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

The government borrows money from itself when it creates it from thin air. Borrowing, by itself, isn't an issue. Just like when you pass "Go" and collect $200 in Monopoly. The bank just creates money and give it to players, without it there wouldn't be enough money to purchase all the properties and pay for improvements. Every time the bank hands a player money, the bank (if it ran like a government) would be negative, but the players would be inversely positive. The players use the banks negative as income to make purchases and improvements.

 

No, there are always jobs that are open. A business may not have enough work to justify hiring a standard employee, but they will hire someone who will work under other conditions. An experienced senior engineer may not get a job at the senior engineer salary, but if he says he will work as a senior engineer but at junior engineer wages, he is much more hirable.

I spoke about this jobs issue with a neighbor over the weekend. His grandfather during the depression lived in Baton Rouge, could not get a job, so he left his family, went to New Orleans, showed up very early Monday morning at a delivery company, met the manager as the manager arrived at the company. His grandfather told the manager he would work for 2 days for free, if the manager liked what he saw then he could hire him at whatever the manager thought was fair and appropriate. The grandfather was the first one to show up in the morning, helped load his truck (not his job) and helped unload his truck (not his job) and skipped lunch and breaks, he delivered more each day than any other driver. He was hired and worked just as hard for the 3 years he was there, traveled back to his family on most weekends.

Sometimes it takes work to get a job.

 

When prices are allowed to move to the intersection of the supply and demand curves, markets clear.

 

Nonsense.

Parents nurture their children who become adults and are then responsible for their own lives.

Those lives may evolve in completely different economic conditions than that of their parents. It's only Americans who believe (naively) that ecnonomic conditions must always evolve positively.

The Great Recession should have taught us otherwise, but apparently the lesson has been lost on us ...

 

There is no law stipulating when "parental oversight" terminates. Parents tend to know when their children are able to "go it alone". Shat happened in 2008/10, it's going to take at least a decade for the market-economy to get back to "normal". That is, if Donald Dork doesn't self-implode it.)

Yes, a whole decade - which most Americans (deeply accustomed to Instant Gratification) seem unable to understand ...

 

It is roughly the same, but since the cost of going back to University to "pursue another calling" is not that expensive some people do reenter. I know of several who have.

Education need not be expensive. Neither HealthCare. But for reasons beyond any serious explanation they are in the US.

Which is why some Europeans look upon it as a "backward" country. That is, it just does not have its humanitarian principles right. As the principal human endeavour we seem to be fixated upon making a lotta muney - not all of us, but still a great many.

Everything in life is a matter of "values" - either a people have them or they spends eons wandering in search of them ...

 

That is incredibly ironic as I am a Sr. Engineer. I was working for VCE (now part of Dell EMC and the reason I was laid off). As part of Dell's buyout of EMC (VCE's parent company), there were a ton of System Engineers laid off in the DC area (HP also made huge cuts at the same time).

I can tell you for a fact, that, generally speaking, companies will not as a policy hire highly qualified people for positions they are overqualified for. They realize that and skills they may gain from an overqualified employee generally aren't worth it. Overqualified people generally don't work as well as less qualified people (despite the fact that goes against intuition) and most people will move on as soon as the market improves leaving companies with increased hiring costs and in some situations negating any advantage that might have been gained hiring more qualified workers. I know because I went after several Jr. positions for companies I wanted to work for and spoke to several recruiters who explained to me that while my qualifications were impressive, they were looking for someone with lesser skills. Even when I explained that I would take less because I was interested in the opportunity to work with market leading companies and considered the opportunity a fair trade, I was still rebuffed.

Now that's not to say, it never happens, but the world of negotiating positions salaries, stock options is largely a thing of the past unless you are willing to take a risk with a startup.

Then there is H1B...

Irrelevant, this isn't the 1930's, the world that exists today is virtually indistinguishable.

Tell me about it. I started out washing dishes, then at a shoe store, and moved my way to management in retail at an average salary. I gave it up to work in IT at 25. Started out working a helpdesk at $12 an hour in the mid-1990's and today I work for an 8 billion dollar Cloud Service provider with 200pb of data under management (who knows, we might host this website!). I design and manage the data for the companies largest customer. So yeah, I know all about working my way up.

In conclusion, yes there are jobs and there are always open positions, but the fact remains that there are more people looking for work/ better work than there are companies hiring.

 

Yes, but the real world does not always operate as the textbook says it should.

 

OUR "JUST-DUE"

Yes! But hopeless words on this forum. The Rabid Right thinks that it "deserves" Upper-income Tax preferences. Kinda-sorta like it's God's Will on earth.

This lie is the rot eating away at America. And one day, there will be another Watts Explosion ignited by the have-nots who have not been given their just-due. (The word "just" meaning fair in this context.)

And what might be the "just-due"? That is, considering just the bottom levels, the fair and equitable wage that one should expect? That is, a wage that would provide for accommodation of a family, which includes a roof and food and some other basic essentials as specified in Maslow's bottom-layer of our "Hierarchy of Needs".

First of all, the answer to the above question regarding a "just-due" would depend upon Net Income, not Gross Income (before taxation). Because it is Net Income that migrates up into Wealth - that is, how much does anyone "save" from their Net Income after Expenditures? Meaning the true monetary value of an individual/family is measured in Net Worth which is "Wealth minus Debt".

Which means what? It means we have to look at two different very different "existences" - one at the top and the other at the very bottom. Both "bracket" the middle where most Americans live their lives.

From the bottom:
*A Minimum Wage (MW) of $12/14 an hour calculates out (for a 40 hour week) to be around $29K per year. (Yes, not everybody works a "40-hour week"!) Which is well-below the Mean Wage (or the "average" wage) in the US of $49,630 as noted from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In fact, the Minimum Wage works out (since 1991) to be about 60% of the Mean Wage - a calculation that is continually descending because the Mean Wage is continually increasing but not the Minimum Wage. The Minimum Wage has remained stagnant since its inception in 1991.
*So, one can imagine, stuck with an effective minimum wage in much of the US of $7.25 per hour, for those working at that constant hourly-rate, their way-of-life is hardly improving. In fact, just the opposite has happened during the Great Recession.
*So, if one puts the question this way: "In what state does the Minimum Wage permit a family to rent a two-bedroom accommodation?", the answer is this:

*Is this what the "just-due" should be for the poorest group in any country? Methinks not, and especially not for a country as intrinsically rich as the US.

From the top:
*Another analysis was done under the auspices of Prof. Domhoff (Uof Cal, Sociology Dept.) His study worked out (in pie-charts) to look like this:

*Which means that in going from Wealth to Net Worth, the top 20% of the American families obtain as much as the bottom 80%.
*Anybody who thinks that that is "fair and equitable" needs their head examined. Because any understanding of "fair and equitable Wealth" cannot accept the above verified analysis.
*Yes, we have a capitalist market-economy that functions admirably well. But in the US - when it comes to fair-and-equitable taxation, the US is ridiculously unfair!
*So let's put the blame for unfairness squarely upon the reason that is most poignant. Our system of upper-income taxation that is blatantly unjust.

 

So @Econ4Every1 doesn't think that markets clear when prices adjust?

 

I look at it a bit differently, having been "there" (as a manager).

I would not want to "invest" in a person who is wholly over-qualified for a job. Though s/he may be taking it because of a harsh necessity.

Such individuals, being intelligent, will eventually leave as soon as the economy permits them to find a job at a level of the qualifications (and therefore better paid).

How long does that take? Well, that is not really the concern of the employer. Which is not an "individual" who might commiserate with the plight of a worker who really needs a job. But someone who could very well - from night to day - find themselves in exactly the same circumstance.

That is the "nature of the employment game in a market-economy. Countries in Europe try to minimize the disruption by assuring that companies can maintain employment in hard times.

But the fact of the matter is more fundamental. As we are learning on a Grand Scale, the very nature of a market-economy is changing from the Industrial Age to the Information Age. Where different qualifications are necessary. Companies need to change often not how many they hire but the qualifications of those they hire.

That rule is even more distressing in Europe than it is in the US, given that America workers can literally uproot themselves overnight and start on-the-job the next morning. You just can't do that in Europe to the same extent because of language barriers. (Which is why Merkel was wise to be the first to accept the migrant workers because she knew full well that Germany needed even the lowest level of experience, because more and more younger Germans are highly qualified from Germany's highly-effective Apprenticeship Programs.

Which is why I keep harping about the US focalizing on such programs nationally* in order to assure that our kids (who are more inclined to such programs) have the opportunity to join them ...

PS: And admittedly I know very little about such programs in the US - other than what I can google, such as here from the Dept. of Labor. Unfortunately, when you click on that site, all you get is a finger pointing one in a direction of where to get more information at a state-level.

Which, if you are lucky and live in the "right state", just might have readily available an apprenticeship training program. Wow, what luck!

That's no way to do it, however. It should be on a national level and free-of-charge. It is enticing because such programs are also earn-whilst-you-learn, meaning you are paid to train yourself.

 

I can guarantee, my sons (now 18 and 17) won't be living in my house, without either working or going to school. So, yes, it is the parent's fault. If the job market is that bad that they can't get a paying job, they will do volunteer work, if they want a roof over their heads.

 

Yes, there is a law that says when "parental oversight" terminates. It terminates at age 18, unless the young person agrees otherwise. Until age 18, parental oversight is the general law. After 18, it's up to the young person.

 

Once Christian Republican capitalism was invented the industrial revolution took off economic advancement has been rocketing upward. There is no reason to assume this will not continue .

The great recession was just a temporary glitch caused by liberal interference with the Christian Republican capitalist economies of the world. It was easily contain and corrected adding greatly to our store of economic knowledge

 

Liberals don't know that the law of supply and demand applies to the labor market and the healthcare market. Interestingly because these markets are so important supply and demand should be applied even more rigorously so as to ensure maximum employment and healthcare. The chances of a liberal being able to understand Christian Republican capitalism supply and demand are about equal to the chances of a goldfish being able to understand calculus

 

do you have any idea on earth what point you were trying to make if you have any idea at all why not share it with us???

 

Yes economy has been tough owning to liberal policies that shiped 20 million jobs offshore and invited in 30 million illegals to take the remaining jobs and bidb down wages. Why not make liberalism illegal To correct the economy.

 

It's like asking if there are enough bananas available so that people who want bananas can buy all they want at affordable prices. Do you understand this from Econ 101 class One minute onedid you ever wonder why your supermarket always has a ready supply of bananas?

 

You are extending your personal behaviour to the nation.

That does not necessarily work like we think it should ...

 

It's the law. After age 18, it's up to the parents, so of course it's personal behavior. That's why I blamed the parents of the deadbeat young people.

 

Blame whomever you like. Blame never changed anything.

Change takes new ideas and new ways ...

 

Never mind. Such a juvenile post.

 

of course if it was juvenile you would not be so afraid to tell us why.

 

The study of economics has nothing to do with Christianity or the Republican party. It's the study of how people use their scarce means to achieve their ends.

 

Well studies showed a degree was worth on average a million more dollars in a lifetime meant they should foot more money to go to college not taking into account these were ALL college degree holders including high income athletes, actors, corporate CEO's and those entering high income professions but failed to consider someone with an art degree, social work degree and such don't tend to earn high incomes. It does benefit job stability historically however but is that worth a debt for a State bachelors degree debt of perhaps $30k and if they stay on for a higher degree a matching sum for a Masters degree or professional degree. A medical doctor does earn a good income but unless in a specialty your looking at $130k a year and with a big debt and malpractice insurance to pay for it does pull down wealth but long term they have unmatched job security. So States cut back their share in funding degrees and stuck the students with more debt. It wasn't a bsig deal when degrees were valued and special in the 1950's you get any kind of degree it meant job security to a good degree not the degree truly matters.

A bachelors in child development is simply not valued as much as one in petroleum engineering the first you might get a job in a pre-school or child care center the latter a career earning the low six figures.