Majority of Young Adults Live w/ Parents as Economy Fails Them

This guy was the darling of the intelligentsia when he attacked Republicans. Now Democrats are the preferred party of the very rich so he wrote..
http://www.listenliberal.com/

He states that today, Democrats will greet each other asking, "and what college did you go to?". Not making it? No college. Went to college? Wrong one. Right one? Wrong subject.

I'm all with the skills crowd but not everyone is going to be an electrician either. We need jobs with a living wage for people that work at unskilled labor too. And that is, I think, much less likely to happen if we keep importing our replacements that drive wages down.

 

There is nothing wrong with 18-25 year-olds living with parents. You left out the most important factor: Why!

I have 3 in that age group living with me. 2 are in college and my niece is saving for a down payment on a home.

There is a difference between those using their parents home to better their future and those using it to rack up frequent loser miles. Blaming the economy only enables laziness.

 

at least they are relying on family, not government handouts. That is as it should be, and is what family is for.

 

They bought into the lie that they are entitled to whatever they want, without having to work for it.

Happiness is a pursuit, not a guarantee.

 

So I guess those "social justice" degrees didn't work out too well huh?

 

It taught them to cover their faces with black masks, carry riot shields made from blue plastic drums and wear airsoft helmets.
It didn't teach them what to do when faced with people who possess the will and the means to fight back.

 

So when we are in hard economic times (your words) do you not provide for the population to survive, or do you let a select few gain an 'education'?

That's not building a world you want to live in, that is creating a class that only receives, and doesn't give.

Or, considering my mood today, let the masses starve while an elite few read Socrates?

 

That is another bit of a logical fallacy. Some education makes a country successful, then implying that means more education will make a country more successful.

The country has never had as many young people with college degrees as it has today.

 

No, it's a necessary but not sufficient assertion.

Yet we routinely have shortages of people with stem degrees.

You're hunting for excuses, you won't find them..

 

1.4 million new jobs were created last month. The economy is reopening, and will provide yet more jobs, month to month as we get closer to November. Why are you so against this?

 

I believe this is mostly a myth that's been going around.

We've had other threads discussing this, so I am not going to do so here.


http://www.politicalforum.com/index...rket-for-young-people.455833/#post-1068646957

 

Bannon isn't a globalist. He believes in populist nationalism. Like both parties both use to..

Economically he sounds like an FDR democrat, a rarity today. But I have followed him for years.

There used to be conservative dems and liberal Republicans. Before rinos and dino and purity tests.

 

Orange Man Bad

 

Not really interested in your myths...

"There is no doubt that to advance our economy and our society we need to create the next great technology innovations, not just consume them. That’s why there is such urgency for the U.S. to develop a stronger workforce of experts in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). After all, according to the U.S. Department of Labor, only 5% of U.S. workers are employed in fields related to science and engineering, yet they are responsible for more than 50% of our sustained economic expansion.

So it is clear that to benefit our economy and society, our national priority should be on encouraging more students to study STEM. Unfortunately, the U.S. is trending in the opposite direction. When I graduated from college, about 40% of the world’s scientists and engineers resided in the U.S. Today that number has shrunk to about 15%."

From those cwazy wadicals at Forbes!


https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbes...-students-heres-how-to-get-them/#450d64fa7497

 

Wow, hold up! The two have nothing necessarily to do with each other.

Simply minting out more science degrees is not going to lead to more technological innovations. To do that, you need actual investments in real research.
You seem to be making the erroneous assumption that if we just educate them, someone will hire them.
I've heard countless anecdotal stories about science grads who had to switch to some other career field because the jobs weren't really there.

Maybe we should start a separate topic about this issue to discuss it in more depth, so we don't derail the discussion in this topic.

 

It just amazes me that folks can support the folks who aren't willing to allow the economy rebound. Think about it. Democrats insist that nothing be done to improve the economic devastation they themselves insisted was necessary. And at the same time, they have adopted this insane anti-vax position that suddenly makes them both anti economy, and anti science. It's like christmas but in September...

 

They're willing to do everything it takes to win in November - it matters not to them how many people needlessly suffer or how many times they have to lie.
The ends, see, justify the means.

 

This is why you need to pay attention, I also said we had to put money into R&D (you know, instead of tax cuts for billionaires).

 

Love how you project, completely unaware of who you're really talking about.

If Trump did what most of Europe did, 3/4 of the dead would not be dead, and he's lied tens of thousands times.

And more than anyone else in American politics, for Trump the ends justify the means.

 

We don't need any more money in education. Put it into R&D.

If you create the good paying jobs, the people will come.

At the very least, I'd like to see $2 spent in R&D for every additional $1 in education.

By the way, China will most likely steal all our technology and the benefit won't end up going to us.

 

Or maybe we need to recognize the fact that all of us don't have to work like Trojans 24/7 to justify our existence or at least we shouldn't have to. It doesn't bother all of you "we don't work to live, we live to work" types that the main guy pushing that idea has never worked one minute of honest toil in his entire existence?

https://www.amazon.com/War-Normal-People-Disappearing-Universal/dp/0316414247

 

Yeah, I don't have a problem with that. We have been improving our relationship with China (before Trump, of course) They have an IP court now, and it works. The spying is a problem, but we've been working on that as well.

I think the big problem is that other countries will spend serious money to dominate a field (like China with solar panels), and we just don't. A sidenote, we do a lot to promote agriculture exports, and that's just nuts, it's what countries just starting to build capitalist markets do. We also use up a lot of international goodwill doing that.

 

I don't believe it really does. I think it's a lot more complicated than that.

Also it's questionable whether constant technological progress should really be relied upon for continued economic wellbeing.
That's like expecting continued things that we cannot predict well to be what is maintaining the status quo.

 

Which main guy are you writing of?
ITMT: Universal income, or things like it have a lot of strange bedfellows. Yang seems to be a pretty standard re-distributionist. Charles Murray, a conservative suggests just making no strings attached payments to the poor would serve our society better than huge bureaucracies that make them jump through hoops (ie to get WIC, women must socially disenfranchise the fathers of their children).
I understand it has been tried and failed but under very suspect conditions. We should give it a fair trial.

 

Its true that the economy has been especially tough for millenials. But again, we are the generation famous for our impractical liberal arts degrees. I got a computer science degree and have done great.