How to address youth unemployment

[Roadrunner]

Sounds like the 66 year old busboy at McDs is keeping someone unemployed.

66 year olds know how to show up on time.

Wait until minimum wage goes up, and half the punk kids will never get a job.

Hell, I'd go back to work doing most anything for the wage these little snotty nosed brats think they are due just for showing up.

Isn't it funny now so many people are demanding higher wages, but it never seems to occur to them to ask for better wages?

Or, better yet, to conduct themselves on the job in a manner that EARNS higher wages.

What I was referring to is the fact that the art of negotiating for better pay is disappearing. If I'm running a fast food joint and have an applicant that is worth $9 an hour but I know they'll settle for $8 an hour, I'm going to offer them $8 an hour. Of course, if they are worth $9 an hour and they ask me for that, then I'll give it to them. They're worth it, after all. Hell, if my need is great and they ask for $10 and play their cards right, I might be able to be convinced to offer them something in between.

One good $12 employee is often worth two $8 employees.

 

[2aguy]

Or an employer could decide whom to hire on its own without some mindless civil servants fascist required wish list ...

The same old Somalia free market idea that doesn't work.
Nothing makes businesses serve the country, but the government, and businesses must serve the country, period.

And if you don't agree, we have a labor camp all set to go for you.........and if you still don't get it...we have other camps for that as well.....

 

[Moonglow]

I plan on opening a business to give my youngest a job,,, and then give him the business....

 

[Mr. H.]

CCC

It worked once.

It can work again.

Though today's youth won't, probably not even at gunpoint.

Who needs the CCC when we gots Obama?

Eligibility is determined by the states.

Yes, dear.

 

[SwimExpert]

One good $12 employee is often worth two $8 employees.

Not necessarily. Sometimes quantity is more important than quality. If the $12 employee actually delivers double the quantity of a typical $8 employee, then they are technically worth $16 an hour at least, but may be able to fetch an even higher price since such an employee is likely to be in high demand. If demand pushes their value up to $17 an hour, that might not be worth it to me if I don't have a readily available use for their future value and upward mobility which is probably being taken into consideration by another company offering them such a price. In short, if they really are so valuable I ought to be looking for new roles for them to fill which are not equatable to the roles of the two $8 employees.

 

[SwimExpert]

CCC

It worked once.

It can work again.

Though today's youth won't, probably not even at gunpoint.

Who needs the CCC when we gots Obama?

Eligibility is determined by the states.

Yes, dear.

The responsibility for increasing SNAP participants thus falls on states, not the federal government. The states need to be doing a better job of managing their eligibility requirements. Some states are doing this, like Maine. But it seems like most states are not.

 

[SwimExpert]

As a business owner for 28+ years I've lived there for a long time. You want as much as you can get and they want to pay as little as they can. That's how it works.

The better the economy gets the more options and opportunity there are.

Indeed, the stronger the economy, the better of a position an employee will have to negotiate better pay. Being assertive does not by itself guarantee a person will be able to secure better pay for themselves. A company just might not have it in their budget. They might be able to obtain equally good services at a lower price than what you're asking. Even still, people need to take more direct responsibility for their pay, and should start viewing the issue in terms of "what can I do?" Even low level line employees can successfully negotiate better pay. And even when an employer is not willing or able to agree to a higher pay at the moment, employees can still set themselves up for better pay.

 

[Politico]

Sounds like the 66 year old busboy at McDs is keeping someone unemployed.

66 year olds know how to show up on time.

Wait until minimum wage goes up, and half the punk kids will never get a job.

Hell, I'd go back to work doing most anything for the wage these little snotty nosed brats think they are due just for showing up.

Isn't it funny now so many people are demanding higher wages, but it never seems to occur to them to ask for better wages?

Or, better yet, to conduct themselves on the job in a manner that EARNS higher wages.

What I was referring to is the fact that the art of negotiating for better pay is disappearing. If I'm running a fast food joint and have an applicant that is worth $9 an hour but I know they'll settle for $8 an hour, I'm going to offer them $8 an hour. Of course, if they are worth $9 an hour and they ask me for that, then I'll give it to them. They're worth it, after all. Hell, if my need is great and they ask for $10 and play their cards right, I might be able to be convinced to offer them something in between.

One good $12 employee is often worth two $8 employees.

And one good Gen x oh hell let's be honest any human over 35 is worth three Millenials.

 

[JoeB131]

Well, let's see now. When the economy started slowing down because of excess inventories, his solution was NOT to employ more people, it was to cut taxes on rich people. Did nothing to help unemployment.

The President does not determine how many people private businesses employ. What a ridiculous suggestion you've made.

But that's the point, dumbass. What he did wasn't helpful. He gave a big giveaway to the rich when he SHOULD have been taking that money and investing in infrastructure and employing people.

IN short, he applied the wrong tool to the problem.

In fact, it made matters worse. By changing us from surpluses to deficits, he made money harder to get for people who wanted to invest. Not a good thing when the stock market was crashign on his watch.

 

[JoeB131]

Indeed, the stronger the economy, the better of a position an employee will have to negotiate better pay. Being assertive does not by itself guarantee a person will be able to secure better pay for themselves. A company just might not have it in their budget. They might be able to obtain equally good services at a lower price than what you're asking. Even still, people need to take more direct responsibility for their pay, and should start viewing the issue in terms of "what can I do?" Even low level line employees can successfully negotiate better pay. And even when an employer is not willing or able to agree to a higher pay at the moment, employees can still set themselves up for better pay.

Or we can just change the laws and raise the minimum wage and boost everyone's pay.

That works, too.

 

[SwimExpert]

Or we can just change the laws and raise the minimum wage and boost everyone's pay.

That works, too.

So you think that government intervention is a better solution than people being responsible for their own selves? Wow, that's pathetic.

 

[SwimExpert]

Well, let's see now. When the economy started slowing down because of excess inventories, his solution was NOT to employ more people, it was to cut taxes on rich people. Did nothing to help unemployment.

The President does not determine how many people private businesses employ. What a ridiculous suggestion you've made.

But that's the point, dumbass. What he did wasn't helpful. He gave a big giveaway to the rich when he SHOULD have been taking that money and investing in infrastructure and employing people.

IN short, he applied the wrong tool to the problem.

In fact, it made matters worse. By changing us from surpluses to deficits, he made money harder to get for people who wanted to invest. Not a good thing when the stock market was crashign on his watch.

It was irrelevant! Dumbass! Cutting taxes doesn't lead to unemployment. Nobody, and I mean nobody lost their job because their boss was suddenly paying less taxes. Jesus ******* Christ, how goddamned stupid are you leftist whackos going to get?

 

[Judicial review]

Do they not know that individuals and businesses ahve done more in charity than the federal government has done in 60 years? LOL! Morons.

 

[JoeB131]

Or we can just change the laws and raise the minimum wage and boost everyone's pay.

That works, too.

So you think that government intervention is a better solution than people being responsible for their own selves? Wow, that's pathetic.

Uh, no, guy,w hat I believe in is an even playing field.

This last recession, the rich couldn't wait to screw working people.

 

[JoeB131]

It was irrelevant! Dumbass! Cutting taxes doesn't lead to unemployment. Nobody, and I mean nobody lost their job because their boss was suddenly paying less taxes. Jesus ******* Christ, how goddamned stupid are you leftist whackos going to get?

No, they lost jobs because the government borrowed more, drying up capital while transferring wealth to China.

IN short, Bush giving tax cuts to his rich buddies really fucked up the economy.

 

[SwimExpert]

It was irrelevant! Dumbass! Cutting taxes doesn't lead to unemployment. Nobody, and I mean nobody lost their job because their boss was suddenly paying less taxes. Jesus ******* Christ, how goddamned stupid are you leftist whackos going to get?

No, they lost jobs because the government borrowed more, drying up capital while transferring wealth to China.

IN short, Bush giving tax cuts to his rich buddies really fucked up the economy.

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry, you guys don't understand economics. The OUghts kind of proved Republicans are economic retards.

Last four recessions- ALL republican.

When I was growing up, my parents said, "Democrats give us Wars, Republicans give us Recessions."

The Bushes give us both.