From Reuters:
Teenagers have found it significantly harder to get a job since the recession began in late 2007, with black youths and young people from low-income families faring the worst, wrote Andrew Sum of Northeastern University in Boston, a employment researcher commissioned by the Chicago Urban League and the Alternative Schools Network.
"Low-income and minority youth, who depended on part-time jobs as a significant stepping stone to future employment, have been forced out of the job market and economically marginalized," Herman Brewer of the Chicago Urban League said in a statement.
...Among the proposals the report supported were government-funded jobs programs directed at the young, additional funding to help re-enroll school dropouts, and government-funded expansions of work internships.
I've got a more radical proposal - one that decreases the scope of government and one that doesn't increase it's size: lower or eliminate the minimum wage. Even if someone is willing and able to accept a job for, say, $5.00 an hour, the law says that he can't. Why should that be illegal? Update: Keep in mind that this has been going since before the recession hit.








Increase in minimum wage can help those low income earners an opportunity to be motivated and prove what they can do
Posted by: Online Consultation | January 27, 2010 at 10:59 AM
1. Low skill = low income
2. Low income earners can show what they can do at any wage, provided they have a job.
3. A minimum wage creates unemployment of low-skilled workers, making them less likely to have a job.
Summary: the minimum wage gives low income people less of a chance to "show what they can do."
Posted by: Phil | January 27, 2010 at 11:38 AM