Posted by Tina
Economic conditions for young people haven’t been this bleak since the Great Depression. In fact, this time the challenge may be even greater for the simple fact that this generation must start out under conditions that include of high personal college debt, high unemployment and underemployment, and national debt that will continue to take a big bite out of their future earnings unless major reforms are made.
Breitbart reports on the Young America’s Foundation’s annual Youth Misery Index:
Youth unemployment in 2014 was 18.1 percent (18.1 on YMI), with almost six million young people between the ages of 16 and 24 not in school or work. Many young people are simply giving up on finding employment.
Student loan debt for 2014 rings in at a record-breaking $30,000 (30.0 on YMI). Student debt has risen at an average of six percent per year since 2008, and today, 70% of college seniors graduate with student loan debt. In addition, the job market still hasn’t recovered, leaving many recent graduates with little or no income to pay back their loans.
National debt per capita for 2014 is the highest it’s ever been at $58,437 (58.4 on YMI). Young people will be stuck paying for government debt they had no part in creating, and they’ll have to do it with less discretionary income than ever before because of record-high levels of student loan debt.
Add it all up, and the YMI comes out to an astonishing 106.5 up from 98.6 in 2013.
The YMI has increased by 53.7 percent since 2008. Up and coming middle class warriors, the group of young people that America must count on to be the wealth producers of tomorrow, are being launched with a lot of ugly baggage to drag into the future. The only thing this group did to contribute to the misery is naively vote for and support a very progressive Obama administration and congress. Obamacare will add more fuel to the debt fire long term. I hope our young people wake up and realize the chains socialism imposes and the blunting effect big these government programs will have on their futures.
Republicans have taken the reins in congress. What will they now do to address youth misery? There are many ways to increase opportunities for good employment but the most important short term solutions would be to reduce complex, business killing regulations, reform the tax code, lower corporate rates, repeal and replace Obamacare, and build Keystone. Long term solutions might include budget reforms, SS and Medicare reforms, and education reform. We will be discussing many of these things as the next couple of years play out. The goal should be giving power back to the people. It is the people, particularly young people, who will generate economic growth and decide America’s future by making decisions, taking risks, and being creative and entrepreneurial as they seek a good life for themselves, their families, and their communities.
Will Congress be able to enact legislation that will invigorate growth and opportunity? Much depends on President Obama. He still has veto power and has shown little interest in abandoning his progressive, fundamental transformation policies. Is he ready to work with Congress? Time will tell. Young people are counting on him to recognize the misery his polices have generated for America’s youth.
How ironic that the youth and the black community were instrumental in electing Obumble, yet they are the two groups that have suffered the most under his “guidance.”
“There are many ways to increase opportunities for good employment but the most important short term solutions would be to reduce complex, business killing regulations, reform the tax code, lower corporate rates, repeal and replace Obamacare, and build Keystone.”
I’m curious…do you talk to any young people?
None of these proposals match the priorities of young people and none of them do anything to improve our opportunities. Keystone is a joke that will create virtually zero permanent jobs. There is no evidence that decreasing regulations and taxes on corporations and the wealthy will do anything to spur middle class growth. Don’t throw me the “It worked with Kennedy and Reagan” line because I know that already, and they were working with much higher rates when they lowered them than we are today. Reagan actually RAISED capital gains taxes and made them equal with income taxes, and you’ve rejected this proposal when I’ve said we should try it again. Obamacare has helped young Americans by allowing them to stay on their parents’ policies longer, insuring millions, and mandating contraception coverage which reduces unwanted pregnancies and abortions.
What would really help the youth of America is ensuring that young workers get the same opportunities their parents’ generation did. That means raising the minimum wage back to historical levels. It means increasing the power of unions. It means more leniancy with student loans. It means more investment in education. Republicans oppose all of these, and are only focusing on the methods you advocate because they are paid to by their corporate donors. That is the only constituency they care about. The rich and powerful are determined to convince everyone that what’s in their best immediate interest is also best for America. The youth of America aren’t buying it.
J don’t forget single women. Single women have also not fared very well and they went for him big time!
Chris I will have to get back to you. I don’t have enough time right now to write a full reply.
Yes, increasing jobs for youth should reduce the misery index. Those methods outlined by Tina would go far to giving the economy a boost by encouraging business to expand and create jobs. Building Keystone would indeed create thousands of jobs for young trades-people eager for work, not to mention youthful engineering graduates, etc.
Unions do not create jobs, raising the minimum wage does not create jobs, leniency with student loans does not create jobs.
By the way the notion that Republicans oppose investment in education or “leniancy (sic) with student loans” (whatever the heck that contrived nonsense means) is pure, unabashed, balderdash.
Some folks are just too blinded and indoctrinated by political demagogy to see it, but increasing jobs, especially quality, skilled jobs, is the single most significant answer to much of our woes, for youth, young adults, and the rest of us.
Pie: “Unions do not create jobs,”
Debatable. Job creation and the growth of the middle class were both strongest when the unionization rate was at its peak. That seems like less of a coincidence, and more because of the basic fact that when the working and middle classes are paid fairly, they have more to spend, which stimulates the economy.
“raising the minimum wage does not create jobs”
True, but it doesn’t significantly reduce jobs either. What it does is ensure that working people have a little more to spend, so the benefits clearly outweigh the negligible drawbacks.
http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm
“leniency with student loans does not create jobs.”
You’re not thinking long term. People who are deeply in debt are less likely to spend and take risks. That means not only less demand, it means less entrepreneurs–why take a big chance at starting a business when you’re already deeply in debt? Of course more jobs are created when people are less in debt.
You are simply wrong about Republicans not opposing student loan debt. Google “republicans student debt.” You will find many stories of Republicans opposing student loan forgiveness bills.
The O-man tells “The Street” where to put its money?
News to me.
“Building Keystone would indeed create thousands of jobs …”
Ignoramus. Hundreds … until the pipeline is built, at which point the hundreds will all have to find some other project of environmental degradation to lend their labor to.
There’s a bright and happy future.
You do make me puke.
Keystone is a “shovel ready,” “infrastructure” project. Liberals only oppose it because its oil related. It will produce jobs of all kinds as it help to make America a major exporter of oil and frees us and others in the free world from dependence on nations and bad actors that are the enemies of freedom. It is a single component of a plan to set people and businesses free from the extreme constraints and controls enacted by progressive thinkers. They tie the hands of the wealth and job producers and wonder why good jobs have disappeared.
Here’s another example of narroe thinking from Chris:
He begins by saying we need to give young people the “same opportunities their parents had.” Sounds good but guess what? Their parents began their adult life with a lot less government intrusion, a lot less union interference and greed, a lot less regulation, and a lot less of their income taken in taxes in general by all taxing authorities. A true comparison cannot be made if it does not include all of the negative effects that progressive policies and union demands have had on conditions.
Liberals are too short sighted, inexperienced, and narrowly focused to speak about how jobs, or a vibrant economy, are created. The last six years stand as testament to their ignorance in this area. The last seventy years stand as a warning about the destructive nature of progressive (liberal) policies over time.
And Libby:
She argues that big government projects brought us out of the depression but stands against this government shovel ready infrastructure project.
Keystone will not, by itself, change the economic outlook for us but it will help to make us energy independent, create jobs immediately, and make America an exporter of oil creating better opportunities for the free world to improve their defenses, preserve their freedoms, and yes, grow economically.
Libby should be puking! The last six years have not resulted in the progressive nirvana she and Obama envisioned under leftist rule. Indeed what has been created is a lot of part time, “hamburgerflipper” jobs for college graduates, a huge increase in poverty and joblessness, and destruction of the middle class!
The attitude of leftists after six years of utter failure is pompous and arrogant. Wasn;t it they who accused GWB of refusing to change course when what he was doing was not working? Yes they did. And what did GWB do? He changed course and did something that DID work. He didn’t double down and he didn’t call his critics “ignoramuses”…at least not in public. This criticism was directed at Bush’s war policy. As it turns out his critics don’t have a clue about defeating our enemies either which makes them nothing more than contrarians in search of power and control. They don’t care about the effectiveness of policies; they care about being tyrannically in control.
Tina: “Their parents began their adult life with a lot less government intrusion, a lot less union interference and greed, a lot less regulation, and a lot less of their income taken in taxes in general by all taxing authorities.”
Why do you say things which you know are not true? Both taxes and union membership were MUCH higher in my parents’ generation (as well as yours) than they are now. You know this.
Keystone won’t do anything to make us energy independent.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-07/keystone-xl-energy-independence-isnt-a-good-reason
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/11/20/keystone-xl-pipeline-ad-suggests-canadian-crude-will-reduce-reliance-on-foreign-energy/
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/keystone-pipeline-is-a-canard-113102.html#.VK2k9CvF-So
Keystone is nothing but another symbol. As a screw-you to lefties and environmentalists, it’s a powerful one to Republicans, and that’s where the investment in it comes from. As an actual solution, it’s completely irrelevant.
Re #6 Chris :
Pie: “Unions do not create jobs,”
Debatable. Job creation and the growth of the middle class were both strongest when the unionization rate was at its peak.
There is valid statistical evidence that the per capita consumption of sour cream and
Ooops …
Re #6 Chris:
Subject: According to Chris it is “debatable” whether unions create jobs because “Job creation and the growth of the middle class were both strongest when the unionization rate was at its peak.”
Reply: There is valid statistical evidence that from the years 2000 – 2009 the US per capita consumption of sour cream (in half pints) and motorcycle riders killed in non-collision accidents closely track each other. This goes beyond mere coincidence so of course they must be connected. http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=2032
Subject: Raising the minimum wage does not create jobs. According to Chris “True, but it doesn’t significantly reduce jobs either.”
Reply: Another lame (and tiresome) attempt at deflection, typical of Chris. Please try to stay on track, the subject here is job creation, not maintaining a high unemployment status quo that Chris, the left in general, and Democrats appear to so dearly love. (The more people dependent upon government, the more they like it.)
Subject: Student loans
Chris: “You’re not thinking long term.” Personal attack. How could Chris possibly know what I think? (Responding personal attack: Chris, you are an unthinking ass incapable of seeing the short or long term.)
Chris: “You will find many stories of Republicans opposing student loan forgiveness bills.”
So, Republicans think that people who take out student loans should be required to pay them back. You and others think they shouldn’t have to pay them back and have the debt forgiven. This is what you and the left consider “leniency”. Good lord.
“You’re not thinking long term” is a personal attack? Sorry Pie, I didn’t realize you were so delicate.
Revision and extension to #12 above —
Subject: Student loans
Chris: “You’re not thinking long term.”
Reply: Arrogant and irrelevant personal attack typical of Chris. How could Chris possibly know what I think short or long term? As usual, Chris launches a personal attack to try and make a dubious and really quite irrelevant side point that has nothing to do with “student loan leniency”. Of course, were all these graduates gainfully employed in their acquired skills, there would be no “student loan leniency” issue to begin with. Personal attack reply to Chris’ personal attack: Chris, you are an unthinking ass incapable of seeing the short or long term.
Chris: “People who are deeply in debt are less likely to spend and take risks. That [debt] means not only less demand, it means less entrepreneurs–why take a big chance at starting a business when you’re already deeply in debt? Of course more jobs are created when people are less in debt.”
Reply: Mildly interesting — because it is a laughable — half-assed, cobbled together hypothesis with no evidence to back it up. (If you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bulls**t.) Contrasting hypothesis: Entrepreneurs present business ideas to banks and other sources of capital based upon market research and other analysis, not based upon how much personal debt they are in, although indebtedness is a factor in any capitalization decision. Investment capital is provided based upon how likely it appears that the business proposal will succeed, a total equation, not mere indebtedness. To assert that personal debt discourages entrepreneurship has no merit and is simply ludicrous, nonsensical blather — typical of the ever arrogant Chris who thinks his **** smells like roses.
I suggest Chris take a few basic business and economics classes, he might actually learn something of value.
(Side note: Chris, being the arrogant sneak he is, cracked open the personal attack door. In order to have some fun with it, I have flung it open wide. I expect a hilarious denial from Chris to be be forthcoming.)
Hmmm, still here picking up some loose ends. No reply to #14. Works for me!
Re #13 Chris :
“You’re not thinking long term” is a personal attack? Sorry Pie, I didn’t realize you were so delicate.
Sorry Chris, but anything that denigrates a person’s intelligence and puts into question his or her thinking ability in order to make an argument qualifies as a personal attack. Now you attack me again with a presumed emotional state.
It never ends. Classic Chris, the man of thousand fallacies. Thanks for the laugh, buddy.
By the way, I truly thought your argument was exceedingly stupid, juvenile, and was a demonstration of myopic non-think. See how it works when you get it thrown back at you, dear boy?