Over 50% Unemployment in my age group...

[MisterE-NYC]

Wow. Kinda shocking and depressing.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/the_dead_end_kids_AnwaWNOGqsXMuIlGONNX1K

The unemployment rate for young Americans has exploded to 52.2 percent -- a post-World War II high, according to the Labor Dept. -- meaning millions of Americans are staring at the likelihood that their lifetime earning potential will be diminished and, combined with the predicted slow economic recovery, their transition into productive members of society could be put on hold for an extended period of time.

And worse, without a clear economic recovery plan aimed at creating entry-level jobs, the odds of many of these young adults -- aged 16 to 24, excluding students -- getting a job and moving out of their parents' houses are long. Young workers have been among the hardest hit during the current recession -- in which a total of 9.5 million jobs have been lost.

"It's an extremely dire situation in the short run," said Heidi Shierholz, an economist with the Washington-based Economic Policy Institute. "This group won't do as well as their parents unless the jobs situation changes."

Al Angrisani, the former assistant Labor Department secretary under President Reagan, doesn't see a turnaround in the jobs picture for entry-level workers and places the blame squarely on the Obama administration and the construction of its stimulus bill.

"There is no assistance provided for the development of job growth through small businesses, which create 70 percent of the jobs in the country," Angrisani said in an interview last week. "All those [unemployed young people] should be getting hired by small businesses."

There are six million small businesses in the country, those that employ less than 100 people, and a jobs stimulus bill should include tax credits to give incentives to those businesses to hire people, the former Labor official said.

"If each of the businesses hired just one person, we would go a long way in growing ourselves back to where we were before the recession," Angrisani noted.

During previous recessions, in the early '80s, early '90s and after Sept. 11, 2001, unemployment among 16-to-24 year olds never went above 50 percent. Except after 9/11, jobs growth followed within two years.

A much slower recovery is forecast today. Shierholz believes it could take four or five years to ramp up jobs again.

A study from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, a government database, said the damage to a new career by a recession can last 15 years. And if young Americans are not working and becoming productive members of society, they are less likely to make major purchases -- from cars to homes -- thus putting the US economy further behind the eight ball.

Angrisani said he believes that Obama's economic team, led by Larry Summers, has a blind spot for small business because no senior member of the team -- dominated by academics and veterans of big business -- has ever started and grown a business.

"The Reagan administration had people who knew of small business," he said.

"They should carve out $100 billion right now and create something like $5,000 to $6,000 job credits that would drive the hiring of young, idled workers by small business."

Angrisani said the stimulus money going to extending unemployment benefits is like a narcotic that is keeping the unemployed content -- but doing little to get them jobs.

Labor Dept. statistics also show that the number of chronically unemployed -- those without a job for 27 weeks or more -- has also hit a post-WWII high.

[FloridaPoke]

Interesting that they admit in the article that Reagan understood small business job creation, which is true. But then suggest government as the answer. Reagan did it by getting government off of small business' backs. Obama is systematically killing small business innovation and growth in a very short 9 months. Yet these youngsters will be the ones that suffer, placing their hopes on the government. Exactly what he wants.

[jakeman]

How's that vote working out for ya now?

[bleedorange]

Consider yourself "Changed".:rolleyes:

[PokeNBeans]

What about those "stimulus" jobs? They should kick in sometime next year when it's time to buy election results.

[Vulgar Display of Orange]

(additional partisan bitching)

[FloridaPoke]

(additional partisan bitching)

Funny. A youngster posts about the unusually high unemployment rate in the same demographic that elected Obama. Yet, Obama is about to pull off the biggest reverse wealth transfer in our history, punishing this same demographic. How, other than the issues with employment mentioned above?

Current Obamacare provisions:

1. Everyone is insurable, regardless of insurability.
2. Everyone is required to have insurance, or face a tax penalty.
3. Insurance companies required to use a "community rating"

Which means, a man who is 60 with cancer gets the same community rating as a healthy 22 year old. And, since that will cause a huge increase in the insurance rates of youngsters (and a reduction for the 60 year old with cancer), most youngsters will simply pay the significant and material tax fine instead of being insured (because why buy fire insurance if you can wait and be insured once your house is on fire).

The only "possible" outcome from these three disparate provisions is an enormous wealth tranfer from the young and poor to the old and rich. Gotta love the logic of taking care of the little people and the youth of our land.

I am shocked that young adults aren't crying huge foul here. He is mortgaging your future in ways you cant fathom, both directly and indirectly, and ways that will not effect me at all or very little, yet you are ones who are silent. Is it because your give-o-shit meter is broken?

[Vulgar Display of Orange]

Funny. A youngster posts about the unusually high unemployment rate in the same demographic that elected Obama. Yet, Obama is about to pull off the biggest reverse wealth transfer in our history, punishing this same demographic. How, other than the issues with employment mentioned above?

Current Obamacare provisions:

1. Everyone is insurable, regardless of insurability.
2. Everyone is required to have insurance, or face a tax penalty.
3. Insurance companies required to use a "community rating"

Which means, a man who is 60 with cancer gets the same community rating as a healthy 22 year old. And, since that will cause a huge increase in the insurance rates of youngsters (and a reduction for the 60 year old with cancer), most youngsters will simply pay the significant and material tax fine instead of being insured (because why buy fire insurance if you can wait and be insured once your house is on fire).

The only "possible" outcome from these three disparate provisions is an enormous wealth tranfer from the young and poor to the old and rich. Gotta love the logic of taking care of the little people and the youth of our land.

I am shocked that young adults aren't crying huge foul here. He is mortgaging your future in ways you cant fathom, both directly and indirectly, and ways that will not effect me at all or very little, yet you are ones who are silent. Is it because your give-o-shit meter is broken?

What do you think is happening already? By your logic healthy I should be paying 20% of my healthy drafter's premium since he has a healthy wife and three healthy kids. I'm not though. Not even close. But instead of seeing it as yet another opportunity to bitch about the guy I voted for losing an election I accept that what is really being proposed is only a slight variation of the current system with the real winners being the people that the private market gave the thick end of the shaft to for decades and not the shareholders.

[FloridaPoke]

What do you think is happening already? By your logic healthy I should be paying 20% of my healthy drafter's premium since he has a healthy wife and three healthy kids. I'm not though. Not even close. But instead of seeing it as yet another opportunity to bitch about the guy I voted for losing an election I accept that what is really being proposed is only a slight variation of the current system with the real winners being the people that the private market gave the thick end of the shaft to for decades and not the shareholders.

a slight variation? Look, this has nothing to do with my disdain for Obama. I actually feared he would come after me, my demographic and my income level, and am astounded that the lion's share of the pain is going to be borne by others.

You say the real winners are the people that the private market screwed in the past. I say, let's take care of those people (while never admitting that healthcare is a "right", but a privelege). But why not just take care of those people (15% of the population) without screwing the other 85% of the population?

I'll tell you why. Taking care of the minority that needs help would not allow government control. And in the name of cost savings, yet the CBO repeatedly runs numbers and shares them with Congress showing that the new system will increase costs. So, we'll have higher costs, higher taxes, less choice and an net worth redistribution going the opposite way most liberals would normally consider. If I'm wrong, please tell me where?

[wood911]

FP,
The only problem I see with your Scenario is the 60 year old with cancer very well could die while waiting for an appointment under the new program.
I am not sure it is a real transfer of wealth in the sense that I have paid for insurance for about 40 years without a single hospital visit or stay until about 6 months ago. My stay cost $7800. The annual premium for my family is about $14,000/year. I have no idea how much money I have paid in but I suspect I have more than paid for cancer treatment, should it happen. Yet, at 65 I will be forced into Medicare and have to pay for a supplemental policy in order to stay insured.
I am more or less in your age group( more more than less:rolleyes:) and you are right that I will get a cut in premiums while younger people will have to pay more. I also pay for my daughters health costs so I will pay considerably less if this passes. I still oppose the public plan because it does not look like it will work well for anybody.
I really don't understand the Medicare impact but I believe that Medicare recipients could also suffer since some of the funding for the new programs will come from Medicare funds. Like you, I would like to see us do tort reform, perhaps allow competition across state lines, and take care of the 15% with welfare or some other method. Something needs to be done about cost control but I have no idea what since I don't know much about what the costs are.
BTW, I just received an e-mail that says my health insurance will go up 9% next year.:(

[Vulgar Display of Orange]

a slight variation? Look, this has nothing to do with my disdain for Obama. I actually feared he would come after me, my demographic and my income level, and am astounded that the lion's share of the pain is going to be borne by others.

You say the real winners are the people that the private market screwed in the past. I say, let's take care of those people (while never admitting that healthcare is a "right", but a privelege). But why not just take care of those people (15% of the population) without screwing the other 85% of the population?

I'll tell you why. Taking care of the minority that needs help would not allow government control. And in the name of cost savings, yet the CBO repeatedly runs numbers and shares them with Congress showing that the new system will increase costs. So, we'll have higher costs, higher taxes, less choice and an net worth redistribution going the opposite way most liberals would normally consider. If I'm wrong, please tell me where?

I'm really having a tough time taking your 'its not about Obama' statement at face value since you insist on throwing the same buzzwords that I keep hearing in the office...usually followed a few sentences later with socialism or death panels or medicare.

What exactly isn't wealth redistribution? That seems to be a big one. Obama's redistributing my wealth to old people (or young people or poor people or ACORN or _____ depending on whatever point you are trying to make). How exactly is our glorious pseudo-open market system not doing just that? Are young, healthy americans not subsidizing the sick and elderly now the same way that they will be/have been for decades? You guys throw around redistribution of wealth whenever it's convenient. Whenever it happens because of government intervention in the form of consumer protection, etc. it's a bad thing, but when it happens on the open market in the form of bottom lines for those in the industry its alright? When it happens that way though it isn't really redistribution of wealth. It's more of redistribution of debt or redistribution of college fund.

And of course costs are projected to increase. They are projected to increase as it is, but how is doing nothing going to get us to a point where they are manageable? Open market? That has worked so well. Actually, Adam Smith's open market probably would, but what is being done these days in the US in the name of capitalism would make him turn over in his grave.

[FloridaPoke]

VDO. In insurance risk markets, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a young person to subsidize an older person. Where do you come up with this stuff? We can all bitch about insurance company profits (I, too, think they should be regulated like public electric utilities). But you can't argue the risk pricing across risk spectrums. That science is so well vetted and tested, it isn't even up for debate.

And you still haven't answered the fundamental question. Why screw up 85% of the population to satisfy a need for 15%? And I ask this question completely apolitically.

[Vulgar Display of Orange]

I come up with this stuff from practice. Until about a month ago (when I opted out of my own company's plan insurance plan) I was paying a disproportionate amount compared with the people in my office and a wildly disproportionate amount considering what I was getting out of the plan. Using one of my draftsmen again I was paying a little less than 45% of what he was paying for a family of 5. Now we could have adjusted the cost of the plan to where I was paying a lower percentage compared to him, but that wouldn't have been beneficial to enough people. So, how is my premium for someone who visits the doctor once a year justified compared to a family of five? It isn't. It isn't justified unless you accept that young and healthy will always subsidize the sick and old. Is it really subsidy though?

Is it considered subsidy when a percentage of my property taxes go to the local schools and youth sports even though I don't have children? What about the percentage of my electric bill that goes to free air conditioners for poor people in the summer? I have to admit that I have absolutely no problem paying a higher insurance premium because that is better than saving $x/month while people go bankrupt paying for last resort medical attention.

If it weren't for funding from property taxes would youth sports exist? Sure, but would participation be the same? Not a chance. So for the 15%ish uninsured, who is going to insure them without government intervention?

[FloridaPoke]

Your 45% of his premium for a family is simple fixed and variable cost economics. The insurance company's risk isn't you times 5. There is a fixed cost associated with insurance and the variable cost is the incremental risk. That same family can eat for cheaper than you times 5 too, by quite a bit. They can live in housing cheaper than you times 5. The list goes on. But none of that is remotely related to insurance pricing and risk. You are still cheaper than the older folks in the office, I can assure you.

[MisterE-NYC]

I really want to get in on this, but I took some sleeping pills and am heading to bed. There is a huge job fair tomorrow, and I am going. Note, sleeping pills are needed, because with out a job I got back on my normal sleep pattern, and that is not good.
But from the little I have read, I definitely have some agreements and disagreements, both pro and against the administration.