Cuts to summer job programs hit young workers hardest
Friday, July 09, 2010 at 9:30 am
The White House is touting it as “recovery summer”: The economy is adding jobs, the unemployment rate is falling, housing is stabilizing and the $787 billion stimulus is working. But it certainly doesn’t feel that way to America’s young workers, who suffer the worst rates of joblessness of any demographic group — more than 18 percent, compared with 9.5 percent overall. And with July in full swing, their jobs situation is about to get worse.
States and regional governments have slashed the summer programs that helped more than 320,000 young people find work last year, as stimulus funding is running out and Congress has failed to re-up the funds. Indeed, $1 billion in funding for summer jobs died along with the jobs bill, now being split up and — for some of its components — passed separately. Even if Congress gets to the summer jobs fund, and passes it, for hundreds of thousands of workers, it will be August, and too late.
This is just one more headwind in what has become a perfect storm for youth unemployment, as young people, without long employment histories, compete for scarce positions with more seasoned workers. The unemployment rate for 16- to 24-year-olds hit 20 percent this spring, and has declined only slightly since then. In some cities, such as New York, it ranges as high as 40 percent. Nationally, one in four working-age teenagers is unemployed — for black teenagers, closer to one in two. In May, the economy created just 6,000 jobs for teens — 120 jobs per state, the smallest number in 40 years.
Spells of unemployment are particularly detrimental for young workers. They tend to have less in savings and less work history than their older counterparts, as well as more debt. Therefore, they are more prone than older workers to falling into poverty when they lose their jobs. And as fewer of them are married, they cannot rely on a spouse’s work for income or health benefits. “Without insurance coverage, these young adults risk both their physical health and their financial security,” the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation reported this winter.
Moreover, unemployment hurts young workers for longer than older workers. In an April report titled “The Kids Aren’t Alright,” the Economic Policy Institute’s Kathryn Anne Edwards and Alexander Hertel-Fernandez detailed the reasons why.
“Work during teen years is characterized as being highly path-dependent — work status in one period is very sensitive to work status in the time period before,” they note. “With a dramatic downturn in the young adult labor market, fewer young workers are being incorporated into this path” — from work in high school to work in college to work afterward. Economists often describe youth unemployment as a “permanent scar,” rather than the “temporary blemish” it is for older workers. Studies show that the lack of early work experience depresses wages for the rest of a worker’s life.
Summer jobs programs couldn’t fix all this, but programs funded with the $1.2 billion infusion from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act certainly were helping. Nationwide, the summer jobs program — centered on aiding young people with barriers to employment, such as pregnancy, school drop-outs or low family income — placed 88 percent of participants into summer jobs. By November 2009, the program helped more than 355,000 young people in all 50 states.
Consider San Bernardino County, in southern California. The unemployment rate there is among the highest in the country — more than 14 percent — and the area has suffered from the lagging effects of the recession, especially the housing bust. Last year, stimulus funding meant work for hundreds of San Bernardino youths, and 43,500 young people across California. This year, the county planned to run the same programs, assuming the same level of federal funding, promised by legislators in Washington. (On the expectation of additional federal funds, and a decline in the unemployment rate, state and local governments used more than two-thirds of the available funds by November of last year.)
But the money is not there, and the county is shuttering parts of the program. It is not alone. Some places — such as Boston — have found companies or nonprofits to keep programs open. Many have not. Nobody knows how many fewer young workers will benefit, but a tally of big-city programs suggests the number is in the hundreds of thousands.
Nor does it look like federal aid will make a late arrival. Even when the Senate returns, it has no plans to resuscitate the jobs package — meaning young workers are on their own.
“We served a record number of kids last year,” says Cathleen Collins, a spokesperson for the New York Department of Youth and Community Development, whose summer jobs program placed 52,000 young people last year. “This year, we are getting less funding from the state, and [$18.5 million] less from the federal government. … We monitored [the jobs bill] on an ongoing basis. It really was not clear to us that the funds would go through. So, we had a program that we could ramp up if it did, but the program is smaller this year” — half the size of last year’s, though unemployment in New York City is higher.
Kalyani Thampi, a research analyst at the National Center for Children in Poverty, stresses that sustained, consistent investments in young people would be best. “It is worth it. It is cost-intensive, and time-intensive, and labor-intensive for governments to set these programs up,” she says. “But in the long term, these kids are given skill sets.” She also notes that the programs focus not on college graduates unable to get jobs, but on young workers who are more income-insecure to begin with — less educated, for instance. “Vocational training and pre-professional programs are becoming more and more important,” though the recession has forced governments to slash spending on such social-safety-net initiatives. “We have many, many unemployed youths who aren’t going to community college or to four-year degrees. They need to get jobs, and they need to be trained.”
In that sense, it is not just the young workers who are missing out — it is the American labor force, missing the opportunity to train young people in the fields of the future.
21 Comments
Comment posted July 9, 2010 @ 9:40 am
When I was a kid>> I worked as a dishwasher to get through college..
Today>> You have to have a college degree to be a dishwasher..
Good Job Capitalism, Republicans and Sympathizer Dems .. Turn the future of this country into petty labor even AFTER they graduate from College..
Comment posted July 9, 2010 @ 11:31 am
Why don’t they just get jobs as waitstaff? According to Emmer, you can make $100,000 a year doing that.
Comment posted July 9, 2010 @ 11:48 am
“The economy is adding jobs, the unemployment rate is falling, housing is stabilizing and the $787 billion stimulus is working.”
And the herd of unicorns looks especially fine this year.
Comment posted July 9, 2010 @ 11:54 am
But help is on the way! Marg Kelliher just proposed raising the minimum wage by $1.50. That’ll solve the problem. Yup.
Comment posted July 9, 2010 @ 1:07 pm
Wow. I agree with Dennis for once on both posts.. Giethner is gonna lead the our economy into a double dip recession.. The principles of Allan Greenspan are still in place and we are gonna get hit again.. Plus the love affair that Republicans and Sympathizer Dems have for (Communist/Capitalist) CHINA have destroyed ANY prospect of the American Dream.. Good Job Capitalism!! And yes Minimum Wage should start at $25.oo You are correct Dennis..
Comment posted July 9, 2010 @ 1:43 pm
The reason why $25 and not $50 is the minimum wage isn’t supposed to be just some arbitrary number. It’s supposed to guarantee the employer pays the employee enough to live on without resorting to government help or charities. You can do that on $25, so that’s why not $50. You can live on less than $25, but not on $7 which is about where the minimum wage is now. It should probably be around $10-11 to allow the employee to be self-supporting. It’s the idea that anyone willing to work full time should be able to support themselves.
Comment posted July 9, 2010 @ 2:14 pm
Right On Eric! You said it way nicer then I would have..
Comment posted July 9, 2010 @ 3:20 pm
Ok, here’s a little quiz for marcus and Eric:
If you raised the minimum wage to $10 an hour, would that cause the number of unemployed people to:
a) increase
b) decrease
c) remain the same
[queue theme from Jeopardy]
Comment posted July 9, 2010 @ 3:31 pm
That question has 2 answers Dennis.. First you have to make incremental changes to the minimum wage.. Let’s say $1.oo per year.. At first the unemployment rate would remain the same until that money starts to trickle through our economy. When the money starts to pump through our economy other businesses will hire .. Supply and Demand baby! Of course you Republicans believe in supply only.. Oh so the answer to your question is
C.) at first then
A.) after economic stimulation
Comment posted July 9, 2010 @ 4:34 pm
Seriously, remember how raising the minimum wage in the past led to high unemployment? Yeah, I don’t either.
Comment posted July 9, 2010 @ 5:49 pm
Right on Chayanov!! I wish there were more Troll Baggers to pick on.. So far there is only Dennis.. Hey Dennis get some more of your buddies here..
Comment posted July 9, 2010 @ 7:44 pm
Here you go fellows:
I figured you could use it.
And thanks for playing.
Comment posted July 10, 2010 @ 12:27 am
The Center for Freedom and Prosperity is the best you can do? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You could use a functioning brain, Dennis.
Comment posted July 10, 2010 @ 12:33 am
I notice there are absolutely no real-world examples used in that video, either. Just more “hypothetical hyperbole”.
Comment posted July 10, 2010 @ 8:38 pm
‘The economy is adding jobs, the unemployment rate is falling, housing is stabilizing and the $787 billion stimulus is working.’
“And the herd of unicorns looks especially fine this year.”
Well said, Dennis. That was the part that caught my attention as well. Who the H-E-Double hockey sticks do they think they’re fooling?
I’ll have you all know Dennis chides most of my posts and we don’t exactly see eye to eye on everything, but who here believes that things are “improving?” I have some mutual funds heavily leveraged in CSO’s for ya to buy…
Comment posted July 11, 2010 @ 3:19 am
While I do not agree with Dennis, I have to disagree with Eric as well.
I do not think that the Minimum Wage was intended to be a living wage, I think it is a mechanism for making sure employers do not abuse the power they have over low-wage employees. Such workers are generally on the economic fringe, and have the least prospects for advancement or career change, the fewest alternatives.
1) The 2.13 tip-based minimum wage is 35 years old and not adjusted for cost-of-living over that time. To offer a mid-70s sub-minimum wage in today’s economy is an outrageous insult.
2) These wage earners are also the customer-facing employees of the business. They make those tips by pleasing the customers, encouraging them to return. These employees create much of the atmosphere and reputation of the business. These are the last people you want to betray, and a 60% paycut can only be taken as a betrayal.
These are the hard-working Americans that republicans keep praising but never actually help. Attacking their wages is just another anti-labor policy from conservatives who refuse to recognize that the working class is a critical part of the economy, which is why Emmer and his ilk are completely incapable of organizing a healthy economy – let along an economic recovery.
Comment posted July 11, 2010 @ 2:02 pm
It would not be a 60% pay cut unless the only pay they received was the employer-paid minimum wage. I eat out 2-3 times a week at the same 4-5 family restaurants in St. Paul. I tip 20-22% on average, which comes out to about $5-6 a meal. If that table is turned twice an hour, that’s probably $11 an hour potential per table.
Multiply that by what, four tables a server is responsible for? That’s a potential of over $40 an hour.
If that’s even close to typical, that minimum wage component looks pretty irrelevant.
Comment posted July 12, 2010 @ 10:14 pm
Oh my God!! I agree with Dennis AND crohnsguy.. Republicans like Obama and Clinton helped contribute to our economic destruction We need to abandon CONSERVATISM and embrace LIBERALISM!!!! Right on GUYS.. Your totally RIGHT!!
Comment posted July 14, 2010 @ 11:11 am
Annie wrote that “the unemployment rate is falling, ”
Yet two days earlier she wrote that the reason the rate is falling is because people have stopped looking for work and dropped out of the workforce.
So, we have an explanation for the falling rate two days ago, but not in this article. What gives?
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.







