Young adults today: No school, no job, living at home with mom and dad

2 good points. We need more STEM graduates and that we aren't competing with China in technology.

Making college free will raise the cost of college and will give us more Evergreen Colleges and less Harvard's as colleges compete for dollars. They will compete by lowering standards, not by lowering prices.

 

You believe that there are the same number of jobs available today as there were in the 1970's and 1980's for people just entering the workforce? The problem is just that people are too lazy?

 

I didn't say when I got those jobs, I have never posted my age. But I will say that no matter how many jobs are available, if I needed a job then I would get one. Even if it was cleaning toilets.

 

Caveman ...

 

......................................

 

ECONOMIC HISTORY OF THE EMPLOYMENT-TO-POPULATION RATIO

No, of course not. Not after the Great Recession.

Do you know what happened during the Great Recession in terms of jobs (meaning employment)?

This happened in Obama's first year in office in 2008 (from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Employment-to-population Ratio):

From 63% of the population employed, the percentage nosedived to 58.5% in 2010.

What did Obama do? With a Democrat Congress, he passed the ARRA-bill in 2009 of $830B in spending that spiked an exploding unemployment rate (see here). Which had been the worst since the Great Depression? But employment to population ratio stabilized at around 58.5%.

Obama wanted additional spending to accelerate the process. Guess what stoopidity happened in the mid-term elections (2010) - the Replicants took control of the house. They then refused all further Stimulus Spending offering as an excuse this BS called Austerity Spending supposedly necessary because of an "exploding debt". (Which disregards American history, when WW2-spending finally put an end to the Great Depression of the 1930s.)

Why did the Replicants refuse Stimulus Spending? Because, in fact, these reprehensible people wanted to keep unemployment high in order to defeat Obama in the presidential elections of 2012. Some people call that "power-politics", but who suffered most? America's poorest and unemployed.

WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

Regardless, as the Employment-to-population Ratio shows, the economy - after four long years - started to repair itself. Consumers had enough austerity and they started spending once again after Obama's reelection to office in 2014, which meant that Consumer Spending in the economy started recreating jobs (as seen above in the E-to-p Ratio).

BUT, it is still a long way from the 63/64% E-to-p Ratio of pre-2007. And regardless of what Donald Dork says or does (who cares anymore?) if one extrapolates that red-line above - which I have done - it should get back to the 63% level by, say, 2024.

AND FINALLY

So, once again we see that people do not understand the way politics interferes with economic policies. They just don't want their good-lives altered. Which is simplistic reasoning.

There is no such animal as a GUARANTEED ECONOMY with perpetually full employment and marvelous incomes for everybody.

There never was such a market-economy, and it never will be ...

 

Are you saying you didn't get those jobs in the 70's or 80's?

Just because you were able to do something doesn't mean the same is true for everyone. Perhaps you could answer the question?

 

That's where I was going. Thanks for doing the heavy lifting for me...

 

IN AND OUT

Most economies rise and fall like a tide. So employment cyclicity is a "given". What Market-economy Management* should seek to do is minimize the unemployment badness when the tide is out and also minimize Demand pricing-euphoria when it is in.

How each of us responds to any given economic circumstance is highly variable. In terms of Economy Management, however, we have only two tools (as described in the footnote) - Government Spending and Interest Rates. The former puts money into employed consumer's pockets and interest-rates tempts the money out and into expenditure.

Which makes the market economy wheel go round, go round, go round...

*Whazzat? Both the Fed and the Government have tools to affect Demand (which drives Supply).

 

So your argument is that all millennial single parents are failures, correct?

 

I don't provide that kind of personal information, I never have. My age, education, national origin, race, gender, employer, and other data are not for this forum.

People that are willing to work hard and are honest and diligent will get a job. That's how it works whether its today or the Depression.

 

And YOU are the sole judge and jury, right?

This is a "economics" debate forum, or haven't you realized the fact.

Perhaps you'd be happier on a Message Board slinging insults ... ?

 

Why don't we all go debate the matter in the "psychology" forum ... ?

 

To whom are you addressing the question and in reference to what?

See? It's nice to quote whomever&whatever if you want to exchange "debate" ...

 

Don't care about ur personal(not sure why you think I would be) info and to your next point. It makes no difference how willing you are to work if there are no jobs.

 

Perhaps you should be able to recognize the simple fact that everything I mentioned is an economics issue, and that the group I mentioned are a huge part of that economic failure.

I also noticed I made a statement in line with the topic, and the best you could do is attack me, instead of addressing what I said.

There's a plank in your eye, might want to get that looked at.

 

I'm arguing that in 10 years single parents increased 25%. Problem with millennials.

I'm arguing that in the last the number of 18-34 year olds living at home with mommy and daddy has grown exponentially.

I'm arguing that raising a child as a single parent has never been a good choice.

I'm arguing that children born in single parents tend to grow up in poverty with all those relative issues.

 

There are always jobs. The difference is that some people sit back and give up because they think there are no jobs, or they don't want to do what it takes to get the job, or they don't like the jobs that are available. Other people go out and find the jobs and do what it takes to get the job.

 

Okay, so again, you're applying all of the "ills" you see as a single parent to all millennial single parents? In other words, being a single parent hinders the ability to succeed in all cases?

 

I'm not sure why you're having problems reading simple sentences.

Go ahead and point out where I said every single millennial is a single parent, or that all single parents are millennials.

Clearly, the problem has grown worse under that group. So yes, millennials are more of a problem in general and are making the problems worse.

And yes, being a single parent hinders the ability to succeed.

https://singlemotherguide.com/single-mother-statistics/

Single mothers are much more likely to be poor than married couples. The poverty rate for single-mother families in 2015 was 36.5%, nearly five times more than the rate (7.5%) for married-couple families.16


More than half (51.9%) lived in extreme poverty with incomes below half of the federal poverty level17 — about $9,900 for a family of three. This translates into a weekly family budget of about $200.

 

So if there are people who don't have enough money, you think the solution is to borrow money to give it to them?? Something doesn't seem right with that picture.

Advocating the government borrow money to come up with the means to help people is entering a completely different issue than simply advocating that more money be spent to help them.
Borrowing money kind of just kicks the can further down the road, and incurs additional expense as well because there is interest on that debt that has to be repaid. I'm not convinced that the cost of spending money now exceeds the cost of spending money 10 or 15 years from now. If we're going to spend money, we need to come up with a means to pay for it now.

 

All I can do is *smh" at this alternative revisionist history post.




I read a lot of things but this Takes the cake.



.

 

One of the most overlooked aspects of the job market is that automation and software have eliminated millions of jobs. Another issue is that we no longer even attempt to enforce monopoly laws, we allow mergers to go unchallenged almost constantly. Every time a company buys another company jobs disappear. Charter bought TWC last year. Most of TWC is gone. Zayo bought Integra, Integra is gone. Keep watching the news, every time a company is bought, the acquired company and its employees are done.

 

Of course, single parents only make half as much. However, you can still be poor and be a good parent, and you can be rich and be a terrible parent, so it all depends. The chances of your kids being exposed to certain things are probably higher when you are poor, like drugs, drinking, etc., or perhaps criminal activity, but again that depends on how you raise them and if they are healthy mentally themselves.

 

It's all relative when it comes to why people are poor and all the other issues, but the psychology is definitely way more interesting for me than the economics. Anyways, I will say what I want, so zip it!