Is The Obama Youth Brigade "The Lost Generation"?

[Politico]

Here are a few excerpts from an informative article I read during some R&R. I am hoping we can discuss the ramifications of the Obama Economy upon this particular demographic in the short-run, medium-run and long-run with regards to politics and economics, with an obvious emphasis upon the 2012 presidential election:

On August 28th, President Obama told a group of college students in Iowa that Mitt Romney considers young Americans a “lost generation.” It was a classic case of projection. A Pew Research Center report released in February–in other words, during our ostensible recovery–reveals the grim reality of the current administration’s economic policies: 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.

Student loan debt has also skyrocketed, with each student borrower under the age of 30 owing a record-setting average of $20,835, according to data released in July by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Couple this reality with a Rutgers study showing the average starting salary for a college student has gone down 10 percent to $27,000 per year and the result is stark: FinAid loan calculator reveals it would take 11 years at that salary to pay off one’s loans.

Yet even if paying off one’s loans is burdensome, it has been commonly assumed for several years that a college diploma was worth it. Sadly, that has become an erroneous assumption. Data examined by the Associated Press last April revealed that college graduates have fared even worse than younger Americans overall. 53.6 percent of bachelor’s degree-holders under the age of 25 in 2011 were either jobless or underemployed. And many of these college graduates are employed in jobs that require a high school diploma or less. Young graduates employed as waiters, waitresses, bartenders and food-service helpers outnumber those employed as engineers, physicists, chemists and mathematicians combined, while cashiers, retail clerks and customer representatives substantially outnumber engineers.

First Lady Michelle Obama contended in her speech Tuesday night all Democrats and the president need is more time. “He reminds me that we are playing a long game here..and that change is hard, and change is slow and it never happens all at once,” she told the audience. “But eventually, we get there, we always do.” For millions of college graduates flipping burgers and waiting on tables, one suspects “eventually” doesn’t cut it.

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/the-lefts-lost-generation/

[5280]

The youth that lose hope in the current POS, Romney will gladly take their hand and walk the path of success. The others will vote 3rd party or stay home.

[LastVoter]

Here are a few excerpts from an informative article I read during some R&R. I am hoping we can discuss the ramifications of the Obama Economy upon this particular demographic in the short-run, medium-run and long-run with regards to politics and economics, with an obvious emphasis upon the 2012 presidential election:

On August 28th, President Obama told a group of college students in Iowa that Mitt Romney considers young Americans a “lost generation.” It was a classic case of projection. A Pew Research Center report released in February–in other words, during our ostensible recovery–reveals the grim reality of the current administration’s economic policies: 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.

Student loan debt has also skyrocketed, with each student borrower under the age of 30 owing a record-setting average of $20,835, according to data released in July by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Couple this reality with a Rutgers study showing the average starting salary for a college student has gone down 10 percent to $27,000 per year and the result is stark: FinAid loan calculator reveals it would take 11 years at that salary to pay off one’s loans.

Yet even if paying off one’s loans is burdensome, it has been commonly assumed for several years that a college diploma was worth it. Sadly, that has become an erroneous assumption. Data examined by the Associated Press last April revealed that college graduates have fared even worse than younger Americans overall. 53.6 percent of bachelor’s degree-holders under the age of 25 in 2011 were either jobless or underemployed. And many of these college graduates are employed in jobs that require a high school diploma or less. Young graduates employed as waiters, waitresses, bartenders and food-service helpers outnumber those employed as engineers, physicists, chemists and mathematicians combined, while cashiers, retail clerks and customer representatives substantially outnumber engineers.

First Lady Michelle Obama contended in her speech Tuesday night all Democrats and the president need is more time. “He reminds me that we are playing a long game here..and that change is hard, and change is slow and it never happens all at once,” she told the audience. “But eventually, we get there, we always do.” For millions of college graduates flipping burgers and waiting on tables, one suspects “eventually” doesn’t cut it.

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/the-lefts-lost-generation/

Obviously a real left-wing alternative that will hand out government jobs like candy is necessary.

[Sbane]

This was an inevitabl consequence of the recession. What type of magic will Romney employ to remedy this situation?

[AmericanNation]

This was an inevitabl consequence of the recession. What type of magic will Romney employ to remedy this situation?

Stop prolonging the recession and stop causing a new one. "Obama is the biggest wet blanket on the economy, ever."  Romney may even succeed in encouraging growth via policy, certainty, and confidence improvements. 

[Sbane]

This was an inevitabl consequence of the recession. What type of magic will Romney employ to remedy this situation?

Stop prolonging the recession and stop causing a new one. "Obama is the biggest wet blanket on the economy, ever."  Romney may even succeed in encouraging growth via policy, certainty, and confidence improvements. 

What exactly will he do? Is his plan to raise military spending a part of it?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Obama has not shown any sign that he knows how to handle the economy, so we may as well give Mittens a try. I understand the "well he might not do any better!" argument, but we know what Obama can do and as part of this generation, I want to give someone else a chance. If Romney fails we will try it again in 4 years with Hillary and Bill.

[Yank2133]

Obama has not shown any sign that he knows how to handle the economy, so we may as well give Mittens a try. I understand the "well he might not do any better!" argument, but we know what Obama can do and as part of this generation, I want to give someone else a chance. If Romney fails we will try it again in 4 years with Hillary and Bill.

The problem is we already know what Romney will do: the same GOP crap that hasn't worked.

[Sbane]

Obama has not shown any sign that he knows how to handle the economy, so we may as well give Mittens a try. I understand the "well he might not do any better!" argument, but we know what Obama can do and as part of this generation, I want to give someone else a chance. If Romney fails we will try it again in 4 years with Hillary and Bill.

Just giving someone a chance is not a good enough argument in my book, especially if they are promising to do irresponsible things like increasing military spending while the budget deficits are so high. I also don't think you can blame the gridlock in Washington solely on Obama, can you? Not with those tea party Republicans hanging around. I think Boehner is a good guy, and if Cantor and those tea party Republicans weren't in the equation, we likely could have got a deal back in 2011. And just the general populist "the economy ain't good so im'a throw out the incumbent" argument most certainly will not fly with me. I think the lack of a budget deal is the right place to attack Obama, but in my opinion he isn't solely to blame and he has shown willingness to compromise on entitlement reform, but similar willingness to compromise on taxes is rarely seen in Republicans.

Also any deal that happens needs to be bipartisan. It really does. If it isn't, it could just be overturned by the other party when they get in power, which creates uncertainty, and that is what we really need to avoid. Also Europe needs to get it's act together and all that good stuff.

[Lief 🗽]

Obama has not shown any sign that he knows how to handle the economy

This pisses me off. When Obama became president the economy was collapsing. Completely collapsing. If he didn't know how to handle the economy, then we'd be in much, much worse shape right now. The American automobile industry wouldn't exist. We'd have double digit unemployment. By every single measure, the economy is stronger and healthier now, in most cases significantly so, than it was when he became president. The man has worked incredibly hard to fix this economy and has done about as good a job as anyone in his position (with an opposition party actively working to sabotage growth) could have done. 

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The only way the economy would've collapsed is if the tea party had had their way and TARP had not passed and we let the banks all go belly up. Then yes, this economy would have collapsed. And it was Bush that did the autobailouts, but I agree they were a good idea regardless.

You're right though. I am not advocating the tea party take control, because they are reckless ideologues that only want to destroy this country and nothing more. They disregard fact and basic economics and are partially to blame for our ratings downgrade.

But economies run in cycles. The stimulus Obama passed was too much tax cuts and not enough spending on infrastructure and nation building projects. I doubt it had much of an impact (both sides will argue the opposite) on growth, and the debt is our biggest obstacle now. Under any president, we would have seen a weak recovery. But the facts remain that the work force is now the size of 1981, and the under employment is likely over 16% now. Romney may be a disaster, yes, but Obama has hardly been great with the economy.

Maybe I am a fool, but I trust Mittens will not cave to the radical tea party if he takes office. If it was up to them though, we wouldn't have a country today.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By passing Romneycare?

There are plenty of ways Romney could fix the economy. The problem is that he's on the wrong side of all of them.

[Indy Texas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is kind of misleading. Young graduates who majored in engineering or physics or chemistry or math are employed as engineers, physicists, chemists and mathematicians. Young graduates who majored in Medieval French Literature or Biracial Transgender Studies are employed at Starbucks.

[Link]

I am hoping we can discuss...

Source: http://frontpagemag.com

Get a real source and we'll see.  It is not our job to log in and debunk nonsense spewed out by right wing crazies on their blogs.  I have enough busy work as it is.

[King]

Contrary to popular belief, the youth are getting jobs and function just fine in this economy.  I see it first hand. Some in poorly selected majors are struggling to find careers in their field, sure, but that is always true.  Still, there are plenty of jobs available for young college graduates, even if it doesn't necessarily fit in their desired field.  Companies always want to hire youth.  Plus, with the Obama administrations reforms to health insurance for those under 26 and student loans, my poor "lost generation" has been given the best opportunity to start our lives the Greatest Generation was with the original GI bill.  A person can support themselves now just by working at Whole Foods much less if they actually found a job in their profession, which most can.

The slog in the economy is not from the young, but from the middle age and baby boomers.  These are people too young to receive social security and medicare but too expensive to hire and too old to train for new work.

You can try to dispute this for political gain, but the facts are obvious.  For as much as they tout self-responsibility, Republicans shouldn't be blaming the President for unemployed graduates.  If you are in your mid-20s with a degree and aren't employed, you are just aren't trying hard enough.  

[King]

The stimulus Obama passed was too much tax cuts and not enough spending on infrastructure and nation building projects. I doubt it had much of an impact (both sides will argue the opposite) on growth, and the debt is our biggest obstacle now.

Unfortunately, a vote for Romney isn't going to change this, Dukey. :@

[Sbane]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is kind of misleading. Young graduates who majored in engineering or physics or chemistry or math are employed as engineers, physicists, chemists and mathematicians. Young graduates who majored in Medieval French Literature or Biracial Transgender Studies are employed at Starbucks.

I think this is true. Although at the height of the recession even those with science and engineering degrees weren't finding jobs, things are slowly turning around there and most can if they bother to get a little experience while in college. But if you have a degree in the humanities...good luck. And I'm not saying that everyone in the humanities is doomed...but you should figure what exactly you want to do in the real world.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The stimulus Obama passed was too much tax cuts and not enough spending on infrastructure and nation building projects. I doubt it had much of an impact (both sides will argue the opposite) on growth, and the debt is our biggest obstacle now.

Unfortunately, a vote for Romney isn't going to change this, Dukey. :@

#grin

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is kind of misleading. Young graduates who majored in engineering or physics or chemistry or math are employed as engineers, physicists, chemists and mathematicians. Young graduates who majored in Medieval French Literature or Biracial Transgender Studies are employed at Starbucks.

I think this is true. Although at the height of the recession even those with science and engineering degrees weren't finding jobs, things are slowly turning around there and most can if they bother to get a little experience while in college. But if you have a degree in the humanities...good luck. And I'm not saying that everyone in the humanities is doomed...but you should figure what exactly you want to do in the real world.

I, at least, would like to teach the humanities.

[Politico]

Contrary to popular belief, the youth are getting jobs and function just fine in this economy.  I see it first hand.

King, I respect you, but what part of the following is unclear:

"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."

This is an unprecedented time, and it is telling that all of the youth on here are not chiming in to agree with you. As the old saying goes, we are each entitled to our own opinion but we are not entitled to our own facts.

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

[Beet]

You do realize that a huge chunk of that is the fact that a higher percentage of youth ages 18-24 are in college and other schooling now than ever before, and that is a good thing in the long run?



That's not to say that youth unemployment is not unacceptably high. But I fail to see how cutting Pell Grants, making students pay higher interest rates on loans, and kicking them off their parents' health insurance is going to make them better off.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

Wouldn't be surprising at all to find a higher percentage of the youth in college full time.  That would obviously account for lower employment

[Politico]

You do realize that a huge chunk of that is the fact that a higher percentage of youth ages 18-24 are in college and other schooling now than ever before, and that is a good thing in the long run?



That's not to say that youth unemployment is not unacceptably high. But I fail to see how cutting Pell Grants, making students pay higher interest rates on loans, and kicking them off their parents' health insurance is going to make them better off.

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 help young people saddle themselves with debt they will not be able to repay without life-altering consequences, or perhaps never be able to repay? It's madness, really, and it only benefits faculty/staff of colleges, but even that will not hold once the bubble bursts as it must eventually...

Using excessive government measures to create artificial markets, as I like to call it, distorts price mechanisms, leading to lots of nasty things such as bubbles that must burst eventually. When will most people learn this lesson?

[Beet]

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. E.g., it makes you more marketable. Yes, there are lots of degrees that aren't marketable, that's why I support tough standards for schools that receive students who pay from federal loans to show benchmarks and standards of post-graduation employment rates & ability to repay. On the other hand however, there's some value to people pursuing their dreams, even if it does not lead to a high salary, so long as they are employed.

Youth unemployment is at historically abysmal rates, only the statistic you used is a misleading one. More straightforwardly, you could have made the same point just by citing the youth unemployment rate, which in 2010 was also the highest rate since recordings began in 1948. Of course, it declined in 2011 and likely declined again in 2012. That's in line with a brutal recession and a long, too-slow recovery.

Declining youth labor force participation as a result of being in school, on the other hand, is also a real trend. A record high 45 percent of youth ages 18-24 were in some sort of school in 2011, from under 40 percent in 2002 about 31 percent in 1990. If anything, we sholud be encouraging this trend to accelerate, as all signs point to the skew of labor demand towards more skilled workers in the future.

Edit: I saw you edited your post with something about "artificial" markets. All markets are artificial, my friend. They are a human invention, they do not exist in nature.

[Politico]

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