Unemployment rate for young americans = 52.2%

On September 28 2009 12:36 Mickey wrote:
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Well living with my rents ain't so bad.

On September 28 2009 12:51 stk01001 wrote:
the Reagan administration's de-regulation of the financial industry is the source of the entire economic mess, including unemployment.. the world renown economist Paul Krugman put out a great article a few weeks back highlighting this exact point. Reagan and people who think like him are the reason we are in this mess... Obama is doing his best to clean it up.. of course it's easy to just dump all the blame on the guy who's been in office less than a year..

did you know that reagan's closest advisor was an executive of Merrill Lynch?

On September 28 2009 11:59 FragKrag wrote:
hm this hits pretty hard for me. I don't think it's fair to blame everything on Obama though.

D:

On September 28 2009 13:00 Amber[LighT] wrote:


I'd say its pretty fair.

He's not making it easy for college students to obtain loans during this recession, and the job market has taken such a hit that there's too much competition for college grads. The "entry level" positions are getting taken over by people who got laid off earlier this year.

Idk what I'm gonna do when my contract expires

On September 28 2009 13:00 Amber[LighT] wrote:


I'd say its pretty fair.

He's not making it easy for college students to obtain loans during this recession, and the job market has taken such a hit that there's too much competition for college grads. The "entry level" positions are getting taken over by people who got laid off earlier this year.

Idk what I'm gonna do when my contract expires

On September 28 2009 12:59 KOFgokuon wrote:
It's good to b e a student

On September 28 2009 11:59 FragKrag wrote:
hm this hits pretty hard for me. I don't think it's fair to blame everything on Obama though.

D:

On September 28 2009 13:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:



I agree the recession is Obama's fault.

On September 28 2009 13:21 Jayme wrote:


You're kidding right? This is just one of those "it's so obviously wrong it's funny" type of posts right?

On September 28 2009 13:21 Jayme wrote:


You're kidding right? This is just one of those "it's so obviously wrong it's funny" type of posts right?

On September 28 2009 13:41 GreEny K wrote:



LOL,??? the recession started before he was even in office.

But anyway, this really makes me appreciate that I have a well paying job and it is pretty unusual for a 19 year old to have. I am an IT analyst for a law firm in Cleveland, the biggest in Cleveland actually. Funny thing is, i didnt even look for the job, it was offered to me while i was in High School because of the advanced classes i was taking involving computers. They thought they could get me to do the job for less money and I still managed to get 12 hourly for it. Now they are doing some paperwork to get me going full-time and pay for my schooling. Lucky me i guess.

On September 28 2009 14:00 Klockan3 wrote:

12 hourly is well paying?

On September 28 2009 14:16 mOnion wrote:
this is false, there's no way.

the highest US unemployment ever got to was 25%, and that was the shitter. the idea that we're in a 50% unemployment rate is just ludicrous.

false stats out the ass

On September 28 2009 14:07 jfazz wrote:
this is a real eye opener, i wish you guys best luck! Im a full time law student and I still have a $25AUD/hour job in retail. Is there a very stark discrepancy between work with a degree and work without a degree in the US? Here, i know many people who are career retail or hospitality that earn as much or more than people with degrees (not always the case, but it does happen).

On the other hand, I have friends who are working full time right now, since leaving high school that are earning a lot more than I am (I think $46,000AUD is the highest currently), but once I finish my masters (LLM in contract law and equity) in three years ill earn $100,000AUD+ - is it a similar situation in the US with regard to the importance of qualifications?

On September 28 2009 14:18 Kaialynn wrote:


Overall unemployment != young people employment.

Glad you read the article.

On September 28 2009 14:21 mOnion wrote:
so the fact that this statistic includes 16-24 is a completely arbitrary and unrepresentative statistic of the state of the economy as it is now.

On September 28 2009 14:21 mOnion wrote:


kk, lets take a gander at the definition of unemployment shall we? Unemployment is the state of an individual looking for a paying job but not having one. Unemployment does not include full-time students, the retired, children, or those not actively looking for a paying job. based on my basic knowledge of economics

so the fact that this statistic includes 16-24 is a completely arbitrary and unrepresentative statistic of the state of the economy as it is now.

During previous recessions, in the early '80s, early '90s and after Sept. 11, 2001, unemployment among 16-to-24 year olds never went above 50 percent. Except after 9/11, jobs growth followed within two years.

On September 28 2009 14:21 mOnion wrote:


kk, lets take a gander at the definition of unemployment shall we? Unemployment is the state of an individual looking for a paying job but not having one. Unemployment does not include full-time students, the retired, children, or those not actively looking for a paying job. based on my basic knowledge of economics

so the fact that this statistic includes 16-24 is a completely arbitrary and unrepresentative statistic of the state of the economy as it is now.

On September 28 2009 14:27 Kaialynn wrote:



So someone at the age of 18+ is still considered a child? This is a strawman argument, you're pointing out that children are not included in unemployment numbers, when the definition of a child is (at least, in colorado) someone who is under 18. This article isn't trying to point out how horrible our economy is overall rather, it is trying to point out that kids who are younger will have a difficult time moving out of the parents home and into the world, and almost are forced to go to college and take out large loans without the chance of getting jobs.

Yes, this whole article may be arbitrary to the state of the entire economy, but it's not talking about the entire economy.

Maybe i'm taking this article the wrong way, but this is the way i see it.

On September 28 2009 14:30 mOnion wrote:


bustin out the strawman fallacy eh? nice to see someone else who actually studied logic.

idunno, i dont really care, i have a job so wtfusabbq?

On September 28 2009 14:30 mOnion wrote:
idunno, i dont really care, i have a job so wtfusabbq?

On September 28 2009 14:32 Kaialynn wrote:


I think we should meet up and have a party to discuss this, then blog about it in typical American fashion. Sound like a plan?

On September 28 2009 14:32 VorcePA wrote:


That is a poor attitude to have.

Granted, you also shouldn't treat the unemployed like charity cases, like this administration is doing, so the attitude is also appropriate.

>_>

On September 28 2009 14:40 mOnion wrote:
im so good at killing threads ^^

On September 28 2009 15:39 Ao_Jun wrote:
People keeps blaming the 'high' taxes and the 'wellfare' system... How come european nations with way higher taxes and way better wellfare systems and way higher minimum wages and way larger public sectors are doing just fine?

(Except spain).

On September 28 2009 15:36 Caller wrote:

WHATS THIS?

No Strawman Fallacy
Meaningless trolling only
1v1 DESTINATION

now to redivert thread back on track

i think the large amount of youth unemployment belies the zero growth in the US economy, If there was truly a recovery, we would see higher youth employment than these figures suggest.

Although a large amount of it may have to do with the recession attitude rather than the recession itself. But economics is based off rational decisions rather than panic anyways, otherwise supply and demand curves would be utterly useless.
edit:

Poll: Ban mOnion?
(Vote): Yes
(Vote): Kill More Threads Please

On September 28 2009 14:25 VorcePA wrote:


No. Unemployment is based on the number of people receiving unemployment benefits divided by the number of working people. Las Vegas has a 12.8% unemployment rate. The real figure of unemployed for those aged 16-65 is probably above 17%.

Also, the article states, and I quote:



That's a good basis for noting a problem.

On September 28 2009 15:41 Caller wrote:

How come nations with virtually no welfare at all (i.e. China) are doing much better than European nations?

Correlation =/= Causality

On September 28 2009 16:04 Ao_Jun wrote:


Would you say the states are more compareable to china than to european countries?

I was really looking for an answer along the lines of "because america based it's system on oil" or a more explanative answer at least. It just seems odd that everyone is bashing the high taxes when compareable countries with so much higher taxes are doing just fine..

On September 28 2009 16:17 SWPIGWANG wrote:
This only indicates the moral collapse of American youth as they have used the excuse of a recession to put off adult responsibilities and stay at home to leech off parents. The only solution is to SMITE them with the wraith of god..... (uh something)

Frankly, all I see in this thread is the typical right wing spam, unrepresentative personal examples and just plain random spam. The sort of funny thing is that the solution asked for in this case is to let the government throw money into their pet constituent in a distortionary way. Yes, let government pay for unneeded labor because it looks nice. (of course it can be justified like other money throwing schemes, but only on the basis of involving the multipliers which is NOT done at this point)

If we follow rational economic theory, a long term high unemployment rate in a certain demographic can only mean that group is too unproductive to do shit or find the value of their time of greater value than wages offered. If it is a short term issue than market corrections would solve the problem.

If you follow "but government is magic that can override supply and demand completely" theory, you might as well throw out markets and capitalism as a means of comprehending the economy and go socialist....

As for American debt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
There is precedence for spamming money out of a recession up to 120% GDP. This is nothing compared to the kind of money throwing FDR has done. I guess some people are just ass hurt that their pet program didn't get billions thrown at it though.

On September 28 2009 15:41 Caller wrote:
How come nations with virtually no welfare at all (i.e. China) are doing much better than European nations?

Correlation =/= Causality

On September 28 2009 16:17 SWPIGWANG wrote:
Frankly, all I see in this thread is the typical right wing spam, unrepresentative personal examples and just plain random spam.

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.

The problem with spamming money as you so put it is that it helps to propel malinvestment, bad decisions, and especially bubbles, like the one that crippled Japan and the many other bubbles that we've had recently. While I'm not certain that a market correction will be useful with America's role as the world's massive bond, I don't think mass government spending will help, either.

On September 28 2009 16:28 SWPIGWANG wrote:

What is the per capita GDP of china again?

Of course, all this argues that COMMUNIST DICTATORSHIP OF AMERICA would work better. :D

Communism: proven to work better than you!

I can even write a (made up on the spot) coherent argument for this case. The authoritarian powers of the Chinese communist party allows for a far more stable investment environment over fickle democracies that often violate basic property rights with random populist actions and allow for anti-development pressure groups (greenpeace for example) to gain power. This superior environment translates to lower risk and thus increased foreign investment and growth rate.
----
Seriously, lazy examples left and right means very little. That said, Europe is likely more comparable with the United States than China, which is at a different income level, with a different government and more different culture background.

On September 28 2009 17:45 Mystlord wrote:
This thread makes me laugh. Has anyone actually looked at the labor report? Here, I'll give you a link.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Look at table A-7. Do you see 52.2% anywhere in that category? No? Do you see anything close to 52.2%?

Now let's do a control+f of 52.2%. One result... That has nothing to do with "young Americans".

The New York Post: Bringing you lies conservative bias on a daily basis.

On September 28 2009 16:34 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:
it's pretty normal for unemployment to be a will issue of the potential employee, instead of lack of jobs

On September 28 2009 12:49 Misrah wrote:
thank god that people are still going to get sick, and i hopefully will have a job in the medical profession......i hope. unless public health care comes along- and if that happens QQ

Rather than letting the free market correct itself, Obama has "stimulated" it by pouring salt on an open wound. The short term isn't as harsh, but in the long run the economy will take extra time to recover or it simply won't recover.

On September 28 2009 22:01 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:
pray tell, what does my degree have to do with young kids being too lazy to get a job?

On September 28 2009 13:21 Jayme wrote:


You're kidding right? This is just one of those "it's so obviously wrong it's funny" type of posts right?

On September 28 2009 22:45 Hawk wrote:

16 to 24 is the age bracket. that's a lot of people with 2 year degrees and 4 year degree, people who should be getting jobs and many arent able to get them now even with a degree. i have several friends who have been out of school for a year and cant lock up a teaching job

On September 28 2009 22:57 jfazz wrote:
Kevin Rudd and his cronies is to blame for more than you think my friend. I see your year 10 economics and raise you university economics with honours. Our media does a great job of making the labor government look much better than it is - we have done so well as a country through the global financial crisis because the previous liberal government completely erased our debts, set up effectictive governmental investments and increased the quality of education nationwide - but no no, everyone gives credit to the person who came in to elect midway through the worldwide recession - at times, the idiocy of the average Australian baffles me.

On September 28 2009 22:39 DeSu wrote:
uld
True. Previous american recessions show how putting in money simply made things worse and snowballed into a collapse (sorry can't remember which one lol, not very familiar with US economical history somewhere in the 1900s). The whole point of a free market economy is to let the businesses that are not being run efficiently to collapse and be taken over by smaller, better-run firms.

Hehehe just throwing what I learnt in yr 10 economics last semester on you guys :D

On September 28 2009 17:45 Mystlord wrote:
This thread makes me laugh. Has anyone actually looked at the labor report? Here, I'll give you a link.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Look at table A-7. Do you see 52.2% anywhere in that category? No? Do you see anything close to 52.2%?

Now let's do a control+f of 52.2%. One result... That has nothing to do with "young Americans".

The New York Post: Bringing you lies conservative bias on a daily basis.

On September 28 2009 22:59 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:


they won't be unemployed if they get a job at mcdonald's, BK, construction, any call center, ETC

then, they are getting a paycheck while they look for a better job, it's pretty crazy how life works!

On September 28 2009 22:59 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:
they won't be unemployed if they get a job at mcdonald's, BK, construction, any call center, ETC

then, they are getting a paycheck while they look for a better job, it's pretty crazy how life works!

On September 28 2009 22:59 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:


they won't be unemployed if they get a job at mcdonald's, BK, construction, any call center, ETC

then, they are getting a paycheck while they look for a better job, it's pretty crazy how life works!

On September 28 2009 23:51 Hawk wrote:


yeah, except most of those better jobs arent coming along for people who clunked down 80k+ for school you tard. its about long term job prospects and theres a big problem when well educated post college kids cant lock up a job in their field

On September 29 2009 00:18 Wurzelbrumpft wrote:
what a stupid post. you know college costs money and people are in debt when they come out? how does working at BK solve that. stuff like this isnt as shortterm as, ima work at burgerkingz for a month then il get a job.

edit: didnt see hawks post

On September 28 2009 13:21 VorcePA wrote:


My parents require me to be a full time student and a part time worker.

I'm unemployed and have 5 weeks to find a job, or they kick me out.



Yes, it really should. Rather than letting the free market correct itself, Obama has "stimulated" it by pouring salt on an open wound. The short term isn't as harsh, but in the long run the economy will take extra time to recover or it simply won't recover.

We are at the forefront of possibly a worse economic disaster than the depression of 1930's. The only things stopping America from, quite literally, being 3rd world OVERNIGHT is barrels of petroleum are traded in US Dollars and the fact that the Chinese government is holding on to $2 trillion ($2,000,000,000,000) in hopes that they make a return on that money in the future. If they released that money and barrels were traded in a currency other than USD, destitute African countries would have more wealth than this nation.

Obama, rather than reducing taxes to get more people working again (Reagan did it and the unemployment dropped from >11% to <5% nationwide), raised them. Rather than reducing the national debt., he has sought to increase it, and increased it from $8 trillion to a current of almost $12 trillion, and on top of that, has raised the minimum wage, both of which further lower the value of the dollar.

Did Bush help? He increased the national debt. with a stimulus package, so no. He did, however, try to repeal the law, approved by congress during the Clinton administration that forced banks to give loans to deadbeats who almost assuredly couldn't pay their mortgage, which led to the housing market crash of 2008/2009, but he was stopped by the [Democratic majority] congress.

On September 28 2009 23:01 PobTheCad wrote:

do you mean the 1930s?
The bankers all got together just after the crash and bought massive amounts of stocks in US Steel trying to get the market back into boom mode as a show of confidence , this only worked for 2-3 days though.The herd mentality had shifted , once it does it is incredibly hard to stop.

What later happened was deflation , but i believe deflation is not possible this time around because Nixon brought the US off the gold standard in 1974 because he could not afford the Vietnam war.

Deflation is very damaging , but so is hyperinflation.This policy of low interest rates = good is madness.

On September 28 2009 22:45 Hawk wrote:

16 to 24 is the age bracket. that's a lot of people with 2 year degrees and 4 year degree, people who should be getting jobs and many arent able to get them now even with a degree. i have several friends who have been out of school for a year and cant lock up a teaching job

On September 29 2009 00:31 andrewlt wrote:



Did you take economics classes in school? Lower taxes doesn't reduce the national debt. Compared to what it's been in the past, taxes in the U.S. are so low now that you can't stimulate the economy that much anymore by lowering taxes.

And respected economists are saying that the stimulus worked. Economics 101 teaches people that governments can help end recessions by increasing spending and slow down inflation during boom years by reducing spending. Of course, neither party has shown an ability to reduce spending during boom years.

On September 28 2009 22:07 GG.Win wrote:


because people don't get sick under public health care? lol

On September 29 2009 01:25 Klockan3 wrote:

They do, but public health care will make physicians wages drop like a rock.

On September 29 2009 00:47 micronesia wrote:


Tell me more.

What region/area?

What is their education relative to the requirements to teach in that area?

What subject areas are they attempting to teach?

Etc.

Obviously I'm curious since I graduated from college in 2007 with the intent to get a teaching job shortly thereafter.

On September 29 2009 01:52 Hawk wrote:


One just got one after 8 months of searching.

She had to go all the way down to Virginia, I think she was elementary ed (im nj, right outside of nyc)

Ones trying with hs math

The ones that had it easier getting jobs had masters. I dont know how good all of them were, since most of them arent tight friends

Another was aiming for middle school and has yet to get anything. A lot of districts have been cutting jobs, so its a bitch right now

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.

On September 29 2009 02:41 Navane wrote:
unemployment rates can be deceiving if you dont know the average unemployement length.

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.

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.

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.

On September 29 2009 01:25 Klockan3 wrote:

They do, but public health care will make physicians wages drop like a rock.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On September 29 2009 06:36 andrewlt wrote:



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.

On September 29 2009 07:31 orgolove wrote:
I'm personally glad that the ****** idiots that do not go to college out of high school have a hard time finding a job, just as they should be.

Failures at life

On September 29 2009 10:00 orgolove wrote:
In the US, there really is no excuse at all for not going to college. Whether a prestigious private university or a community college, the system is set such that if you look for it, you will get it. Don't sell me the bullshit about expensive and unaffordable tuition. It just means a difference between $20,000 debt when leaving college versus $30,000, which is still a pittance compared to what you gain from a college education.

On September 28 2009 14:16 mOnion wrote:
this is false, there's no way.

the highest US unemployment ever got to was 25%, and that was the shitter. the idea that we're in a 50% unemployment rate is just ludicrous.

false stats out the ass

On September 29 2009 07:44 Jonoman92 wrote:


There have been many idiotic posts in this thread. But I think yours may be the worst. Do you realize how unfeasible it is for every person in the world to get a college education before entering the workforce? I mean the majority of jobs out there you don't need 4 years of college schooling to adequately perform.

If every individual got a college education then it's not like the need for blue collar jobs would magically dissapear, while generally, higher paying, white-collar jobs sprouted out of nowhere. Do you want to be the guy who has student loans to repay but works the cash register at a grocery store because your degree is nothing special? You should be glad you have the opportunity to get a college education and not look down upon those who don't have that same option. You would most likely be better suited doing a blue collar job anyway, seeing as you seem to be pretty stupid.

On September 28 2009 12:33 lilsusie wrote:
Thus why I don't want to go back to the States

On September 29 2009 04:44 psion0011 wrote:
I just want to mention that a liberal arts bachelors degree graduate working at mcdonald's isn't underemployment at all

On September 29 2009 12:43 OreoBoi wrote:
This article is complete BS, it's basically fear mongering. It's what the media does to sell newspaper or get views on TV.
Any 16-18 that's not a student and doesn't have a job probably doesn't deserve a job. In a time of recession, who is going to hire a high-school drop out? I'll bet 100% of all 16 and 17 year olds that aren't students are unemployed. I'm not trying to sound like a jerk, but if you know there's a recession and you drop out of high school, you are an idiot.
As for people 18-24, in a time of recession, I think people have to go to a college or at least go somewhere where they can have an apprenticeship. You have to do something to increase your chances of getting hired. Learning a trade is just as good as, or even better than getting a degree. There is still demand for plumbers, carpenters etc.
I still believe that if you're not lazy and not an idiot, you can get a job. It might just be enough to support you, but you can at least have income.

On September 29 2009 07:31 orgolove wrote:

Failures at life

On September 29 2009 14:32 orgolove wrote:



Exactly. Some people in this thread refuse to acknowledge that the unemployment rate mentioned here only concerned "young americans." In this state of economy, do you really expect a high school dropout or a high school graduate without a firm plan for the future to have the tiniest chance of getting a job?

If you are one of the 52% of American youth that are a) not a student and b) do not have a job or an apprenticeship, then I repeat what I said before:



You don't deserve to live.


The US has not deteriorated so much that it's impossible to find a way to survive if you truly wish to support yourself, to live a life worth living.

On September 29 2009 18:36 Mora wrote:


you are a cunt.

i've not been so immature as to get angered by a tl.net forum post in a long time. i want to rant a scream at you for being who you are, but that would accomplish little, and i would act the child.

i just can't believe that people as ignorant as you actually exist. you've sincerely blown me away. like, i want to interview you to find out how you got to be the way you are. i'm not even trolling. you have me completely astounded.

On September 29 2009 22:51 Sadistx wrote:

Or he's trolling really hard and having a laugh at rageposts :p

On September 30 2009 01:12 Alizee- wrote:
I'm glad like 10% of the people actually commenting are American. Just remember, we go in the shitter, everyone else goes in the shitter.

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.