reply to post by kosmicjack
I'm sorry, but I think much of this is a cop-out. This trend has been going on for some time and not only with young people. The constant jab
against the "evil CEO" is a target to transfer your situation onto someone else. I certainly agree that CEO pay is an issue, but it is not a
government issue and it is not one that impacts society at large. It is an issue with a specific public company. The fact that a CEO makes $50M a
year is not the cause of this problem. Consider the fact that many of these CEOs also created thousands of jobs through their performance on the
job. You don't hear about that. I would say that issue is a wash.
This trend with young folks has been going on for a couple of decades, including the boom years of the 80's and 90's. We are evolving into a
culture that simply values a lack of committment. Commitment to hard work, to education, to relationships. I realize that I am making a
generalization, but even when times were good, this was happening. I worked in corporate America - in the evil financial services industry and have
hired hundreds of young people over the past 25 years. There has been a significant degregation in the quality of young job applicants during that
period. These were good jobs, full insurance, paid education. Pretty much the best corporate America has to offer. Young folks who don't speak
proper English, have poor written and verbal communications skills, don't come to interviews dressed professionally, or with visible tattoos or
piercings is something that just did not happen 15-20 years ago. I have had to interview dozens of applicants for a good job, even administrative
jobs before I had two or three candidates to choose from.
There are other factors going on here. People are living longer, staying healthy longer and working longer. That erodes some of the "room at the
bottom" for young workers. The employment law environment hurts employment for young people. I would be much more inclined to pay over-time to an
employee who I knew was a trusted member of the team rather than hire someone who it is pretty difficult to fire should they not perform. When you
hire in corporate America today, you are essentially told what groups are underrepresented on your team and are strongly advised to hire in these
under represented groups. Why? because if you have a performance problem with someone in an under represented group, that under representation
will always be used as "grounds for dissmissal"when the sue. They will sue. the list of protected groups is large:
--anyone over 40
--anyone of an ethnic minority
--alternative sexual preference, including cross-dressing
--folks with body modifications (visible tattoos, piercings). These are now considered almost religious in the eyes of the law
When you get down to it, only white makes under 40 are unprotected. That is part of the problem.
If the government continues down the path it is on this problem will get worse, not better. Take a look at France. It is practically impossible to
fire someone in France, creating a real discentive to hire young people. The unemployment rate for young workers in France is close to 20%. France
has a mandated 35 hour work week. That coupled with the above creates an environment where companys have an incentive not to grow.
I realize that it might be dificult to swallow, but lower taxes and less government involvement in the free market has consistently led to growth in
the economy and increases in wages and increases in unemployment. As JFK said "a rising tide lifts all boats". Cut taxes, get the government out
of the market place and firms will grow and more folks will get hired.