In 2008 Obama soared into office on a happy breeze of youth enthusiasm, but he has now seen his support among young people fall by nearly 30 points in the polls. Rather than bringing “hope and change,” Obama’s policies have actually made America’s youth measurably more miserable. That’s the conclusion of my op-ed in today’s Washington Times (co-written with Ron Meyer of the Young America’s Foundation):
Not only is unemployment higher among youth than any other major demographic, but record-smashing college debt levels and a looming $15 trillion national debt threaten to financially indenture the millennial generation to the federal government for the rest of our lives.
To visualize this dire situation, Young America’s Foundation has created the Youth Misery Index (YMI). Taking a page from a listing made famous by Jimmy Carter, the Youth Misery Index uses simple addition to combine youth unemployment, average graduating student debt (in thousands), and national debt per capita (in thousands).
Youth unemployment is at 17.4 percent – one of the highest levels since World War II. Average graduating student debt has reached a record-breaking $26,300. National debt per capita is $46,900 – the highest ever. Add it up, and the Youth Misery Index comes out to 90.6.
Of course, Obama has had plenty of help from big government politicians on both sides of the aisle.
The op-ed coincides with the launch of a new initiative I’ve helped put together called the “Youth Misery Index,” which tracks youth unemployment, national debt per capita, and average graduating student loan debt. Click here to learn more about the YMI.
First, I wonder if combining youth unemployment with college debt is proper. Isn't it the case that unemployment is higher among the less-educated? If so, those would also be the ones with less debt.
Second, if "misery" is measured using additional non-monetary factors, then in what sense are youths today more miserable than they were, say, during the Vietnam-era draft? It also seems to me that the huge increase in the cost of "American dream" housing began in the 1970s. In what sense are youths who aspire to families more or less miserable than they were two decades ago?
I realize that YAF types have a certain outlook, and that they will measure misery by their own indices. Still, voting behavior actually does include (or includes perception of) other factors that no monetary-based quantitative index is likely to capture.
As an aside, I just love the small-business promises that they'll create more jobs if only the government will make it easier to pay lower wages and fire people more quickly, while the owners pay less in taxes. Now, THAT is going to appeal to youths!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs an aside, I just love the small-business promises that they'll create more jobs if only the government will make it easier to pay lower wages and fire people more quickly, while the owners pay less in taxes.
Minimum wage labor tends to be unskilled. In that regard, it's a commodity. When you drive up the cost of a commodity (higher minimum wage, cost of regulatory compliance), people buy less of it. It's really as simple as that. Make labor more expensive and businesses will hire less of it, either by limiting growth or investing in automation. The same for lowering taxes. If business owners have less money left over after taxes, they'll hire fewer people. If you don't know what your costs are going to be due to ObamaCare or any of thousands of other government regulations, you pull back from hiring.
Government can not be a net creator of private sector jobs. The best it can do is reduce the obstacles to creating and growing businesses.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wasn't arguing economic theory about the minimum wage, but rather the political appeal to young voters.
Besides, raising the minimum wage does indeed kill jobs, namely jobs so unproductive that they are not justified by the wage. We are agreed there, yes? However, I maintain that it may be a good idea to eliminate low-productivity jobs that way. It then forces business owners to either improve their products or services, improve their management skills, or get out of the business of creating low-wage jobs. I freely admit that I am being optimistic, and assuming that most low-skill youths will then respond by acquiring the skills (or, just the attitudes) needed for the higher-paying jobs, provided that there is not a structural labor surplus.
On a related note, I am amused by those who point out that a disproportionate number of small businesses are started by immigrants. Indeed. But it seems to me that most of those new businesses consist of liquor stores in the ghetto, nail trimming parlors, and back-to-back donut shops.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Besides, raising the minimum wage does indeed kill jobs, namely jobs so unproductive that they are not justified by the wage. We are agreed there, yes? However, I maintain that it may be a good idea to eliminate low-productivity jobs that way. It then forces business owners to either improve their products or services, improve their management skills, or get out of the business of creating low-wage jobs."
There are countless businesses that only consist of low skills jobs, such as fast food places. That's one of the traditional first jobs where young people can start to earn a little money and learn a work ethic. How do you propose the business owner improve his Subway sandwich shop by eliminating low-productivity jobs? Should he invest in sandwich making industrial robots?
There will likely always be jobs that don't require a lot of skill and can be done by just about anyone. Those often are in businesses with a low profit margin and are least able to adsorb higher employee costs. Eliminating those jobs does no one a favor.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse