EPTUnemployment rate for young americans = 52.2% - Page 6
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Navane
Netherlands2749 Posts
| ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On September 29 2009 00:54 VorcePA wrote: I never said that lowering taxes reduces the national debt. Although, funny you should mention that, because, once again, I turn to my favorite President, and unfortunately never lived through his terms: Reagan. Normally, I would say lower taxes so that unemployment goes down and the recession ends. Once that is out of the way, raise taxes to reduce and/or remove the national debt. However, Reagan lowered taxes by just the right amount that because there were so many extra people with jobs, the amount of revenue gained from all these people working actually increased the amount of money the government took in. My uneducated self calls bullshit on the argument that lowering taxes wouldn't help stimulate the economy. But whatever. That's probably a smaller issue than throwing around hundreds of billions of dollars everywhere and hope that some of it gets spent productively trying to save companies that handle business poorly. I agree strongly with the person you are quoting - taxes are far too low actually for our budget. Reagan lowered taxes without cutting in the budget as well. You can't keep cutting taxes and not cut other things without expecting to get further into debt. I have a very conservative economic belief, and agree the less you tax the better the market will be. However, I don't believe that taxing at an extremely low amount is beneficial, and that's what Reagan did - he went overboard. Many economists are saying one of the many reasons we are in the recession is Bush's tax cuts. They accomplished virtually nothing, they didn't stimulate the economy whatsoever, and generated less revenue than was previously being taken in. Cutting taxes at the point we currently are can really fuck over the national budget. You bring Reagan in, but surely you're aware that taxes were significantly higher than they should have been. He cut taxes in the higher bracket from something like 70% to 28% if I recall. Of course, looking at that (well, obviously in hindsight at least), taxing 70% is far too high. However, if we're lowering taxes now, when the tax rate is quite small compared to many other countries, we're hurting the revenue rates we could bring in. Of course, it's just my opinion that the tax rates we have currently are indeed already low and that a tax cut wouldn't help, just hurt. | ||
|
Psychobabas
2531 Posts
On September 29 2009 02:41 Navane wrote: unemployment rates can be deceiving if you dont know the average unemployement length. Well I dont know what the situation in Holland is like, but here in the U.K. graduates are ROYALLY MAJORLY, BIGTIME screwed. There are virtually no graduate positions and due to the high number of skilled unemployed, students just cant compete at any level. In fact, young people are forced to do postgraduate courses now or face longterm unemployment. Those who cant afford it, end up in low-paid part-time jobs. So I know for a fact that unemployment here means being unemployed for months and months, if you are a young person anyway. Myself, I have a Masters and a Bachelors degree in Business, 3 years full-time work experience, 2 years part-time work experience, I live in the heart of London and cannot get a job for the dear life of me. I have applied for about 300 jobs, signed on ALL major job-agencies and I'm constanly looking online for any positions. It is literally impossible here so I'm moving back to my home town in a few weeks. | ||
|
citi.zen
2509 Posts
| ||
|
Wurzelbrumpft
Germany471 Posts
On September 29 2009 00:30 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote: Allow me to direct you towards the thread title. "Unemployment rate for young americans = 52.2%" That is - the current rate of unemployment of young Americans (the kids without jobs). This is a thread about a statistic about kids who don't have jobs. I responded that kids not having jobs is generally a will issue, and not a way issue. To which you retorted "go try finding a job now in the field you got your degree in" which actually has NOTHING to do with people 16-24 working at a restaurant, construction job(18+, of course), call center, etc. Also, to your original statement, I'm one of the kids in that age range (21) that is working at one of those places mentioned while going to school. I'm a supervisor where I work, and 9/10 of the people I fire are due to them thinking the job is too hard (harder than playing Halo at mom's house), don't care enough to come in on a regular basis, and intentionally avoid working while at work. All of these are will issues. I used to work construction (tying steal, aka rebar, aka rodbusting), we had a lot higher turnover rate at that job due to being a much more physically demanding job, but still, a large amount of those people just didn't care enough about their paycheck to tough it up and be a man. Regardless of whether you can get a cushy job for the degree you wasted your parents' money on (NOT always the case) or not, there's always somewhere to work until you find a good job. Whether or not you're willing to be the college grad working at McDonald's for 0x.xx per hour or not is 100% YOUR CHOICE. yeah and then what. you just ignored the part of my post with the word longterm in it. i dont doubt your point with people not taking those kind of jobs is a will problem. but even if they would it wouldnt solve the actual problem. if all those people worked at mcdonalds the number would be smaller sure, but it wouldnt solve the actual economic situation, dont you think theres something wrong if people who graduate with a masters degree cant find a job their not way overqualifed for and have to work at burgerking, while their debt builds up because of interest? i know lots of people in this situation and its not like they just find the perfect job after 1 month working some crap job. if all of those people in the statistic worked at some 0.x.xx per hour job as you call it, do you think that will magically pull the usa out of the recession? edit: On September 29 2009 03:28 citi.zen wrote: Many comments in this thread discuss underemployment - taking a job which is well below you skill level / education. This won't show up in official statistics for the most part, but is a major concern. Unemployment isn't necessarily a binary thing. this is what im talking about. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On September 29 2009 00:54 VorcePA wrote: I never said that lowering taxes reduces the national debt. Although, funny you should mention that, because, once again, I turn to my favorite President, and unfortunately never lived through his terms: Reagan. Normally, I would say lower taxes so that unemployment goes down and the recession ends. Once that is out of the way, raise taxes to reduce and/or remove the national debt. However, Reagan lowered taxes by just the right amount that because there were so many extra people with jobs, the amount of revenue gained from all these people working actually increased the amount of money the government took in. My uneducated self calls bullshit on the argument that lowering taxes wouldn't help stimulate the economy. But whatever. That's probably a smaller issue than throwing around hundreds of billions of dollars everywhere and hope that some of it gets spent productively trying to save companies that handle business poorly. Reagan's theory is called supply side economics. His theory is that if you cut the tax rates of the richest people in the country, they'd spend more and the benefits would trickle down to the lower classes. The top bracket before Reagan took office was 70%. It's now 35%. To get to that marginal tax rate, you need at least $372,950 in income for fiscal year 2009. Further tax cuts have much smaller marginal utility than the ones Reagan did. Cutting taxes the same way Reagan did would decrease the top tax rate to 0%. And the stimulus is working. No matter how much you criticize it, it's working. You're not going to see it on employment metrics because employment is what's called a lagging indicator in economics. Employment usually recovers once the recovery is already well under way. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On September 29 2009 01:25 Klockan3 wrote: They do, but public health care will make physicians wages drop like a rock. Here in the US, they already suck. The problem with the system here is that specialists get a ton of money while primary care physicians are extremely underpaid. One of the ironies in the US medical system is how terrible it is at the mundane. Conservatives are focused on medical miracles while liberals are focused on Hollywood stories. So a lot of the spending in our medical care system is in the last six months of life or in virtually hopeless causes. If you have a rare genetic disorder, a rare disease or a rare type of cancer, your chances of survival are much higher in the US than anywhere else, provided you can pay for it. If you have the common, like the flu and the common cold, or the preventable, like diabetes and high blood pressure, the US medical system is one of the most terrible among industrialized countries. | ||
|
psion0011
Canada720 Posts
 | ||
|
ShaperofDreams
Canada2492 Posts
jk, I'm in art school, but still I'm not too worried cause I'll be going into sculpture and painting (failing that, movie/game production). People seem to think that degrees = money. Maybe sometimes, but if you have a rare skill you don't need to worry about it. My father quit art uni two years in to get a job that payed per day what some people earn per month since he was so good. Now he works at Radical ent. like Mora (basically his retirement, he plays lots of video games so he doesn't work much). If I seem condescending I apologize but not everyone has to get a desk job. Artisan work is really great (carpentry, sculpting etc.) and I recommend all the people still in high school to try it out before uni. | ||
|
Atlantian
United States302 Posts
| ||
|
Funnytoss
Taiwan1471 Posts
Change the thread title or else you're just misleading people. 52.2% refers to the employment-population ratio. | ||
|
VorcePA
United States1102 Posts
On September 29 2009 04:40 andrewlt wrote: Reagan's theory is called supply side economics. His theory is that if you cut the tax rates of the richest people in the country, they'd spend more and the benefits would trickle down to the lower classes. The top bracket before Reagan took office was 70%. It's now 35%. To get to that marginal tax rate, you need at least $372,950 in income for fiscal year 2009. Further tax cuts have much smaller marginal utility than the ones Reagan did. Cutting taxes the same way Reagan did would decrease the top tax rate to 0%. And the stimulus is working. No matter how much you criticize it, it's working. You're not going to see it on employment metrics because employment is what's called a lagging indicator in economics. Employment usually recovers once the recovery is already well under way. That's only if we're in a state of recovery. The stimulus just puts off the inevitable, which is a crash. There's been a downturn, and there have been isolated crashes, such as the housing market crash here in Las Vegas. We were, just a few years ago, one of the top 3 fastest growing cities in the nation. I doubt that's true any more, but it's hard to find a statistic on it until the next census is taken. That said, once there is no more money to throw around, or throwing money around no longer works, then the depression starts, and that's where we're headed -- recovery won't be for several, if not many years. | ||
|
LaSt)ChAnCe
United States2179 Posts
On September 29 2009 03:30 Wurzelbrumpft wrote: yeah and then what. you just ignored the part of my post with the word longterm in it. i dont doubt your point with people not taking those kind of jobs is a will problem. but even if they would it wouldnt solve the actual problem. if all those people worked at mcdonalds the number would be smaller sure, but it wouldnt solve the actual economic situation, dont you think theres something wrong if people who graduate with a masters degree cant find a job their not way overqualifed for and have to work at burgerking, while their debt builds up because of interest? i know lots of people in this situation and its not like they just find the perfect job after 1 month working some crap job. if all of those people in the statistic worked at some 0.x.xx per hour job as you call it, do you think that will magically pull the usa out of the recession? this is what im talking about. i'm not here to discuss a longer term solution to lazy kids not finding a cheese job, hence me not talking about it at any point during my posts the reason i don't care to talk about a solution, is the generations following baby boomers have had a lot of pressure for them to go to college because they can be whatever they can, and i'm a firm believer that if everyone's a doctor/scientist in life, noone's going to be a patient | ||
|
3clipse
Canada2555 Posts
Fuck yeah. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On September 29 2009 05:48 VorcePA wrote: That's only if we're in a state of recovery. The stimulus just puts off the inevitable, which is a crash. There's been a downturn, and there have been isolated crashes, such as the housing market crash here in Las Vegas. We were, just a few years ago, one of the top 3 fastest growing cities in the nation. I doubt that's true any more, but it's hard to find a statistic on it until the next census is taken. That said, once there is no more money to throw around, or throwing money around no longer works, then the depression starts, and that's where we're headed -- recovery won't be for several, if not many years. Where have you been the last few months? The economy is stabilizing. I'm in LA and the local economy in California is terrible but the country as a whole is starting to recover. Las Vegas is one of the hardest hit cities in the world and I think that's coloring your perspective to a large degree. Las Vegas' economy is almost all built on frivolous, discretionary spending and that's always the first to go in any recession. Sad to say, your local economy will probably be the last to recover. | ||
|
evanthebouncy!
United States12796 Posts
Because if that percentage is say, for exaggeration, 1%, then we have nothing to worry about. But if that percentage is say, 50% then we have a problem. cuz we're talking about 50% of those people not having a job, not 50% of all people of age 16-24 | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On September 29 2009 04:42 andrewlt wrote: Here in the US, they already suck. The problem with the system here is that specialists get a ton of money while primary care physicians are extremely underpaid. One of the ironies in the US medical system is how terrible it is at the mundane. Conservatives are focused on medical miracles while liberals are focused on Hollywood stories. So a lot of the spending in our medical care system is in the last six months of life or in virtually hopeless causes. If you have a rare genetic disorder, a rare disease or a rare type of cancer, your chances of survival are much higher in the US than anywhere else, provided you can pay for it. If you have the common, like the flu and the common cold, or the preventable, like diabetes and high blood pressure, the US medical system is one of the most terrible among industrialized countries. dude what are you talking about all doctors make a lot of money.... that is if they have work | ||
|
Sharp-eYe
Canada642 Posts
| ||
|
orgolove
Vatican City State1650 Posts
Failures at life  | ||
|
Funnytoss
Taiwan1471 Posts
And seriously, misleading thread title. | ||
| ||
