“The world risks a crisis legacy of a “lost generation” of young people who dropped out of the job market, the organization added in its report. “The effects of the economic and financial crisis threaten to exacerbate the pre-existing decent work deficits among youth,” Somavia said.” — International Labor Organization
Global youth unemployment has hit a record high following the financial crisis and is likely to get worse later this year, the International Labor Organization (ILO) said Thursday.
The report from the ILO says 81 million out of 630 million 15-24 year olds where unemployed at the end of 2009, some 7.8 million more than at the end of 2007.
Thursday marks the first day of the UN International Youth Year; the ILO warned these trends will have “significant consequences for young people as upcoming cohorts of new entrants join the ranks of the already unemployed.”
The world risks a crisis legacy of a “lost generation” of young people who dropped out of the job market, the organization added in its report.
The report also points out that the unemployment rates of youth have proven to be more sensitive to the crisis than the rates of adults and that the recovery of the job market for young men and women is likely to lag behind that of adults.
It indicates that in developed and some emerging economies, the crisis impact on youth is felt mainly in terms of rising unemployment and the social hazards associated with discouragement and prolonged inactivity.
Why are politicians glib about the severity?
The argument politicians use for extending and increasing unemployment benefits is that its good for the economy, because these people will spend this money right away on goods and services. In reality, its all political
Their argument, if thought out logically, does not make any sense. If it did make sense, wouldn’t the government give each citizen a cheque for 1 million dollars? Wouldn’t that “stimulate” the economy?
The fact is that by taxing economic activity (people who work and businesses) to pay for people who do no work might provide a short term increase in demand in the economy, but those costs will have to be paid in the future through higher taxes or an inflated currency. It does not increase economic output. This inevitably leads to higher debts and countries inflating their currency to pay off these debts (Germany circa 1920s, Zimbabwe circa 200’s); both failed outcomes.
The government paying someone to run around the block (or sit at home and collect unemployment) does not produce a good or service valuable to society. All it does is lower economic output on a macro level scale.
Too bad no one is asking politicians the right questions. Such as: “Mr. President, if extending unemployment benefits increases and stimulates our economy, why doesn’t your government give each citizen a cheque for 1 million dollars? Would that be the ultimate implementation of your economic theory and stimulus for our economy?” Of course, he would not be selected to ask this question at one of his staged media events.
Why have the middle class jobs left?
This has been a long time coming. Everyone wants cheaper goods. Ask the average person to buy an item that costs more in order to keep jobs here, or ask the unionized workers to take a cut in pay, so that the cars or other manufactured goods can be sold for less, and you find people will refuse.
So, in order to be competitive, the manufacturers started to manufacture the goods in other places where they can make it for less. So alot of jobs have been lost here, and we’ll soon be left with only the higher paying- specialized high skills jobs. The question is whether the people that have jobs will be able to support all those who don’t. Those with exceptional skills and abilities are also mobile, and can easily go elsewhere, where the opportunities are. Why get stuck with the bill to fix someone else’s problem? So the problem gets bigger, and the ability to solve it shrinks. Indeed, the money has to come from somewhere.
To make matters worse, when the US signed the seditionist and treacherous ‘trearies’ of GATT, NAFTA, and the WTO with the so called promise of creating new jobs, what it really did was create the “sucking sound” that Ross Perot warned about.
Former secretary of state Henry Kissinger, a member of the Trilateral Commission’s executive committee and a longtime power in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), called the vote on NAFTA [precursor to the world trade organization which allowed China to dump its products on American soil] the single most important decision that Congress would make during Mr. Clinton’s first term. Indeed, Kissinger acknowledged in the Los Angeles Times that passage “will represent the most creative step toward a new world order taken by any group of countries since the end of the Cold War. . . .” NAFTA “is not a conventional trade agreement,” he asserted, “but the architecture of a new international system.”
David Rockefeller, Kissinger’s superior among the Trilateralist and CFR coteries, exhorted in the Wall Street Journal, “Everything is in place — after 500 years — to build a true ‘new world’ in the Western Hemisphere.”