Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Eesh

Ghastly numbers on youth employment.

You'd think at least Obama would do something for his putative base.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

private funding sources for education, younger people are just getting it from both sides.

I did think it was funny the "free market economists" (a description which makes them sound awfully legit) recommended cutting min. wage when the only example of a strategy that has actually worked in the past is Germany's apprentice program. Although since that was for skilled blue-collar work, I guess that doesn't count in the gardens of Versailles.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

It fueled the resentment between the so-called Gen-Xers and Baby Boomers and now it will fuel it for the next generation. Because we're in the midst of a 30-year slide and those coming in near the end got a helluva lot less than those who got to enjoy post-war America's riches to the fullest. A lot of Gen-Xers will not do better than their parents and the next generation will do even worse. This causes resentment.

I look at some of my older relatives. Some are quite well off and they get Medicare. Some advanced to top levels of their companies without a college degree. Meanwhile my younger relatives, who have college degrees, have no or lousy health insurance because they make $15 an hour working at a big box store, the best job they could get out of college in the rust belt. Think they like being taxed every two weeks to help pay for their rich uncle's healthcare?

Medicare and Social Security did a lot to end poverty among older Americans. But we've done relatively little to end poverty among the rest of America. (See this chart on poverty trends by age.) And as a result the taxes working Americans pay often go to help people better off economically than they are.

Submitted by lambert on

-- functional, I mean, on behalf of the voters -- to run on Medicare for All, which would be wildly popular. "The Boomers got it, why not me?"

* * *

I think on the slide, there are two aspects: First as, as you say, many will be worse off (as I am worse off than my parents, whose Social Security I also paid for, in addition to my own). However, those who are able to take advantage will get a reverse intergenerational transfer from age to youth, as they buy up housing for a lot less than what was paid for it. So it's a sorting mechanism yet again; rich richer, poor poorer.

Valley Girl's picture
Submitted by Valley Girl on

But, I was really taken by the article lambert linked. So, I went to the google, looking for unemployment statistics- and found recent info from The Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The statistics are there, but not in graph form, and not in spreadsheet form. So, I did a lot of editing to get something usable in Excel, and then well, the "chart" function at Excel basically sux for graphs. So, the scientist in me objected at the "best I could do", because well, one doesn't connect data points in this way... etc.

These are "adjusted seasonal values" for percent unemployment from the linky above, by age and race, as given. Just look. Summary, unemployment is higher for males than females. Unemployment is higher for black/ AAs than for whites. Unemployment is hugely greater for black/ AAs than for whites in the 16-19 age group (this was not broken down by gender).

Submitted by lambert on

I was trying to self-correct and try to be a bit less "Hey! You kids get offa my lawn!" but... Oops.

And more graphs like that, please!!

Valley Girl's picture
Submitted by Valley Girl on

TY lambert, and unless that was irony... (I stand corrected) I guess I'm not thinking that you need correcting.

I read the linky, and thought "wow, Lambert always finds the best stuff". I teach college students, so the BW article you linked was especially interesting to me.

And, then I got on a tear when I found the labor statistics- and you gotta know that it is a huge pain in the butt to make graphs (haha charts) in Excel, but I was just so into it bec. of the article you linked I just had to!

So, the reason for your "Oops" has totally escaped me.

You and the Corrente "staff" are the best!

Valley Girl's picture
Submitted by Valley Girl on

And, just skimming it I saw there was notable disparity, best seen in graphic form. I was just going with the data.

And, btw, this is data for the "civilian population"- I assume that means people not in the military.

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

Actually, I've been wondering if the war-continuance/escalation noises Dems have been making have been partially to avoid adding to unemployment numbers. Not the sole purpose, of course, but a welcome benefit.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

You know, I was wondering about the race breakdown, but RL prevented me from looking for it. Thanks for doing that. I wonder what the gender breakdown would be? If I had to guess, I'd bet gender disparity doesn't really pick up until later once the glass ceiling has the chance to kick in.

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

I knew that whole pay-disparity thing would come in handy sometime.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

since it depends on what you mean by worse AND most of the places I've read that are in mainstream media reports that often have ulterior motives. Plus, while it appears true that men lose more jobs during recessions, it isn't clear that this makes recessions worse for men than they are for women (many of whom depend on a great deal of their income from men even today). And then there's what happens when the recession is over, where men will be more likely hired again into the better jobs. Women have historically been more impoverished in the United States, but the difference is "only" a couple of percentage points.

One of the "leveling" factors is race. White women make significantly less on average than white men and asian men, but do a bit better than African American and Hispanic men.* Yet, in every racial make up the women make less than the men. This, of course, means women of color make the least, burdened by racism and sexism.

What's really startling is the gender differences worldwide. Women own less than 1% of all of the landed property in the world. We are one fucked up species.

* Note this doesn't take into account the effect of the high incarceration rates for Hispanic and, especially, African American, men. I suspect that's one reason white women do better than they do, they're much less likely to have a prison record.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Making the point that even if the men are being hurt worse, economically, women are still doing worse domestically.

Because even if the men aren't working, the chances are they are helping around the house is slim. So that is still putting an increased workload on women at home, even if they are still working. And if they aren't, then its automatically expected that all domestic responsibilities are 100% their's now.

And, as I can attest to from personal experience, our cultures fucked up family values, which say that men are worthless if they aren't bringing home a paycheck, really fucks men up.

My partner, one of the MOST eglitarian men I've ever met, helps with the housework and the child rearing, but still buys into the whole "paycheck=worth" BS, and during his most recent period of unemployment, became so depressed that it was hard to live with. Though he normally helps out with the housework, when he was unemployed, the depression caused him to do less housework than usual.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

I'll see if I can find the article, but there is some indication that some men, being out of work causes them to spend more time with their children and out of that comes a commitment to do that when they return to work and they tend to rebalance their lives (which is a good thing for women, since women most often make up for their lack of balance). Of course, this is limited to men who have a choice economically about how many hours a week to work, e.g., higher income men. However, since those men often run the places where the rest of us work, it can have some effect on society overall.

But I fear for most men (and the women who love them), it's a psychological and emotional disaster. And a reminder that our cultural divide that remains over work and our roles hurts both genders and would , perhaps ironically, be helped if more men were feminists even if what we see in these times are ridiculous calls to "save men." Because what they really need to be saved from is their patriarchal culture that refuses to see their total value as human beings, in part, to devalue women's work. And all of us suffer. Because even the men who are feminists now, like your partner, are still in the same culture, suffering from the same pressures as other men, which in a bad economy can be brutal.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

except it was my wife that was laid off. The blow to her own sense of self-worth was enormous (whether that is "right" or not is irrelevant) and she suffered a depression which lasted several years where she had little interest in doing normal everyday chores and I picked up the slack for her. No big, that's what a partner does.

This is not a gender-specific phenomenon, but any stick to beat a dog, right? Especially an anecdotal or theoretical one?

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

That our culture doesn't pressure men to value a paycheck more than domestic work? And that women are faced with different pressures.

Of course, any person, regardless of gender is going to be upset that their loss of finances hurts their family. That's not what I'm arguing.

I am saying, the pressures the patriarchy puts on men, affects how they act when their paychecks are gone, is different than how women act, generally. (Of course women are not immune to the patriarchy, I've never claimed they aren't. Especially if that woman is a breadwinner, because that's a male role in the patriarchy, so you see the women reacting like men).

But, we were discussing how the recession isn't really hitting men harder, if all they do after they lose their jobs, is go around drink beer and play pool(which is what the article I linked to was talking about), because they are still putting even more pressure and their partners back at home, by spending money they don't have anymore and not relieving the burden of domestic duties now that they can?

Do you actually have anything you want to engage with me about, or are you just going to keep following my comments with a 'WUT ABOUT THE MENZ?" Cuz, it's getting quite tiresome.

I don't really engage with the problems that face men in our culture, because we've had centuries of that. I'll keep focusing on the problems women face, and the roles men play in reinforcing and perpetuating those problems, until a little bit more equality is achieved, k?

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

That our culture doesn't pressure men to value a paycheck more than domestic work? And that women are faced with different pressures.

The short answer to your question is no, I am not "claiming" that. I'm refuting your baloney argument that no matter what happens to men, that is just going to make it even worse for women. It's almost to the point of "If a man dies, well that's too bad, but a woman is going to be stuck burying him and picking up his slack!"

Re the following from Violet:

"the recession isn't really hitting men harder, if all they do after they lose their jobs, is go around drink beer and play pool"

Yes, I read that days ago, and wasn't any more impressed by it when Violet originally wrote it. I found it predictable poverty-bashing, which showed a true lack of understanding of what life is like for the underclass of this country or other countries around the world. Apparently it doesn't occur to either of you that most of those people might actually be single, and/or homeless so, nope, there isn't a woman working harder at home to care for the family these people don't have, and enabling them as they are "shooting pool for 25 cents a game, drinking themselves blind".

That is "let them eat cake" territory.

Why is it so important to you to ignore, or dismiss, the stats that are plainly laid out in this post and subsequent comments, for the sole cause of making it all about "the patriarchy" and oppression of women? Somehow higher unemployment of men is now oppression of women? Men who lose their jobs are going to make more work for women?

Fucking really?

Sorry, that's bullshit.

I would prefer dealing more with the concrete: people who lose their jobs, whether they are male or female, are in a world of shit. I know alot of both right now, so I speak with experience. It's not the patriarchy that is making them depressed and "difficult to be around", it's the fact that THEY ARE IN A WORLD OF SHIT. Through that prism, all this "who's got it worse" stuff is demeaning crap.

Submitted by lambert on

... looked to myiq like a labor exchange, with day laborer's hanging out. I thought he was right (and myiq is not my favorite poster, FWIW)...

I think the vampire squid uses what it can -- rape culture, patriarchy, alienation, complexification, identification, exploitation... The squid is both predatory and opportunistic -- "Take what you can" -- so we need heuristics as well as theories.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

You see a crowd of "men" hanging out in the parking lot of Home Depot, they aren't their because it's a fun pastime, or that they are gathering there to go play pool at 25 cents and drink themselves blind.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Because the truth of the patriarchy is, that no matter how bad men have it, women always have it worse.

Period. Full Stop.

Everything I see is seen through that prism. And I see lots of articles in mainstream publications, trying to make it seem like men have it worse, when as always, that's not the case. Like, here.

Now, no, not all men have families and partners they owe responsibility towards, but it's been demonstrated time and again, that when men are stressed and unhappy, their anger is taken out on women.

I find it quite amusing that you accuse me of classsism, and having a let them eat cake mentality, considering you obviously don't know me, or you would be aware I live below or at poverty level, depending which month of the year it is. But whatever.

Anyways, riding through my poverty stricken neighborhoods, I find bars and pool halls stocked to gills with men, much like the ones in the picture Violet posted, and I also ask, where are the women? Where are the hangouts for women? Or are they hanging out? Why aren't they out in droves, slacking like I see men?

At the grocery store I frequent, there has been an influx of new cashiers, all women. I asked an acquaintance I use to work with, where they all came from, and she said almost all of them had been laid off from other jobs, and took low paying ones to help cover the bills.

I know not one unemployed man, who made over $25,000/yr, who have applied for jobs at grocery stores and gas stations, because to make $15,000/yr is insulting(in their words, when I asked).

So, yeah, instances of men's privilege manifesting itself as entitlement abound, as most people would expect in a sexist culture. Not you apparently, but mostly everyone else.

The point is, the plight of women's suffering, is being disappeared, once again, to focus on the poor menz.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

The point is a jobless recovery, and, if you need to go down the "who's got it worstest", the racism in our society has a much larger effect here than the patriarcy in our society. Real numbers are proof. But if you don't have data, you can always go with anecdote ala "I know not one unemployed man, who made over $25,000/yr, who have applied for jobs at grocery stores and gas stations". Gee, and I know several. Your mileage obviously must vary.

I didn't accuse you of classism (which is not necessarily related to income level), I accused Violet's post of assisting in propogating that meme as a consequence of her agenda. I have no idea what your understanding of the reality of unemployment and institutional poverty is, except that it is obviously dismissive of and unconcerned with anyone other than women, as you have stated multitudes of times. Hey, that's your right, but personally I care about both men AND women (and children too), wev.

UPDATE:

The point is, the plight of women's suffering, is being disappeared, once again, to focus on the poor menz.

Spare me.

This post started out focusing on the plight of young people, then when the data was graphed, black people, but since it had data on men's unemployment being higher than women's that couldn't be just accepted and had (by your reckoning) to be spun somehow to make it "worse" for women. Presumably by blaming "theoretical" shiftless men for being in bars all day and not getting a job or doing housework. Feeding directly into right wing corporate tropes about those lazy masses who just need a quick kick in the pants and earn a living. This seemingly unconcerns you, but concerns me greatly.

BTW, I would appreciate if you wouldn't try to twist what I'm saying into "supporting the patriarchy", but have little trust that you won't.