Unemployment rate for young americans = 52.2% - Page 8

On September 29 2009 08:38 JinKazama23 wrote:
This is America's employers policy fault.

They would rather employ someone experienced.

You apply for job - they tell you, you need experience.
You try to get experience - they tell you, they're looking for someone more experienced.

Great academic, and scholastic achievements mean shit in these days. You go to school to waste your parents money, because now days it's not education and 4.0 GPA that's hot on the market, but useful skills and abilities that you acquire through EXPERIENCE.

Obama's administration has been in charge for a too short period of time to have anything to do with that. Watch TV less, think more.

On September 30 2009 05:21 gchan wrote:


Well, in the employers defense, it's really tough to find talented people. Ideally, when employers are hiring, they are looking for somebody who is both hard working and has growth potential (that is, they are smart enough). Unfortunately, GPAs from college are often an unknown mix of the two, so it's always a crapshoot hiring fresh college graduates. That is why the employment market has skewed itself to individuals with experience--they require less training, and companies get the immediate benefits. Oftentimes, these people won't be better in the long run, but they will save the company money now.

On September 28 2009 16:19 Caller wrote:

Let's play a game called "comparable or not."

Look at America. It is composed of regions that differ radically from one place to the other. For practical purposes, lets split America up into the Northeast, the Midwest, the South, the West, and Alaska/Hawaii (which I will ignore for purposes).

Each of these regions is quite different from the others in terms of economical standing, industry, and GDP. In this case, the Northeast and West would have the highest GDP, followed by the Midwest and the South.

Because of the multiplier that results from government spending (namely, that it gets liquid capital moving again), lets say America raises taxes. Where are they going to spend the money?

a) they can spend it in the Northeast, which produces most of the income
b) They can spend it in the South, which produces the least income.
c) they could spend it in other places, or they can spread it out equally.

In European countries, they are fairly homogenous (with notable exceptions, such as Western/Eastern Germany.) America is not nearly as homogenous, economically or racially, and thus many European policies would not work as well in America.

Now let's take a look at nations such as Japan and Taiwan. Japan has high taxes and high welfare, and they have been trapped in a liquidity trap for the past 20 years. The main reason they can't get out is because nobody wants to spend money to earn money, and the people who would do so are not large in number.

Taiwan, on the other hand, has more American-esque taxes and little welfare, and they have weathered a storm of economic trouble in Asia, and still remain fairly liquid and a hot spot to invest. Japan is not as hot anymore, partly as a result of the bubble, partly a result of the lack of capital flowing. The high taxes are not helping Japan from a purely economical sense, although from a civic sense it does follow.

Japan really just needs to find ways to encourage more foreign investment. Lower taxes would do such a thing.