RUSH: I checked the e-mail during the break, and I'm getting a little bit of ahead of myself, but I'm gonna answer this. "Rush, why would the Google guys be all in favor of more part-time jobs?" Ladies and gentlemen, part-time work has been the goal of socialists for years. I mean, the French have tried to reduce the workweek to 30 hours for years, and there's a reason for it from their perspective.
Larry Page even addresses this, as you will hear when I get to this. It's done to disguise the fact that there are fewer jobs. Look, we've got 95 to a hundred million Americans not working, right? Well, that's even an embarrassment to the socialists. So if you convert a significant number of full-time jobs to part-time jobs, you can end up hiring people. You don't have to create any new jobs whatsoever.
You just divvy 'em up. Each job is now done by two or three people. So you put more people to work, and you have your welfare state to provide for them what their jobs do not. You have a shorter workweek. You have shorter work hours. You've got happier people thanking the government for this new lifestyle change, voting for Democrats left and right, and you get to hire more people.
You don't have to pay them health care because there's a 30-hour minimum per week, so you off-load that to the government. This is the way the socialists "spread the wealth around." They don't create any new jobs. The one thing they know is socialism is not about creating jobs, folks. It never has been. Socialism is about government providing for people -- and there's no such thing as debt or too much debt.
That's not in the equation, particularly here in the United States. "Debt? We spend whatever we want to spend! This is how we spread the wealth around. You don’t have to create a single new job. We just divvy every job up into two or three jobs, make everybody a part-timer, and they're working. Then you say, 'Look what we've done!
'We expanded the number of people working. We bring down unemployment. We bring down that number.'" But it's for part-time work, and it's all about the illusion of there being more jobs -- and, in fact, we are seeing that in our own jobs reports. It's sort of a form of featherbedding, if you want to look at it that way. But the point of it is that the whole idea of full-time work not possible in America anymore. Those days are gone.
That's the mind-set that's problematic.
RUSH: This is Liz in Salt Lake City. Hi, Liz. Glad you called. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hi. Thank you for taking my call.
CALLER: I'm calling in regard to the insurance and Obamacare. My daughter has a 20-year-old boyfriend and he had his hours cut. He just works at a restaurant trying to make his way and he got his hours cut because of Obamacare. They can't afford to pay for the insurance.
RUSH: Right, by design.
CALLER: He's covered under his parents' insurance so he doesn't even need the insurance, but yet now he has to go look for another job to try to help pay his way through college.
RUSH: No, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. See, that's what we have learned. No, no, no. No, no, no. Part-time is it.
RUSH: Larry Page, the Google cofounder, this is exactly what we want. We want his job done by an additional two or three people. That's how we actually get more people working without creating any new jobs. Because socialism doesn't create jobs. It creates government bloat. So what we need is people like your daughter's boyfriend being converted to part-time and then staying there so he can spend more time with you and your daughter and have a more well-rounded, enjoyable life. And then get subsidized for Obamacare, and then two other people can share the hours that he did have. They won't have health insurance, either, but Obamacare will take care of that. And we got happiness all over America with people spending family time together, well-rounded lives, not dominated by work. It's happening exactly as the left wants it to happen, Liz.
RUSH: Back to one of the things I teased at the beginning of the program. I got into some of it, so it's not a full-fledged tease. Larry Page, who is the CEO of Google and one of the cofounders appeared in an interview recently with Sergey Brin, his buddy, another cofounder.
The interviewer was Vinod Khosla, who is a longtime technology investor. He tried to buy Google when it first started. He's Silicon Valley. He's in tight, highly respected. He was able to get these two guys to come on his whatever it is, Internet show, and Larry Page said that the future of the American workforce is gonna be part time. He thinks most people want to work, but that they would be happy working less.
This is Larry Page now, Google CEO, and he said in this interview: We have enough resources to provide for humanity. "The idea that everyone needs to work frantically to meet people’s needs is just not true."
Now, stop and think of that. You talk about a transformation. Think of the fundamental philosophical change that represents. I don't know about you, I was raised to believe that whatever I wanted and whatever I needed, I was gonna have to provide. And I did that by getting a job. And if there were something I wanted but couldn't afford, I waited until I could. And I kept working hard, and I kept following my passion, and eventually if I got good, I would be similarly rewarded and so forth.
I was raised that you get out what you put in. The harder you work, the more your award, and it may not be instant. It may take a long time for the payoff, but that there was value in that. There was value in following a passion. There was value in gaining experience. There was value in work. It was self-defining. It was work that provided self-esteem, not a teacher in kindergarten. It was your work. It was what you did. It was what you accomplished. That's what spoke for you, in addition to other things. I mean, it wasn't just your work, but work was how you provided.
I was also raised to believe that it was not nice to have other people pay for those things for you. That it was not fair. I was raised that it was selfish and greedy to assume that other people should provide for my wants, and certainly my needs. So much so that I couldn't wait to leave home. I couldn't wait to leave home and get out and get involved and get in the mix, make my mark or whatever. I couldn't wait to strike out on my own.
I've always -- and to this day I still think this way. The less work I do, the less I'm gonna get paid. And the less I get paid, the less, fewer options I'm gonna have. I do not associate -- well, as you get older these things change, but somebody in their twenties or thirties, we were not programmed to think of sacrificing work, hard work, in exchange for the good life. The good life is what came. Now, there were things wrong with that. Don't misunderstand. Every life needs a balance. In my case, my work is what I've always loved. I didn't need a break from it, other than to recharge. And that was always the challenge, to come up with a well-balanced life.
Work can't be everything, but it makes many things possible. It makes children possible. It makes a home possible. It makes marriage or a relationship possible. Unless, of course, you inherit it. But now look. Ever since Obama has assumed office unemployment is called funemployment, and whenever unemployment rises, we're told, "Well, you know, there are opportunities here. You don't have to spend all day at work. You can stay at home and you can rediscover your family and get in touch with yourself and nature and commune with other people doing the same thing." That just doesn't compute with me.
Here we have the cofounder of Google suggesting that we have enough resources to provide for humanity. "The idea that everyone needs to work frantically to meet people’s needs is just not true." In fact, he said today humanity does dumb things like destroy the environment, in part because people work when they don’t have to. The answer isn't to just cut jobs en masse. The answer is to cut the amount of hours individuals work. See, the thing is, socialists in France have always believed this. They've always thought the 30-hour workweek was it, and the reason for this is socialists know that socialism doesn't create jobs. It can't.
Socialism creates Big Government. Government gets big by absorbing little bits and pieces of the private sector, which is where jobs are. So in exchange for that the government will provide for people. So the socialist view here is, okay, we've got a hundred million people not working. Okay, we don't have to add any new jobs. We can just convert a lot of those full-time jobs to part time and we can have three people doing every job and we're putting two people back to work. We're not creating any jobs and we're giving people much more free time. We've got plenty of resources over here in government to give them what they need. They don't have to work to provide everything they need anymore.
That's what he's saying. Because we have enough resources and we've got a big enough government and we got a benevolent enough president to redistribute all this wealth so that nobody has to work anymore, really, to provide what they need. They need to work to get things done, but not too much, because working too much is why we're destroying the planet. Is essentially what he said. This is a CEO of Google.
Now, I don't know how many full-time jobs he's converting to part time. I don't know how much of this he's actually putting into play at his own company, but it's not the point. Again, the point is not what these people do, not entirely. Oftentimes that's what you do have to look at. But in this case, people are responding only to PR and buzz. Substance and reality escapes people.
So there comes a massive push to recharacterize work as something that people are doing way too much of and you can have a much more happy and well-rounded life by working half the time and then let us take care of what you need after that. We're gonna have many happier people, and we're gonna have just as much productivity, but we're gonna spread the productivity around. We're not gonna be creating any new jobs but that's because we can't, as socialists, en masse. And so you justify this by saying this is how you save the planet from global warming and people believe all that is happening.
I don't know how widespread it's gonna get. Again, I'm just interested in alerting you as often as I can, which is what I've always done, to who liberals are, what they believe, and what will happen if they succeed in implementing those beliefs. Now, I don't know how many of you in this audience raising children find it attractive to say to them, "You know what? You don't need to work full time. You don't need 40 hours, that's crazy. You know, find a job you can work 20 hours and then get health care and get food stamps, whatever. And if you have a daughter go over there to get your contraception pills and enjoy life. That's something your mother and I were never able to do because we bought this silly notion that we had to work ourselves to the bone in order to get things, and we don't want that for you."
And then if your kids say, "But wait, Dad, if we don't work, we're not gonna have -- like, Dad, if you'd done what you're telling me to do then you might not have a house I could live in when I can't afford my own."
"Son, don't look at it that way. The way to look at it, your mom and I were wrong, believing in all this hard work and achievement and accomplishment and economic growth, that's for suckers. And, Son, your mom and I fell for it hook, line, and sinker. But you have a chance now to have a new kind of life that we Americans have never seen before, where you can work 20, 30 hours a week and then play the rest of the time."
"But, Dad, how am I gonna afford --"
"Don't worry about it, 'cause, see, Larry Page says that the government, we've got plenty of resources to handle what you need. We've done that."
How many of you are raising your kids that way? How many of you have kids in med school? How many of you have kids in law school? How many of you have kids that want to go to both or whatever it is they want to do? How many of you are raising them to believe that they're working too hard, that they're falling prey to a trick, it's not necessary to enjoy life. In fact, you'll enjoy life a lot more if you have more free time.
There was also a discussion of robotics and how robotics are gonna end up replacing people. But that's okay, too, because any job that a machine can do, we don't need a human being to do. We need human beings to do other things like protect the planet and vote Democrat and enjoy their lives and become dependents of the giant state so that the state continues to have support.
RUSH: Since we are talking about the Google guys, there's one more. Sergey Brin, cofounder of Google, in the same interview with Larry Page was talking about how we got people working too hard. We don't need this much full-time work. We can spread the wealth around and not work as hard anymore. People would rather do that.
Remember one of the things he said: People are destroying the planet doing this hard work. Global warming, climate change! That's one of the things he said. So here comes Sergey Brin who says that individual car ownership has to go, just has to go. They see a world... Brin and Page see a world in which there's a lot broken and a lot needs to be fixed, and one of the things that they're pushing is self-driving cars.
They're safer, they think. They're less polluting and so forth and so on. Sergey Brin believes that ownership of cars is inefficient. It just is a waste of time. It costs people a lot of money that they don't need to spend. There are other ways to get people around. There's mass transit, there's Uber, there's any number of cabs. But individuals owning cars is a waste of resources. It's a waste of money.
There's also a reason why the American people have had a love affair with the automobile. There's a reason why we invented mass production, the assembly line. Henry Ford, he didn't invent the car. He invented the assembly line to mass produce them, and the reason why is there was a phenomenal demand, because the automobile in America is inseparable from our freedom. It's inseparable.
So if you take the ownership of automobiles away from people, you are taking away a lot of mobility, a lot of freedom, and you are forcing people into other systems of transportation -- and in so doing, folks, it is much easier for governments to control people. Now, I can imagine... You know, one of the things that I have in abundance -- a characteristic I think that is required for success in doing what I do -- is empathy.
Not sympathy. Empathy. Meaning: I have to be able to feel, sense, understand how people react to things that happen on this program. I can imagine that with a certain segment of this audience what I just said is some of the wackiest stuff they've ever heard. "Americans' freedom is related to the car? What do you mean? Have you ever heard of civil rights movement, Limbaugh?"
Taking cars away from us would limit our mobility and make it more easy for governments to control us? I can imagine that people that don't look at government as anything but benevolent are probably having reactions like they can't believe they're hearing this. But I am willing to run the risk of sounding extreme wacko or whatever. Because at some point, all of this is leading to one inescapable location.
That is government and more government and bigger government and more and bigger control over everybody's life, and that is the antithesis of our founding. We are not a superpower, and were aren't the greatest nation ever in the history of earth because of what government's done! It's because of what we as a people collectively have done, using our freedom, our initiative, our passion, our desires, our values, or morality. This is what made us greatest nation on the face of the earth!
It is not government controlling things, not government assigning things, not governments providing things. But if there is one instance of suffering or un-comfort, discomfort, or misery, then that is intolerable -- and we must do something about it, and the only place we can turn to have something done about it is government. And then the conclusion is, "Well, the only reason there is suffering and misery is because the person suffering and in misery doesn't have as much as somebody else.
"We can fix that by taking away from who we think has more than they should." It's said with more nuance than that, but, I mean, why do you think Obama has so much support? There are people that know exactly what he's about. There are people that know exactly what he's doing -- and notice the people who support all this already have theirs. They've already got more than they could possibly need, and nobody's making a move to take it away from them.
So it's easy for them.
They've made it.
They've done whatever they had to do to get where they are, and now they're smarter and brighter, and they care more, and they are far more capable of managing massive systems of human beings in order to engineer and program the correct outcome. "We can't trust it to individual liberty or freedom 'cause people won't do 'the right thing,' as we see it. People will spend their money in wasteful ways!
"They'll destroy the planet or they'll buy a car that they don't need, or they'll live in a house that's too big or whatever," and don't doubt for a minute that people who support Obama are the same people that think that way. They're superiorists. They think they're smarter, and they view average people down their noses. There's a little contempt. All of this just really rubs me the wrong way.
Like this story today with the woman who thinks the Declaration of Independence shouldn't have a period in there, and if it didn't, it would have meant that the Founders really knew we needed a giant government to run things, and that that's what they really intended but somebody snuck a secret period in there.
It's just an all-out assault on the whole concept of individual liberty. There's an assault on the idea that people are gonna end up in different places. People are different, and some "compassionate" people just can't deal with that reality.