Why did teenagers stop getting jobs?

[HVC]

Curse you Jacob!

[crazy canuck]

I suppose many people arent' retiring probably because they can't afford to.

Perhaps, but I think more often than not people are more more healthy and active in their 60s/70s  compared to past decades and so have no desire to retire.  Plus in many jurisdictions it is now contrary to human rights codes to fire people on the basis of age whereas before employers could set a retirement age.

[dps]

I raised the point a long time ago, but it seemed to have been overlooked:

Could the graph not simply reflect that graduation rates have increased quite a bit over the last 30 years?  That the decrease in youth employment is because more youths are staying in school, rather than leaving school and trying to work full time at age 16 (as once happened more frequently)?

I suspect the conversation about after school part time jobs is missing the main part of the story.

Graduation rates have not increased significantly since 1999, the year the real falloff started.  In fact, graduation rates peaked in the US in 1969, when the youth employment rate was 24%.  Last year the employment rate was 6% and the graduation rate 66.8% (http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/06/10/34swanson.h29.html).

I think we need to find another answer.

Yeah, I didn't directly address Beeb's point, but it was one of the things I had in mind when I said that it doesn't fit the timeline.

I definitely think the economy is a factor. When unemployment is high, there's fewer entry-level positions available and a lot more skilled workers in the job market.

This is another idea that doesn't fit the timeline--the graph shows a huge drop-off in participation starting roughly a decade before the current economic downturn.  Back then, some businesses were complaining about a shortage of entry-level employees, and were actually giving hiring bonuses to entry-level personell.

[HisMajestyBOB]

I raised the point a long time ago, but it seemed to have been overlooked:

Could the graph not simply reflect that graduation rates have increased quite a bit over the last 30 years?  That the decrease in youth employment is because more youths are staying in school, rather than leaving school and trying to work full time at age 16 (as once happened more frequently)?

I suspect the conversation about after school part time jobs is missing the main part of the story.

Graduation rates have not increased significantly since 1999, the year the real falloff started.  In fact, graduation rates peaked in the US in 1969, when the youth employment rate was 24%.  Last year the employment rate was 6% and the graduation rate 66.8% (http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/06/10/34swanson.h29.html).

I think we need to find another answer.

Yeah, I didn't directly address Beeb's point, but it was one of the things I had in mind when I said that it doesn't fit the timeline.

I definitely think the economy is a factor. When unemployment is high, there's fewer entry-level positions available and a lot more skilled workers in the job market.

This is another idea that doesn't fit the timeline--the graph shows a huge drop-off in participation starting roughly a decade before the current economic downturn.  Back then, some businesses were complaining about a shortage of entry-level employees, and were actually giving hiring bonuses to entry-level personell.

Yeah, I actually just glanced at the graph and assumed it covered a shorter time scale than it does.  I maintain that it is a factor now and in the dip you see around 2008, but I guess less than I thought (except for me )

[garbon]

Absolutely.  It's also when you learn that life has privileges and responsibilities.  Teaching kids the value of a dollar earned as opposed to a dollar given is important.  I never appreciated how hard my parents worked until I got my first job at age 15.  It was an eye opening experience and one that all kids should have. 

You learn work ethic at an early age.  If you go into the workforce for the first time after college and you have no specialized degree, you're going in with unrealistic expectations.  You've never done that entry level menial job with no appreciation and little monetary reward.   Everyone should wash dishes or wait tables or work construction for a summer or two.  Builds character.

I didn't work until I was 17, only because I graduated early. My mother didn't want me working while going to high school as she said it was most important to focus on my grades. Considering that your typical senior graduates at 18, it isn't totally unreasonable for them to start working after 19.  Nothing in that says they were coddled but rather that their parents put an emphasis on more important things.  Minimum wage vs. working my grades to get into Stanford. No brainer.

[Eddie Teach]

Yeah.

I mean, it was a cliche to bemoan the character of "youth these days" in Republican Rome, Ancient Greece and Ancient China (if not before).

To apply a millenia old truism to explain a significant change in the economic landscape within the last decade, does seem more intellectually lazy than making a typo in your second language.

It's not the children's character but the parents' circumstances that have changed. A couple that has two kids while in their 30s will typically be able to indulge them more than one who has three kids while in their 20s. Though perceived difficulty entering the labor market is doubtless also a factor.

[grumbler]

It's not the children's character but the parents' circumstances that have changed. A couple that has two kids while in their 30s will typically be able to indulge them more than one who has three kids while in their 20s. Though perceived difficulty entering the labor market is doubtless also a factor.

I think you have a big chunk of it right there.

[DGuller]

And what about the other part of the graph? Why are people who should be retired still working?

As for teenage jobs, there's not much that I can say, it's something that it's not done at all over here in the way that you describe it, which seems to be pretty idiosincratic. Anyway the tired old line of "young kids these days are too soft, unlike us who are carved out of fucking granite" seems so intelectually lazy that it embarrases me to read so many of you uttering it.

Middle aged people these days are too soft.  Back in the day, middle aged people wouldn't be blabbering about their kids getting soft.  They'd be beating the shit out of them to toughen them up.

[alfred russel]

For people from better off backgrounds, they often end up in either private schools or some of the better public schools. To a disproportionate extent they then go on to well paid white collar careers. I think it is good to experience some of what the working class goes through, even if briefly.

Also, at least for me the time I spent in college was quite lazy. Very little studying and certainly coursework wasn't equivalent to a full time job. I spent 10-15 hours a week working, and probably not much more than that on schoolwork excluding finals and midterm weeks. Very few put in 40 hours a week just on schoolwork, and from what I understand that hasn't changed.

[Martinus]

I worked at McDonalds when I was 17 and I closed all the time.

But that does not exactly refute the theory that people who work as teenagers end up having shitty jobs and are idiots, does it?

[Martinus]

I think it is good to experience some of what the working class goes through, even if briefly.

I experience that when I have to take a bus. That's more than enough. Especially in summer. 

[Monoriu]

I think work experience of shitty jobs is over-rated.  I doubt the experience of working in McDonald's is going to help prepare for office jobs. 

Very few HKers who plan to go to university work in their teenage years.  The reality is that if your classmates (read your competitors) spend most of their free time studying, and you don't, you'll lose your university place to them. 

[The Larch]

And what about the other part of the graph? Why are people who should be retired still working?

Why should people retire?

Because if they don't you end up in a disfunctional gerontocracy, with old people clinging to the top jobs in your society, holding back the generational advancement and getting young people squeezed out of their careers. Some particular cases can be understood, but eventually the old have to get out of the picture and make room for the young.

[The Brain]

And what about the other part of the graph? Why are people who should be retired still working?

Why should people retire?

Because if they don't you end up in a disfunctional gerontocracy, with old people clinging to the top jobs in your society, holding back the generational advancement and getting young people squeezed out of their careers. Some particular cases can be understood, but eventually the old have to get out of the picture and make room for the young.

Should they have retired while still able to work in the old days too or is today a special case?

[The Larch]

I raised the point a long time ago, but it seemed to have been overlooked:

Could the graph not simply reflect that graduation rates have increased quite a bit over the last 30 years?  That the decrease in youth employment is because more youths are staying in school, rather than leaving school and trying to work full time at age 16 (as once happened more frequently)?

I suspect the conversation about after school part time jobs is missing the main part of the story.

Yeah, there are many different interpretations that can be made from that graph, and the text of the article would come in quite handy, as would be lots of complementary information, as we only have the participation rate data. The gist of the article, as per the tagline of that graph, would be that the increased participation of older workers is pushing out younger workers, but we don't have their rationale. To tackle just the part-time after-school teenage job market is narrowing a lot the focus of the discussion.