'Hope' without youth employment

In 2009, Obamaholics and anyone who loves employment are learning what cheesy campaign slogans – from “Hope” to “Change” – mean. “Yes, We Can!” It sounds so laughably Jimmy Carter-like. This is not 2008; the campaign is over, and unlike Beltway Democrats, today's teenagers are paying the price.

Sure. Many young adults voted for Obama – and will have to learn to live with the consequences of their actions. Still, on the other side, a significant minority of young people didn’t vote for The One. And teenagers? It is hardly fair to blame non-voting citizens for the sins of tax-and-spend liberals.

This is Catherine Rampell in Oh What a Time to Be Young! (Economix: The New York Times, September 4, 2009):

Pity the unemployed, but especially pity the teenage unemployed.

According to today’s job report, the overall unemployment rate (the percentage of people in the labor force not working but looking for work) in August rose to 9.7 percent, its highest level in 26 years. The teenage unemployment rate, however, is at 25.5 percent, its highest level since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began keeping track of such data in 1948.

Welcome to the Orwellian age of hope for youth without employment, and change without accountability.  Did The New York Times forget to screen Obama? Once common, wealth-creating jobs are harder for would-be workers to find as the state sucks the life out of genuine businesses.

At the end of the Bush era, liberals labeled the Republican president as a “lame duck” when the Democrats took Congress. Today, liberals see him as a vigilant duck and are even trying to blame him for all of Obama’s bad decisions. Why? Because in liberal circles, nothing succeeds like false blame.
 
But Rampell tries to look on the bright side:
Of course, teenagers are likely to have fewer financial obligations than their older counterparts.
Really? But when (say) father finds himself unemployed a job is likely to help pay for life’s necessities.

Here is Rampell again in Teenage Jobless Rate Reaches Record High (The New York Times, September 5, 2009):

High teenage jobless rates may also be distorted by other factors. The ability of more young people to rely on family may allow them to be pickier about jobs and therefore to stay out of work longer than they did in previous recessions, said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

As the unsustainable blame Bush mantra dies down, expect the Obama-first journalists to turn more on the genuine unemployed victims. During the Republican years, teenagers had too many financial obligations -- but now they’re just picky little brats.


In 2009, Obamaholics and anyone who loves employment are learning what cheesy campaign slogans – from “Hope” to “Change” – mean. “Yes, We Can!” It sounds so laughably Jimmy Carter-like. This is not 2008; the campaign is over, and unlike Beltway Democrats, today's teenagers are paying the price.

Sure. Many young adults voted for Obama – and will have to learn to live with the consequences of their actions. Still, on the other side, a significant minority of young people didn’t vote for The One. And teenagers? It is hardly fair to blame non-voting citizens for the sins of tax-and-spend liberals.

This is Catherine Rampell in Oh What a Time to Be Young! (Economix: The New York Times, September 4, 2009):

Pity the unemployed, but especially pity the teenage unemployed.

According to today’s job report, the overall unemployment rate (the percentage of people in the labor force not working but looking for work) in August rose to 9.7 percent, its highest level in 26 years. The teenage unemployment rate, however, is at 25.5 percent, its highest level since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began keeping track of such data in 1948.

Welcome to the Orwellian age of hope for youth without employment, and change without accountability.  Did The New York Times forget to screen Obama? Once common, wealth-creating jobs are harder for would-be workers to find as the state sucks the life out of genuine businesses.

At the end of the Bush era, liberals labeled the Republican president as a “lame duck” when the Democrats took Congress. Today, liberals see him as a vigilant duck and are even trying to blame him for all of Obama’s bad decisions. Why? Because in liberal circles, nothing succeeds like false blame.
 
But Rampell tries to look on the bright side:
Of course, teenagers are likely to have fewer financial obligations than their older counterparts.
Really? But when (say) father finds himself unemployed a job is likely to help pay for life’s necessities.

Here is Rampell again in Teenage Jobless Rate Reaches Record High (The New York Times, September 5, 2009):

High teenage jobless rates may also be distorted by other factors. The ability of more young people to rely on family may allow them to be pickier about jobs and therefore to stay out of work longer than they did in previous recessions, said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

As the unsustainable blame Bush mantra dies down, expect the Obama-first journalists to turn more on the genuine unemployed victims. During the Republican years, teenagers had too many financial obligations -- but now they’re just picky little brats.