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

Millennial Translation: Why try.

 

Don't forget, a lot of young people are pushed into college and take on a huge debt burden but never finish.
So for some individuals, there may be some pause before deciding they want to go to school.

Some kids may not really be college material, and for them it might not really be a matter of "just try harder".

Just wanted to say this before people start coming in here commenting and blaming these idle individuals themselves for not going to school.
Some of us do have family members who fall into this category.

 

Sure. It doesn't guarantee anything.

It's just much more likely.

 

Show the historical misstatement of fact in the post. I dare you.

That's the problem with Replicants. They treat historical fact like it never happened, then make one up that suits their fantasies!

The ultimate definition of conservatism in any form is its refusal to change or adapt to a changing world ...

 

Guess which party the poor and unemployed vote for? Democrats have to keep people poor and unemployed. The more successful you are, the more you vote R.



Doesn't sound real smart if that was their plan now does it?

 

You weren't around at the time of the Great Recession, neither was I. But you seem ignorant of historical fact.

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, upon entering office at first Roosevelt cut all government spending. Then, miraculously, he changed his mind having met British economist John Maynard Keynes, who had just written a formative book on economic depressions and how to get out of them. (See that story here: FDR’s evolution in thinking on Keynsian economics.)

Roosevelt's spending program from 1933 onward alleviated only somewhat the Depression. What finally stopped it dead was the massive expenditures of WW2. The US came out of that war economically in very, very good form.

Nothing has changed. The Rabid Right then did not believe in spending a nation out of a recession and they still don't today.

They have not evolved and remain quite unable to do so. They think the poor are destined to suffer economic depression - it's a form of God's Will on Earth ...

 

Too bad Obama didn't read the book on what to do to prevent a housing crisis.

 

Yeah it's a good thing Democrats started the war on poverty.

They managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of success again.

 

You've gone OTT, madam. Nobody is impinging your freedom-of-speech.

I will not deny that psychology is at the heart of economic recessions. It's group-psychology that people restrain spending as they fear for their jobs (and incomes). But, this "crowd mentality" simply worsens the problem rather than correct it.

So, if Consumer Demand will not respond to the problem, then who should?

The government, madam, the government ...

 

You've got your blinkers on backward.

Yes, so what, government expenditure rises in response to a depressed economy. You would have the jobless and homeless knocking on your door for a handout every two hours? (Yeah, Right!)

Take a course in EC101, will you? Expanded government expenditure is the EASIEST way out of a depression!

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhh ....

 

No, it would be to get them jobs, and to do that offer them skills training and job placement instead of money.

Democrats, like the geniuses they are, think that when someone doesn't have money, you hand them other people's money ad infinitum.

Perhaps you can explain to us how handing someone other people's money takes them out of poverty?

Meanwhile, they stay poor and dependant on the handouts, and keep voting D., which is all Democrats really care about.

This is, of course, why they encourage destruction of the nuclear family in their "war on poverty".

Where does government get their money from there Mr. Econ 101?

 

Too bad you didn't read my comment above.

Obama did try to expand government spending - just as he had done in the ARRA-spending bill that stopped-dead the exploding rise in the Unemployment Rate to 10% in 2010. (Where were you in 2010? Never, Never Land?)

But all the Replicants controlling the HofR would do in 2010 is plead* about "Austerity Spending". See here: The Austerity Delusion (by Paul Krugman) - excerpt:

Get it? Nobody but nobody believes in austerity budgeting. Reducing government expenditures just to avoid increasing Government Debt is NOT THE SOLUTION TO AN ECONOMIC DEPRESSION.

Quite the opposite is necessary ... !

*And why? Because the Replicant Party wanted strategically to maintain high-unemployment another two-years so as to defeat Obama in the 2012 PotUS-elections!!! They could not give a damn about the unemployed!

 

What part of "the poor and unemployed vote Democrat" do you not understand.

You did great with the conspiracy until you got to that point.

 

Precisely! Why should anyone have to go into debt to improve their possibility of finding a job with the right qualifications.

Which is primary reason why the US should have and maintain Free Post-Secondary Education ... !

 

And what sort of nonsense one-liner rebuttal is the above? Show your supposed intelligence and write a cogent reply.

First, go take a course in EC101 ...

 

Good question.

Why do progressive liberals that run the colleges in the US put these kids into debt....hmmm

Oh yeah.

When you're poor, in debt, and jobless, you vote Democrat.

 

I'll type slower.

Poor people vote Democrat.

Unemployed people vote Democrat.

Why would the Republicans want more poor and unemployed people as a strategy to defeat Obama?

 

ONE REGISTERED VOTER = ONE VOTE

The statistics you give are of this last vote and by no means indicative of any national trend. The fact of the matter is a great many more Americans are voting systematically neither Right nor Left and change upon whimsy in any given election. The "two-party system" in the US is a ruse devised to funnel campaign-funding to either of two parties - thus cementing in place the two-party fiction of a "democracy".

Campaign-funding is disallowed in many countries for unlimited advertizing of candidates on TV. Free TV-time, identical for all candidates, is however allowed. TV news-coverage of election candidates must also be impartial in time-spent.

Having said all that I will repeat my continuous complaint of America's GREAT democracy (for which the reasons below makes it a farce):
*Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by an historic margin of 2%, the latest in a long line of 5 popular-vote winners and PotUS-election losers*.
*Because the Electoral College is based upon One-Winner-Takes-All Voting, it is totally unlinked from the popular-vote notion of One-voter = One Vote; and is therefore non-democratic. For instance, in Idaho 153000 voters elect one Electoral-College Vote, and in California 375000 voters also one Electoral-College Vote - which is blatantly unjust and makes the voting map of the US look like this:

*Gerrymandering in the US is rampant, which simply pollutes the fairness of state-voting for the presidency (as well as state plebiscites).

For all the above reasons, the US Electoral College system of presidential voting is simply undemocratic; it should be based upon One-Registered-Voter = One Vote and all votes counted elect the PotUS.

It may comfort you to think that you live and vote in a Free-&-Fair Nation, but the fact of the matter is that you do not ...

*The previous most recent time was Al Gore in 2000, showing clearly how it has become a Bad Habit that strangely favors Replicant candidates.

POST SCRIPTUM

Moreover, had we in the US a National Identification Card given at birth (with ADN-verification), then throughout the local-to-national voting system we would know the number of valid votes EXACTLY in any given state and therefore ALL elections without the necessity of pre-election registration.

 

The percentages in your charts are those who voted, and does not include those who refused to vote.

So, you are babbling nonsense ...

 

The government just makes matters worse in the long run. Let capitalism work.

 

What exactly is "the problem"?

 

One reason why there are so few jobs in some areas is because a lot of business cut down their full time workers to part time and reduced their work force. Another portion is only hiring temporary workers. When their contract runs out, they are terminated, and more temporary workers are brought in. Can you guess why they are doing this?

 

FREE, GRATIS & FOR NOTHING

I keep asking the same questions:
*Why should anybody need to pay for a Post-secondary Education, when the local/state governments have set precedence by offering them free, gratis and for nothing Primary & Secondary.
*The fact that Information Age is with us doesn't mean all you need for job nowadays is a smartphone. The fact that most manufacturing jobs have hightailed it to the far-East should be telling. You need "smarts" to find the better jobs nowadays - and those smarts come from a post-secondary education.
*One that - just like the DoD-budget is a Federal expenditure - should be subsidized by the Dept. of Education.

Any answers ... ?

 

What would you give as an example of a subject that one cannot learn by using free online sources?