America Eats Its Young

A new report released by the Economic Policy Institute (and reported in the WSWS) said that the jobless rate for young workers in the U.S. is the highest since records started to be tracked in 1948. To make matters worse, there is virtually no safety net for youth. Unemployment insurance is only available to those who have already been working and who lost their jobs, not for people trying to enter the workforce for the first time.

The unemployment rate for young people ages 16-24 not attending school has roughly doubled since 2007. While the official unemployment rate was 9.6% in 2010, the rate for 16-24-year olds was at 18.4%. Recent high school graduates have been hardest hit with an unemployment rate of 22.5%. However, even recent college graduates are struggling, with their unemployment rate more than double that of college graduates who are 25 or older. The situation is even bleaker for youth of color. The unemployment rate for 16-24-year old high school graduates is 22.8% for Hispanic youth and 31.8% for African-Americans.

Not only are younger workers having a tough time finding work, over half of all college graduates also have at least $20,000 in debt. Furthermore, youth are ineligible for most of the social safety net programs that are available to struggling families. Welfare is only applicable to parents with children and, like unemployment insurance, has work requirements. SNAP (i.e., food stamps) is only good for three months every three years, while most workers are spending over a year in their job searches before finding work. Another safety net program, the Earn Income Tax Credit, also requires employment.

Contrary to the propaganda of the Obama Administration, the high unemployment rate for young workers is not due to their lack of education. U.S. businesses have been making record profits, so the money for hiring is there. However, they are not hiring. They have pushed up productivity to unprecedented levels by downsizing and speeding up, squeezing more work out of fewer employees. Rather than giving these highly productive workers a raise, they have pocketed the profits and created a growing army of surplus labor, so desperate for an income that they are willing to work for less, accept non-unionized jobs, and even scab on unionized workers. It is in the bosses’ interests to maintain this army of unemployed workers to help drive down wages and weaken unions.

In contrast, it is in the interests of labor and youth activists to organize among the unemployed, especially the young, something that is not happening. Historically, the unions have accepted the ruling class lies that other workers are their enemies, perpetuating racist, sexist and nationalist antagonisms. A similar situation looms today, with a potential scapegoating of youth, blaming them for job losses or declining wages. Rather, labor and other activists need to proactively organize workers and unemployed, alike, to resist the escalating class war against the rest of us.

Modern School
http://modeducation.blogspot.com/

Yay for more false unemployment metrics!:bounce:

Ucubed is the union of unemployed;
http://www.unionofunemployed.com/

There are just so many good groups that we are dispersed, diffuse and ineffective in small non-unified numbers. Hence the reason for the union consolidation I guess, AFL-CIO, Teamsters swallowing so many segments.

Also, firms know that desperate young workers will work for free as interns... the new slavery.

Even with far more access to defined benefit pension plans, far cheaper college education, and a housing market which used to let people at the median income afford home ownership, 2/3 of us are STILL mostly or totally dependent on Social Security. The Repukes want to cut SocSec benefits for our kids, and the Dems will "compromise" to some level of cutting between no cuts and "slashing."

There's even one of those PBS infomercials about trying to find a job over 40 or something.

Dems will sell us out and favor the rich I think - even when they know 80% are furious. That's pretty telling.

Who do not believe other workers are the enemy, or perpetuate racist, sexist and nationalist antagonisms.

And having a college degree Does make it easier to find a job.

While it might not be popular to say it, the recent minimum wage increases are what is killing youth employment.
Inexperienced and less educated workers can only compete on wage.
If you're hiring someone they ultimately have to return more value to you than they 'cost'. Raising the cost of the least skilled labor just pushes it to the sidelines.
Worse, it robs that youth of the opportunity to develop the work skills that will be critical to them their whole lives.

was the wholesale removal of our means of creating wealth outside of our borders, leaving only ditchdigger and doctor jobs, when the real need is for a robust group of jobs in the middle of that.

What cemented our current problem is 1) the lack of tax revenue (Reagan lowered taxes and the economy began to fail, then Clinton and HW Bush raised them it got better, then Bush lite lowered them and the economy crapped out again) and 2)the greedy, crooked slimebags in the financial world pulled their little tricks.

It killed demand in our economy, which is the ONLY thing that has ever created jobs.

Should we ignore those who purposely sold off the manufacturing sector jobs for short-term profit, lowered taxes to the point that there is not enough revenue to fund the things we expect government to do, and enabled a giant Ponzi scheme only topped by continuing to funnel hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars to reward the criminals that created it?

If so, then, yes, paying people $1 an hour, or even less, might seem reasonable. Hey, it works in Bangladesh - check the label on your shirt.

Put in your mind the vision of mothers wrapping their dead children in a blanket and laying them on a cool, dark shelf because there is not enough money to bury them, where people depend on workhouses to get a few pennies for a little food, or even heat.

Because that is what leaving the minimum wage behind gets us. The only person robbing the youth are the people who want to steal their labor for less than it is worth.

"It's incorrect to say that minimum wage is killing jobs"

No, it's not. It is a fact derived from the most basic principle in the discipline of economics - supply and demand. If you attempt to raise the minimum wage by government fiat the most marginal workers (low education level and inexperienced) will find themselves unemployed.

"It killed demand in our economy, which is the ONLY thing that has ever created jobs."

What, in your view, is 'demand'?
I mean, at the very base level of economic activity, what is 'demand'?

Is demand someone merely wanting something, or is it actually someone having created something and being willing to exchange it for something else they want more?

"The only person robbing the youth are the people who want to steal their labor for less than it is worth."

Who determines what a youth's labor is worth? Congress via arbitrary diktat, or the person trading their production for the production of the youth?

When someone can only offer $5/hr of value, are they not 'robbed' when Congress says they're not allowed to trade at that level, even if they want to? Is making $0/hr really in their interest vs. $5/hr?

to have it when they have no money to spend, however.

And no, everyone shouldn't be able to do anything they want. That's childish. Like not being able to use a spell-checker.

We as a society determine what labor is worth. Years ago we used to leave that up to the employer, but lying, greedy and ignorant employers who cheated every employee they could made it necessary to institute a minimum wage to at least try and ameliorate such evils, try and make sure the employee could eat and have someplace to live. Unfortunately inflation makes it largely irrelevant, but we try.

But there are always bottom feeders with no morals (usually employers and the people they buy to be on their side) who argue that none of the societal benefits of people having food or heat matter, and they should be allowed to drive down wages as far as they want. They exploit people and cause great harm to our country. Alan Greenspan incorrectly thought the same thing - he said there was no such thing as a bad transaction because if it wasn't on the up and up one side or the other wouldn't complete the transaction. After the thieves on Wall Street and in the mortgage companies proved him wrong, he ate those words. In front of Congress.

Unfortunately he left a lot of people who can't eat anything in his wake.

It's really not worth wasting time talking about. That power of the society to create the kind of life it wants has to be used with care, but the fact remains that workers do better when there is a minimum wage, and we are more secure and wealthy when we pursue such policies - as most well-developed nations (also with AAA bonds, btw) do. It is largely irrelevant as far as jobs go because the jobs we are talking about are mostly those that aren't worth having, which don't pay a living wage and keep people in poverty. I will ALWAYS disagree with them. And if the employers don't like it, I am sure one of their competitors, ones of those with a soul, would be more than happy to take a little less so they can treat people a little more like worthwhile human beings.

Soooooooooo, bye.

"Demand is when people want to buy product. Does no good to have it when they have no money to spend, however."

No, demand is when someone has something to trade for what they want.
You're conflating 'want' and 'demand'.

Depending which side of the transaction you're standing on you have the 'supply' (something someone is willing trade for), or you have the 'demand' (something someone is willing to trade away). Both parties have 'wants', or they wouldn't seek to trade with one another. The store owner wants your supply of dollars, you want his supply of goods. 'Wants' are essentially unlimited, but supply is not.

"And no, everyone shouldn't be able to do anything they want."

Why shouldn't I be free to sell my car for $1, or my time for $1/hr? Why shouldn't I be free to give them away if I want?

"We as a society determine what labor is worth."

Society will determine what labor is worth via the natural relationship of supply and demand. You're conflating society with government. You want to substitute laws and force for individual's own perception of what they value and how much.

"the fact remains that workers do better when there is a minimum wage"

Workers who receive minimum wage do better under such a law, but at the expense of other employees who are worth more and can't be paid as much as they are worth to make up the difference, consumers forced to pay more to make up the difference, and last but not least, those unskilled/uneducated workers who find themselves without employment at all under a regime that says their abilities have no market.
There is no free lunch.

"It is largely irrelevant as far as jobs go because the jobs we are talking about are mostly those that aren't worth having, which don't pay a living wage and keep people in poverty."

Who are you to tell someone they should earn zero instead of what they're willing to earn? Who are you to decide for someone else what job is 'worth having'? Whence comes this god complex?
My first summer working I made more than minimum wage, but the job involved hours I eventually didn't like. Getting up at 5am to be able to serve food at 6am is kind of a shitty way to spend summer break, but it did pay better than the other unskilled summer jobs available, so I took it.
The next summer I chose to work for less than minimum wage (seasonal work exception), but the hours were better for me and so was the 'work' (ogling tourist's daughters at the water park beat the hell out of working in a mess hall).
If you had your way I couldn't earn that money that summer for spending. I didn't need a 'living wage', I just wanted spending money, and I had time to trade.

Seeya around

you have Supply without Demand, your expenses increase and prices, including the price of labor, goes down. That coin is too heavy on one side. I think it is fake.

Trying to stimulate from the top down hasn't worked in 30 years, and it is time to quit trying failed fanaticisms.

The economy, like any structure, benefits most when it is supported from the bottom up. If people are really able to get OR stay wealthy without government assistance, good for them. But jobs programs, wage manipulation, these are all tools a society which wants to manage it's economy, not be managed by it, and not be dict acted to by wealthy and spoiled little tycoons. They are nobody's friend, and helping them stay that way by paring resources from the most vulnerable is a sick thing for a society to do.

So price supports for labor is overall good for us, imo.

Do unto others.