here is the entire context of Governor Bush's statement:
“My aspiration for the country, and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see. Which 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.”
And then this from Kevin Drum, in defense of Bush's claim he was referring to the underemployed.
"It probably really was what he meant, and it just didn't come out quite right. That's common in a live setting."
I don't think Mr. Drum knows what "out of context" means. Assuming that someone meant what they said isn't the same thing as quoting out of context. Out of context means that the entire statement, taken as a whole, contradicts the cherry picked snippet that implies something unintended by the speaker.
Please, Mr. Drum, show me the context in Jeb Bush's speech wherein he asked anything at all of employers? He's a Republican. He never has, and never will ask more of employers. The entire context of his comments about worker productivity was about what workers needed to do differently, not employers. The statement and the context were clear: After thirty years of phenomenal increases in worker productivity without significant real wage increases for workers, the only way workers deserve more money is if they work harder and become more productive. No onus at all on employers. Furthermore, the statement assumes that employers will all the sudden magically start rewarding employees with increased pay for higher productivity, out of altruism, I suppose.
On what basis does Mr. Bush presume future productivity gains will go to employees rather than employers? Or is that even what he meant? He seems to conflate productivity with quantity of hours worked. He may very well have meant the only way workers deserve more money is if they work longer hours, regardless of productivity. Either way, there is no context that suggests Jeb Bush thinks workers deserve anything more from employers unless they, the workers, deliver more.
Nor is there any past statement by Governor Bush that would contradict his assertion that "people need to work longer." We know he does not support an increase in the minimum wage, or any minimum wage at all for that matter. So how else does a minimum wage worker earn more other than working more hours? Not only was "people need to work longer" in context with the rest of his comment, it is in context with everything he has ever had to say on the matter.