Is The Obama Youth Brigade "The Lost Generation"?

[King]

"Only 54.3 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 have a job. That represents the lowest rate of youth employment since the government started keeping records in 1948."

More Americans are attending college than ever before and have student loans and scholarships and their parents support and do not need to enter the job market.

I probably only worked about 6 months of college life.

I respectfully concede that your local area may not be representative of the nation as a whole, but do you concede the same?

Sure, but keep in mind I live in one of the poorest states in the Union.  If it's not showing up here, I have trouble believing it's anywhere else.

[Simfan34]

If Obama really had a fascist youth corps this would make me more likely to support him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08BAfKCfu74&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqF19Phn0Og&feature=related

If only they had nifty uniforms and had mandatory membership, one party state, etc, etc!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMLtkp4AFkc

If this was America I'd be D-NY! (Not that I'd have a choice, but still...)

[AmericanNation]

Even if one concedes your premise that more young people are in college which accounts for the historically abysmal rates, which I am not doing because i do not have data to verify that, how exactly is it good in the long-run for us to have lots of non-rich young people obtaining degrees that are not demanded by most anybody? Why should we subsidize non-marketable/non-productive degrees, and saddle young people with unpayable debt they will not be able to repay? It's madness, really.

Um, what the chart I just posted shows is that having a degree makes you worth a lot more to employers than not having one.

Not all degrees are created equal, as you're well aware, so your chart is largely useless with regards to the category "bachelor's degree." Put yourself in the shoes of a business owner: Why would you hire a debt-ridden student who majored in something unmarketable (e.g., fine arts) to do the job that a debt-free high school graduate can do (e.g., Starbucks), especially if the latter does the job without complaining whereas the former thinks the world owes them a living (i.e., OWS types)?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can agree with this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The youth unemployment rate does not include discouraged workers (i.e., Obama youth who have permanently retired to their parents' basement), so I believe the figure used in the article used is more relevant. The youth employment rate is not going up whereas the youth unemployment rate is going down. Are you going to chalk this one up to 18-25 year olds retiring en masse? Of course not. I suspect it's LARGELY, but not entirely, the discouraged worker effect rearing its ugly head.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And have graduation rates moved in the same direction of an appropriate magnitude? I suspect not, but I may be wrong.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Go tell that to Spain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously. With that said, there are free markets (or "natural markets," to clarify the context of "artificial markets") that emerge as a result of freedom of choice between consenting parties whom both obtain a net gain from their involvement in these markets. Then there are "artificial markets," which are markets that have been given a steroid injection, so to speak, via government intervention (or were created by the government to begin with). Obviously there are exceptions for certain public goods that are clearly essential (i.e., defense, law/order, etc.), but most "artificial markets" tend to be Frankenstein monsters, although they may appear to be the polar opposite in the short-run. Sooner or later, these markets end up being so distorted by government intervention that some (or all) of the parties directly and indirectly involved are getting screwed, although it may take time before this becomes apparent (e.g., poor people who were slaughtered by the well-intended subprime loans market, poor students who are being slaughtered by well-intended government loans for useless majors, etc.). The law of unintended consequences is the most dominant characteristic of "artificial markets," with a strong desire to ignore market forces on the part of the governmental authorities. l

Things change.  At one time a law degree would practically guarantee a huge increase in earning power.  Now, due to a glut of people with law degrees in the market place, earning power is greatly reduced in most situations.  I know some electricians who make more than some of my lawyer friends.  They also have a lot less debt, overhead, etc.  There is a huge shortage of welders right now.  The starting wages are, like 25-30 dollars an hour plus benefits.  Lefties in the "educational establishment blob" have been screwing stuff up (intentionally or not) for 30-40 years now.  I can (and do) teach kids a sport (and could teach a trade) in 9 hours a week for 8 weeks or so. 

[Kaine for Senate '18]

As the old saying goes, we are each entitled to our own opinion but we are not entitled to our own facts.

Since when has that mattered to you?

[mondale84]

This is a troll thread.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can we have an official list of Politico's non-productive degrees?

[Lief 🗽]

It's weird that Politico fails to mention that health insurance coverage among young people is now the highest it's ever been due to Obama's policies.

[Politico]

This is a troll thread.

Thanks for contributing to the discussion!

[Politico]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can we have an official list of Politico's non-productive degrees?

Open up any calendar, and you'll see obvious majors that are not demanded by any employers in any market. If a degree is not demanded in the market, does not appear to contribute towards economic growth, we should not be subsidizing it. If it is not demanded in the market, it is essentially a consumption good (or service, I guess) that gives utility to the recipient without increasing their economic opportunities (Sorry, OWS types, but the world does not owe you a living). That's fine for somebody who is willing to pay for that on their own, or have family pay for it. But let's just face it: Why should we be subsidizing fun and games? And it's doing nobody any good getting people overrun with debt so that they can extend High School for four more years...

[Politico]

It's weird that Politico fails to mention that health insurance coverage among young people is now the highest it's ever been due to Obama's policies.

Yes, and do you want to discuss how this has increased demand for services, which has raised the costs of providing health insurance coverage to employees, which are resources employers could have otherwise used hiring people?

I didn't think so. But you're probably in favor of a really poor, stagnant, European-style labor market, anyway. I mean, you are supporting Obama...

[Lief 🗽]

It's weird that Politico fails to mention that health insurance coverage among young people is now the highest it's ever been due to Obama's policies.

Yes, and do you want to discuss how this has increased demand for services, which has raised the costs of providing health insurance coverage to employees, which are resources employers could have otherwise used hiring people?

[citation needed]

The growth in health insurance costs is slowing down, again in part due to Obama's successful policies.

[Politico]

It's weird that Politico fails to mention that health insurance coverage among young people is now the highest it's ever been due to Obama's policies.

Yes, and do you want to discuss how this has increased demand for services, which has raised the costs of providing health insurance coverage to employees, which are resources employers could have otherwise used hiring people?

[citation needed]

The growth in health insurance costs is slowing down, again in part due to Obama's successful policies.

The citation needed is called a supply and demand framework. You force employers to keep providing health insurance to the kids of their employees until they are 26, that's an increase in demand for health services from those kids who are 22-26 and using their parents' health insurance (Good thing 25 year old "Little" Johnny is covered by his parents for that penicillin he needs after last night's fun!). Anytime you increase demand for something, you increase its price, and this is no exception. Anytime employers have added labor costs for current employees, those added labor costs are resources that could have otherwise been spent on training current employees for career advancement (opening up entry/mid-level positions down the road), hiring new employees, etc. (the list is very extensive)

This interference is doing more harm than good. The biggest problem is that the benefits are explicitly clear but the costs are not. EVERYTHING has both explicit and implicit costs, not just benefits...

[Lief 🗽]

Then show me this increase in health insurance prices that the market demands. It's not happening. Health insurance costs are slowing their growth.

[Politico]

Then show me this increase in health insurance prices that the market demands. It's not happening. Health insurance costs are slowing their growth.

Are you seriously trying to argue that forcing employers to provide insurance to employees with kids who are 22-25 ended up lowering the cost to employers of providing health insurance?

[Lief 🗽]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/business/health-care-premiums-rise-modestly-report-says.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.kff.org/insurance/ehbs091112nr.cfm

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Professor politico, I asked for your list of non-productive degrees. Do you not have one?

[Politico]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/business/health-care-premiums-rise-modestly-report-says.html

Thank you for proving my point since Obamacare was signed in 2010, where we saw a 9 percent increase from 2010 to 2011.

I suspect health care costs are increasing at a decreasing rate largely because we're reaching a ceiling on how far these costs can soar, and Baby Boomers are starting to move off payrolls and onto Medicare.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, and there are significant costs involved with these benefits as demonstrated by the previous quote.

[Lief 🗽]

The provision of the Affordable Care Act that allowed young adults to remain on their parents' health insurance didn't come into effect until the end of 2010, so there would have been little to no effect on insurance costs in 2010 due to that (and the 9% in 2010 is actually historically not that large either, especially compared to the yearly double digit increases of the late 1990s and early 200s). The first full year in which this provision was in effect saw historically low growth rates in insurance costs. There's no correlation between the dramatic increases in costs you're warning about and young adults enrolling in greater numbers, at all. And the percentage of firms offering health insurance plans increased last year after falling during the recession, so no great negative effect there either. You're gonna have to try again.

[Beet]

Why would you hire a debt-ridden student who majored in something unmarketable (e.g., fine arts) to do the job that a debt-free high school graduate can do (e.g., Starbucks)

Tell that to all the employers who hire someone with a degree outside their field over someone with no degree. Recent college graduates who majored in the arts have an unemployment rate of 11.1 percent. Recent high school graduates have an unemployment rate-- get this-- 31.1 percent, according to the Economic Policy Institute. So even going to college for "something unmarketable" somehow cuts your chance of not being able to market yourself by two-thirds.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can agree with this.[/quote]

And you do realize the Obama administration has greatly strengthened the requirements on private colleges that receive federal student loan funds.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why not simply add discouraged workers to the unemployment rate? I pointed out a major flaw in your figure, but rather than acknowledge that you're making up any excuses to ignore my critique. I'll help you: From 2010 to 2011, the increase in the absolute number of youths not the labor force came entirely from those who didn't want a job (in fact across all ages, the increase in those not in the labor force overwhelmingly came from those who didn't want a job; not discouraged workers). (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat35.htm) That supports my thesis- rising educational participation. The number of those who were not the labor force but wanted a job (the definition of discouraged workers) did not increase at all, despite an increase in the youth population. So both youth unemployment and youth discouraged workers, as a percent of the youth population, fell, in line with the worst year (at an annual average) being in 2010 and that we have been in a gradual recovery since then.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All markets were created by government intervention.

[Politico]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Professor politico, I asked for your list of non-productive degrees. Do you not have one?

Off the top of my head, I suspect these majors send a strong signal to employers that there is probably not much differentiation between them and high school graduates (and there is another, far more extensive, list of majors that I would say make one only marginally more attractive than high school graduates. However, I'd rather not go there as I suspect a number of folks on here possess or are pursuing such majors):

Art History
Film Studies
Fine Arts
Folklore and Mythology
Music
Philosophy
Theater
Women/Gender/Sexuality Studies

Of course, that is not to say those disciplines are useless or ALL people who obtain a major in them are doomed (there are exceptions to every rule, as an intelligent man such as yourself realizes). On the contrary, all knowledge is useful in one way or another, and there would still be demand for all of these subjects in the absence of direct/indirect subsidies. It's just that some majors are not really that useful in any marketplace. Non-productive was perhaps a poor choice of words. Unmarketable is more appropriate.

[Politico]

The provision of the Affordable Care Act that allowed young adults to remain on their parents' health insurance didn't come into effect until the end of 2010, so there would have been little to no effect on insurance costs in 2010 due to that (and the 9% in 2010 is actually historically not that large either, especially compared to the yearly double digit increases of the late 1990s and early 200s). The first full year in which this provision was in effect saw historically low growth rates in insurance costs. There's no correlation between the dramatic increases in costs you're warning about and young adults enrolling in greater numbers, at all. And the percentage of firms offering health insurance plans increased last year after falling during the recession, so no great negative effect there either. You're gonna have to try again.

I am glad you think 250,000 jobs are being created each month, a $700 increase in something is chump change, a four percentage point increase (which is about 100% higher than inflation) is nothing, and increasing demand for something does not increase its price. This is a wonderful liberal utopia you live in. I'd like to join you, but I am stuck in reality.

[Politico]

Why would you hire a debt-ridden student who majored in something unmarketable (e.g., fine arts) to do the job that a debt-free high school graduate can do (e.g., Starbucks)

Tell that to all the employers who hire someone with a degree outside their field over someone with no degree. Recent college graduates who majored in the arts have an unemployment rate of 11.1 percent. Recent high school graduates have an unemployment rate-- get this-- 31.1 percent, according to the Economic Policy Institute. So even going to college for "something unmarketable" somehow cuts your chance of not being able to market yourself by two-thirds.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can agree with this.

And you do realize the Obama administration has greatly strengthened the requirements on private colleges that receive federal student loan funds.[/quote]

That does not surprise me since a private college is a substitute service for a public college, and we all know how much the Obama Administration loves the public sector over the private one. They'd much rather see those loans artificially propping up certain departments in the public colleges that cannot sustain current operating levels in the absence of loans/subsides. Of course, this bubble will burst as they all do eventually.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're more than welcome to do that. I pulled the figure from the article because I do not have time for that. The employment rate is abysmally low and not going up but the unemployment rate is going down. This implies people are exiting the labor market. I suspect a lot of it is the discouraged worker effect, not incarceration/institutionalization, retirement or returning to school. Obviously this is difficult to prove.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunately, the BLS is unable to contact Obama youth who have permanently retired to their parents' basement. They don't exactly answer the phone. You have far too much faith in the BLS' figures on this particular issue given the nature of the demographic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only LOL is that you suggested we should encourage more people going to college. Spain is already well ahead of us in that regard. How is it working for them?

I am fine with assistance for poor young adults who want to make more of themselves and are willing/capable of doing so (I am still a disillusioned Democrat, after all). However, we are not really doing any good for anybody by over-subsidizing anything. We should have learned this lesson from the subprime mortgage fallout.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fixed.

Markets naturally emerge when society has a legal framework that protects individuals from tyranny both at home and abroad. If a citation is needed, I suggest the Constitution.

[Beet]

You're more than welcome to do that. I pulled the figure from the article because I do not have time for that. The employment rate is abysmally low and not going up but the unemployment rate is going down. By definition, this implies that the number of discouraged workers is going up (unless you are suggesting massive incarceration/institutionalization of youth is taking place!)

Wow, I've just wasted a couple hours chatting with you and you still act as if I haven't said a thing. I beg, you man, I beg you, read my posts! Otherwise those two hours of my life are gone forever, all for naught.

Hey Lief-- you may also be interested in this. The total savings from the medical loss ratio refunds. Also this article on some recent experiments on health care cost control.

[Politico]

Beet, I'm going to let you in on a dirty little secret: Just like Potter Stewart once said that  hard-core pornography was hard to define but you know it when you see it, a good or bad economy is hard to define but you know it when you see it. This is a bad economy, and there's no point in us self-deluding ourselves. I backed the stimulus in 2009. It seemed like a good idea at the time, and it should have worked in theory. It did not work. The why is complicated, but it probably comes down to most of the funds being transfers and wasteful spending on special interests as John Taylor argued in his paper on the matter. There is no point in trying it again with the same administration (not that, that could happen with a GOP House, anyway).

You can try spinning with BLS data on the youth labor market (are they doing Facebook and World of Warcraft outreach now? LOL), but we are staring at the prospect of a "Lost Generation" the likes of which the nation has never witnessed before. And it's only going to get worse unless something changes and soon. That change needs to be Romney because there is no other viable alternative for four more years.

[King]

Politico is just displaying how Romney's entire campaign is built on emotions and opinions that seem factual, but really fly in the face of facts.