Because high quality jobs for adult workers have disappeared, so those adult workers are taking jobs that teenagers would have done in previous generations. There's massive under-employment in most western countries at the moment.
"Parents are pushing kids to volunteer and sign up for extracurricular activities instead of working, to impress college admission counselors."
I think this is one of the reasons I see most often (I graduated from high school 2 years ago). Many students think that taking a minimum wage job for the summer won't do them any good, and their parents push them to believe that "education is their job", so they opt for things outside of working to fill their summers.
Those students are right. I've never heard of a college admissions board that saw working as a valid extracurricular.
I had to work at least a part time job from 15 on, and I was at a big disadvantage to people who didn't have to work. I gained a lot from it, better work ethic, an understanding of workplace professionalism, money management, etc. But college would have much preferred I played a sport, was involved in school clubs, or even volunteered.
So if college is in the plans, and a kid doesn't absolutely have to work, then there is no reason for them to do so.
And then, of course, there's the economic reality that plenty of traditionally "teenage" jobs have been taken over by 20 and 30-somethings (and even older) who desperately need the work.
> I've never heard of a college admissions board that saw working as a valid extracurricular.
The cynic reason is probably that they are filtering for social class and don't want working class people, but that sounds awful. Do colleges give a better reason, or at least an excuse?
I don't think it's a matter of want, as much as a matter of being disconnected from what working class life is like, which I think ends up having the same effect, even if the intention is much less sinister.
Actually I used my 4 years of high school work as a rural irrigator to get into Ivy undergrad, it worked like a charm despite my preposterously low grades and uneven disciplinary record.
The trick is just to spin it as more "sunset over the cornfields/1950's Americana" than "grim middle class suburban strip mall McDonalds drudgery."
Basically you just have to accord with the idealized mythos of smallholding independent yeomanry that is built into our culture and that East coast admissions officers so desperately want to believe about flyover country.
As the parent comment alludes, they're not working class, they don't know anyone who is, and they have all sorts of silly ideas about mythologizing the dignity of work and the lived experience of the proletariat. Just don't let your application disabuse them of the notion that digging holes in the hot sun for 14 hours a day is a glorious pastime.
Fancy school admissions is just like the art world, their whole objective is to avoid association with anything coded middle-class. It's fine to be low or high, just stay out of the middle.
As someone who went to college in the early 90s, this just sounds so bizarre. Have things changed this much? Nobody I knew gave a shit about any of this stuff. We all had part time jobs to buy a video game now and then or a new pair of shoes. I did even more work over the summer, and was able to buy my first PC after 3 months of pretty much full time work. College was just a matter of getting reasonably good grades in high school, applying to 10-20 colleges, and going to the one that accepts you. Done. None of this ridiculous optimize your life along a single "what admissions boards want to see" metric. I mean you kids are paying 10X now what it cost back then, AND you're jumping through all these silly hoops as well? Insanity.
For the record, I graduated high school in 1997, and while I don't think working was actively seen as a disadvantage, it was a functional disadvantage (less time for extracurriculars and studying), and college boards didn't see working a part time job as any kind of life experience or extracurricular.
I think it's only gotten much, much worse since then, though.
I graduated high school in 2009 and went to my flagship state school (UW), and had a similar experience in that getting decent grades and SAT scores was what counted. I think for the big schools like the Ivys, MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, etc... it might be more involved.
I think I got a perfectly good education at University of Washington, but I think to some people anything less than something highly ranked by US News is failure. I think we feel hyper competitive to be the best and only partake in the best, because anything less leaves us exposed, and it is stressful to live that way.
As wealth and income disparity grow, there is much more to gain and lose by choosing the right school. It's not about the learning, it's about the network you will have for the rest of your life. Getting this right will grant you access to people wealthy enough to invest in you, people who know people who can get things done and move things along when you hit a wall (politicians/lawyers/doctors/etc). This is probably worth a lot as it all compounds over ones lifetime and translates to advantages even for their children and their children, hence the intense competition.
I had a min wage job one summer. The work was grueling, and taught me that getting an education and working with my head rather than my back was worthwhile.
I've washed dishes and cleaned toilets. I don't think it did anything to improve my knowledge of engineering, programming, economics, and so on. I don't think it helped me start businesses later on. I don't think there was anything learned that wasn't known already: it's physically and mentally tiring to wash dishes and clean toilets. Eventually my parents decided my time was better spent studying and let me off my duties.
If it had existed back then, I would have been better off spending my time studying programming. Or making a radio.
The admissions officer argument is an American thing, it's not a huge deal in Europe. But it's hard to see how a kid who is headed for college, and probably something technical, is better off doing menial work than just studying, anywhere. If you can do something to boost your earnings in a few years, do so. What's the big deal if you miss out on a few grand when you're in your mid teens?
I think the big deal comes when lower-class teens work to help support their families. The fact that work doesn't matter to admissions officers only exacerbates their disadvantage.
It likely improved your appreciation and motivation.
There are many posts here describing the valuable lesson of holding down a job, showing up on time, and appreciation for the benefits an education can bring. Some kids desperately need this, especially those not able postpone gratification.
A professional webinar I attended (as a parent of a high schooler) had opposite view. The college admission counselors treat real work, volunteering, extracurricular, on equal footing. Finding yourself running a business as a high schooler, is obviously better.
I think it is perceived as a glib assertion that it is laziness or something but I'm not sure thats the parents intention. Like you say, why would you want to do menial, mindless and/or backbreaking work if you had lots of quality entertainment and could possibly avoid it?
When I was growing up I at least got to do interesting outdoor work (yardwork, carpentry, tiling, etc) and learned skills from other older skilled people, but even then doing volunteer work would probably have been a better choice in terms of college applications.
I was in school not long ago. I loved my summers, not because I was working, but because I was just having fun. I thought, if I'm not going to have holidays like this in future (after university), why the hell would I spend them working? And I enjoyed myself with friends, doing my hobbies (programming and learning Japanese) and travelling and of course, shooter games.
This coming summer I'll be doing a job (I'm at university), and while it is appealing in some sense (I'm getting paid for it), I know what I'd rather be doing.
I just don't understand why parents are asking their children to spend that long time of summer to do things they don't want to. They're already given homework, and school life is stressfull, especially when most of it is days that last from 9am until 4pm with added homework and maybe learning an instrument meanwhile.
I say let them do what they want, and they won't come out worse for it. I think it is a very strong criticism that only "official" extracurricular activities are looked upon favorably by the capitalists, and I suggest there ought to be a shift in that situation. You don't have to start getting people on the wage labour mill as soon as possible, and for me it's quite sad to learn that it may be becoming the norm.
I find it slightly amusing (and kind of sad since I don't wish any hardship on anyone) that my parents always thought games were a waste of time and/or were actually damaging, but my brother and I have turned out to be as or more well rounded people than a lot of the other kids we grew up with. Most of them were the kids of my parents friends (who you always find yourself compared to) who did not play games. That is not to say I think I'm more successful or better or anything, but a lot of the people that I grew up with had more "normal" social habits (that usually included drinking, parties and drugs none of which I'm necessarily against) but the end result was that a fair number had to drop out of college due to alcohol and drug problems or something else and a surprising number ended up back home or nearby not too many years after. I can't help but feel like video games, while not necessarily preventing alcohol/drug use can provide a more active outlet that can be social in and of itself. Looking back I do wish I had diversified more (more volunteering, for one) but given that I grew up in a really remote area without easy transportation, gaming (especially online) was actually a pretty great outlet and I ended up interacting with a lot of people I never would have otherwise.
My friends and I got together last weekend to lay about and play video games (Paragon and L4D2 for what its worth) for the first time in a while (everyone getting married and having kids etc) and I can still feel the slight condemnation but given we're all stable, good job having members of society nobody can really say anything about it anymore ;)
I heartily agree, and I wouldn't suggest it's a bad thing. Teenagers are having fun in perhaps not the healthiest way, or the most intellectually stimulating, but it's fun, and I wouldn't want to take that away from someone in exchange for a job. Many players also have other activities, unofficial ones, as hobbies too. To support playing Overwatch is for some to support engaging in a hobby they personally enjoy.
Suppose you were to direct a teenager to do a hobby he/she isn't too keen on, in which case the fun time will be consumed with instant gratification. Then suppose you give them the free time to find and cultivate hobbies at will.
I am experiencing this right now. My exams just finished and I'm finding more time to do programming (a close replica of the 2003 Japanese futaba imageboard script in modern PHP), and Overwatch. Sure, I'm not programming all the time, and it's not an "extracurricular activity" (at least not an official one) but it's mighty fun.
dunno where this is coming from...my kids both went and got jobs immediately after getting thier DL's on thier own. And they both have/had heavy academic and extracurricular scheds.
they just wanted to make their own dough. both already have retirement accounts running too...even the 16 year-old...we had bank accounts for them starting in 6th grade and forced them to balance, etc...
get 'em going early then they get on autopilot. gotta get the good feedback loop going asap...
I can't imagine high school without a part-time job during the school year and full-time hours in the summer. I mean, I did AP and Honors courses, plus soccer in the Fall and Winter and Track in the Spring, and worked at Dairy Queen year-round (having a blast with my friends) to make some money and migrate my way in to adulthood. I know many families were more well off than my mom and I were, so maybe such work seems wasteful... but the experiences from almost any work as a teenager seems invaluable: time management/scheduling, earning your keep, learning how to interact with all types of people (including managers who, often, you will butt-heads with ideologically)... all things you simply cannot learn in school, or studying.
And, completely anecdotally, but measuring my friends it seems like the earlier a person started working the more well-rounded and level-headed they are today.
Yeah, but having worked as a dishwasher in a restaurant means I wasn't doing much else besides leaving school, getting to work, coming home smelling like fish, showering at 11pm and getting up the next morning at 6:15. I guess it gave me character but didn't do great for extra-curricular activities to put on my college application.
I wonder why so many financial publications, who supposedly know a thing or two about economics, sound so woefully ignorant when contemplating the behavior of younger generations?
"Millennials are buying fewer cars and houses. Does their 'culture' favor non-ownership?"
No... they have higher levels of student load debt than previous generations, and lower income prospects due to stagnating wages. Almost everyone I know who DOES get a high-paying job eventually winds up buying a car and house.
"Fewer teenagers are working jobs. Are they more lazy?"
No... there are more unemployed adults these days, who are forced into the restaurant and retail jobs traditionally filled by teens. As professionals in the financial industry, surely you understand well enough that the official "unemployment rate" does not reflect the true "labor participation" rate.
Is all of this willful ignorance? Or are financial writers not researching and thinking anymore?
The actual article does indeed address most if not all of the exact issues you just raised, for example:
Why aren't teens working?... They're being crowded out of the workforce by older Americans, now working past 65 at the highest rates in more than 50 years. Immigrants are competing with teens for jobs... College-bound teens aren't looking for work because the money doesn't go as far as it used to.
Perhaps the headline is asking a "willfully ignorant" question; but the reason is to get you to click through to the article, which does seem to be trying to put forth some theories.
With the caveat that for anyone actually looking for a nuanced article, that headline is far more likely to cause them to dismiss it than to click through. But I suppose there will always be other information sources targeting that demographic, with titles along the lines of "Emergent incentive structures for labor participation of middle class teens in labor over-supplied developed economies"[1], or something of the sort.
[1] Entirely fictitious title, was too millennial and lazy to find a proper article studying this ;)
It hovered around 60% until 1970, and then increased, hitting about 67% in 2000. I'm guessing that reflected increasing paid employment of women, at least in part. Since 2000, it's dropped, plateauing at around 66% until 2008, and then plateauing at around 63% since 2012.
That's because the buying power of the minimum wage has been getting lower over time, while teenage employment has been going down. It's not the reason teenagers aren't working.
A lot of these arguments about retirees taking minimum wage jobs and all that is simply increased supply of labor which should push wages down. But they can't possibly go down below the minimum wage. Remember, the minimum wage is just the legal requirement that employers prejudice against the least productive members of the work force. If minimum wage is $10/hr but your fair market wage is $5/hr, you're unemployed.
Teenagers don't work summer jobs for spectacular buying power, they usually work for experience. In most modern jobs, however, there's hardly any way an inexperienced part-time teenager can add value quantified at or above minimum wage levels.
Minimum wage is the single greatest cause of unemployment on the lower end of the salary/productivity spectrum. If you have $5/hr worth of productivity but minimum wage is $10/hr, then you're unemployed.
Your experience is very unevenly distributed, at least for the second item. Around here, restaraunts, car washes, and retailers will hire anyone, they all have signs up. The car wash starts at $15/hr...good teenager money. I was just speaking to a an established restaurant owner who is raising menu prices so he can try to pay more to keep bus boys and servers as the market is so competitive. Which is what would be expected in a tight labor market. I do not see a lack of retail and restaurant jobs, or those jobs being taken by old people.
what is the opportunity cost of spending all that time washing cars though? If you don't need the resources I think there are better ways to spend your formative years
Tell that to my 16 year-old. He's bored sitting around the house and actively sought out a job. Now he gets to hang out with people he likes and is paid for it.
One summer as a teen I worked a maintenance job at a family owned warehouse. It involved pouring asphalt, shoveling gravel, and cleaning warehouse walls.
This was in Southern Illinois mind you so it was blazing hot and humid everyday. The dust from the warehouse walls would aggravate my allergies and send me off on sneezing fits. I hated every second of it.
This work made me appreciate how important it was to go to college do well in school. It also made me appreciate the "hard work" people do that goes unnoticed.
My longest "hardest" days as a Software Engineer in SF do not compare to that maintenance job. I did not gain much financially but I did learn a lot about endurance.
> there are more unemployed adults these days, who are forced into the restaurant and retail jobs traditionally filled by teens.
While I generally agree with that thesis, everywhere I go in the USA I see an abundance of job openings at those levels. Help wanted signs are literally everywhere.
Unemployment is at 4%, which is nearly full employment - yes there is a separate wages problem too, but right now nearly nationwide there are huge numbers of job openings for low skilled work.
2 anecdotes: I work as a waiter and there are people in their late 20s and several over 50. College grads and older folks are (in my area) filling positions held by 19-25 year olds.
2. Radio shack had a were hiring ad at all locations in my area up until a few weeks ago when they went under. It signals they were doing well. Also, companies are always trying to add people with great skills or replace people if they have high turnover. They might not actually be hiring, just backing themselves up or replacing people.
The labor participation rate is the lowest it's been since the 70s when we largely didn't allow women to work. The 4% unemployment rate is missing a lot of the story.
Maybe the rhetoric has shifted now that the administration was changed, but the last time I checked, the labor participation rate was largely attributable to:
* Retiring baby boomers
* Married women not needing to work
* Young, work-eligible adults are in college, not employed
* Robust-enough welfare that work is optional
Aside from the latter, I don't know that any of the above are cause for concern.
I'd like to see more data that counteracts the data I keep seeing:
1. Baby boomers are not retiring at the levels previously expected, and they're not retiring (and slowing down promotions for juniors).
2. Marriage rates are lower than ever. Single parent households are becoming a new norm.
3. Too many college graduates have experienced low salaries or poor job prospects compared to expectations (and now they're defaulting on their loans!)
4. Welfare/transfers are not enough and mostly go to those already in jobs, subsidizing the low wages. (The Walmart class, etc.)
Now we have political instability and that's not a cause for concern?
I wasn't meaning to imply that political instability isn't a cause for concern, but I wasn't referring to the introduction in my conclusion, just the listed points.
Also, for what it's worth, I didn't intend to refer to it as political instability, rather, just the usual situation in which one administration explains uncomfortable facts differently from another.
I have no idea what Trump's response to it would be, but IIRC, the Obama administration spun the low participation rate as something akin to "Well, now that people don't have to have jobs for medical insurance, now they're free to drop out of the workforce and pursue their hobbies" or something. To be fair, that didn't strike me as a terribly convincing answer, but I'd wager it unlikely that the Trump administration would "credit" the ACA for the low participation rate, even if it were true.
> IIRC, the Obama administration spun the low participation rate as something akin to "Well, now that people don't have to have jobs for medical insurance, now they're free to drop out of the workforce and pursue their hobbies" or something.
You recall incorrectly. The Obama Administration never spun low labor force participation like that.
People on disability are the fastest-growing segment of the population, NPR profiles a county where 25% of residents are disabled http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/
Because they shouldn't be wasting their summers on a very low-paying job (maybe $5 after taxes, since they're likely claimed as a dependent). They have the rest of their lives to work.
Background: I worked ~20 hours a week at a restaurant/grocery/greenhouse from age 15 to age 18, in addition to school, sports, and research.
When I have kids, they will not work jobs like bussing tables, or bagging groceries. I would support them taking on entrepreneurial activities like starting their own mowing/leaning/whatever business, but bagging groceries is a waste of time if you don't need the resources. If I was able to do it over again, I would do more to specialize in a skill set early on at the expense of less menial labor at 6.50/hr. Time is the most expensive resource we have, and the ROI on the current level of minimum wage jobs is little to none.
Personally, I look back on my minimum wage jobs with a great deal of fondness, those were some of the best times of my life.
That said, depending upon your geographical location, mathematically you pretty much have to start working and saving/compounding at 15 to even hope to have a chance at what would historically be considered a middle class standard of living, so your advice is probably sound. Plus, self-employment offers a far better opportunity for tax evasion, which is something I intend to teach my children as soon as they're old enough to keep their mouth shut and ready to start learning how the world really works.
I think it is important to have one 'menial' job at one point in your life, just to get some perspective. I think it staves off a lot of the attitudes that make someone a poor employee (or employer).
There's a time and a place to tell someone that the work they want you to do is not your job, but if you've worked in a true-entry level job you are far more likely to have some perspective on the matter. Plus you have to communicate with a wide variety of people in most of these jobs, which is a really important skill that I think a lot of my well-off friends who never worked before graduating college are missing.
Time is definitely our most important asset, but I think it's also possible to try optimizing a bit too much. Not that I want my kids working in a steel mill or a slaughterhouse as a janitor like my dad did when he was a kid. But I think a menial job is pretty important for development.
The author describes a time before child labor laws, where energetic teenagers were a valuable asset on farms (before the onset of industrialization). As children even, they worked and learned concepts and virtues that schools try to teach, and they were exposed to enough bacteria and dirt during their outdoor labor to establish strong immune systems early on.
It is appalling that a teenager can say that he or she is "bored" or get into trouble in the late hours. There could be plenty to do around the family property if parents knew how to live self-sufficiently using traditions inherited from pre-industrialized generations.
It doesn't need to be farming. If you want your kids to study hard and stay in school, almost any low-paid job heavily reliant on manual labor will do.
First, you have your kid work that grueling and thankless job. Then you can take them to your desk job, and show them your company's lowest-level job postings.
Many of the people I know with really nice jobs have a story about that one job they worked before graduation that taught them the value of working smart rather than hard. Mine was on a shipping dock.
Teenager here! First of all like many have pointed out there are a lot of older people with more experience filling up these traditional "teen" jobs, so people my age can't get any.
Second of all I've been experimenting with investing in cryptocurrencies and I've been doing pretty well so I think I'll focus on that this summer. Besides, I'm pretty sure Investing experience looks more appealing than working at McDonald's for a summer on a resume.
I was lucky enough to get a fast-food job at the age of 16. I definitely feel like it gave me an early head-start as a teenager. Extra income, more responsibilities, I could afford to keep a car running. In college I got slightly better jobs where my peers had to start at entry level.
Our work got an influx of teenage applicants once because the Carl Jr's down the road was acquired by a corporate owner and they laid off everyone under 18 (apparently for liability reasons). We picked up a ton of great workers.
Part of the reason I feel is minimum wage. In my state, I started out at $10.50ish with health benefits! (I did not have my own through my parents). As a teenager, this was more than enough money for me, I would have gladly taken less for more hours. But management always (rightly so) gave more hours to older workers with more experience and who needed the money more.
If you think there is intrinsic value in teenagers working (which I do), dependents should probably be allowed to work for less than minimum wage (there are already such allowances for pre-teens or farm workers). I have to imagine teen employment will fall to practically zero with some of the proposed $15 an hour minimum wages (it's after all a "living wage", not a dependent one). This may displace the more expensive adult workers, but we also need a pipeline for younger people entering the workforce to gain experience at a discounted rate, whatever that may be. Maybe I'm alone in this.
Could be the other thing too: if the minimum wage is high enough to be a living wage it encourages teens that they too might be independent sooner rather than later. That path to independence can certainly be quite motivating and that "there was more than enough money for me" feeling can part of the thrill.
I wouldn't trade my time working as a busboy -> dishwasher -> line cook as a teenager for anything. I definitely recognize it may just be a lot harder to get these kinds of jobs these days as a young person.
The article mentions a lot of possible factors, bit I think the best of two are (both are mentioned):
* For teens from working class backgrounds that otherwise would work from need, adults (both seniors and underemployed younger adults) are doing the jobs they would have done, and
* For teens from more privileged backgrounds that would work not from need but for spending money and to help defray college expenses, the fact that the pay for the jobs they would do hasn't kept up with general (or, by an even larger margin, college cost) inflation means it's just not worth it.
I think all of the reasons listed by the article carry some weight. When I was a teenager in the 90s my parents did not want me to get a job, and instead focus on studying. When I finally landed that awesome job making chicken at $4.75 (training wage) my colleagues were older, in their thirties and up, white and African American. Returning to that same restaurant in 2015 I found the majority of the employees appeared to be of Hispanic origin. So maybe it's just a combination.
The encouragement that american society used to make on teen work might have been one pillar of their economical supremacy over Europe. Why? It' not uncommon that europeans have first contact with real world during their mid 20s. This is disaster for entrepreneurship.
They can earn more money panhandling or making Youtube videos and having a patreon account for people to donate too. Plus they still have room and board free with parents.
Why would they take a minimum wage job if there are nonjob ways to earn money with passive income?
I'd rather deal with an adult who cares about their job and customer service than some dead-eyed, gaping-mouthed, bovine-brained, fashion-concerned teenager any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
90 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 147 ms ] threadI think this is one of the reasons I see most often (I graduated from high school 2 years ago). Many students think that taking a minimum wage job for the summer won't do them any good, and their parents push them to believe that "education is their job", so they opt for things outside of working to fill their summers.
I had to work at least a part time job from 15 on, and I was at a big disadvantage to people who didn't have to work. I gained a lot from it, better work ethic, an understanding of workplace professionalism, money management, etc. But college would have much preferred I played a sport, was involved in school clubs, or even volunteered.
So if college is in the plans, and a kid doesn't absolutely have to work, then there is no reason for them to do so.
And then, of course, there's the economic reality that plenty of traditionally "teenage" jobs have been taken over by 20 and 30-somethings (and even older) who desperately need the work.
The cynic reason is probably that they are filtering for social class and don't want working class people, but that sounds awful. Do colleges give a better reason, or at least an excuse?
The trick is just to spin it as more "sunset over the cornfields/1950's Americana" than "grim middle class suburban strip mall McDonalds drudgery."
Basically you just have to accord with the idealized mythos of smallholding independent yeomanry that is built into our culture and that East coast admissions officers so desperately want to believe about flyover country.
As the parent comment alludes, they're not working class, they don't know anyone who is, and they have all sorts of silly ideas about mythologizing the dignity of work and the lived experience of the proletariat. Just don't let your application disabuse them of the notion that digging holes in the hot sun for 14 hours a day is a glorious pastime.
Fancy school admissions is just like the art world, their whole objective is to avoid association with anything coded middle-class. It's fine to be low or high, just stay out of the middle.
I think it's only gotten much, much worse since then, though.
So, so wrong. An honest job is what every kid needs. While not neglecting their studies of course.
I think I got a perfectly good education at University of Washington, but I think to some people anything less than something highly ranked by US News is failure. I think we feel hyper competitive to be the best and only partake in the best, because anything less leaves us exposed, and it is stressful to live that way.
Still remember that summer well--was a great motivator (built trails).
I've washed dishes and cleaned toilets. I don't think it did anything to improve my knowledge of engineering, programming, economics, and so on. I don't think it helped me start businesses later on. I don't think there was anything learned that wasn't known already: it's physically and mentally tiring to wash dishes and clean toilets. Eventually my parents decided my time was better spent studying and let me off my duties.
If it had existed back then, I would have been better off spending my time studying programming. Or making a radio.
The admissions officer argument is an American thing, it's not a huge deal in Europe. But it's hard to see how a kid who is headed for college, and probably something technical, is better off doing menial work than just studying, anywhere. If you can do something to boost your earnings in a few years, do so. What's the big deal if you miss out on a few grand when you're in your mid teens?
There are many posts here describing the valuable lesson of holding down a job, showing up on time, and appreciation for the benefits an education can bring. Some kids desperately need this, especially those not able postpone gratification.
When I was growing up I at least got to do interesting outdoor work (yardwork, carpentry, tiling, etc) and learned skills from other older skilled people, but even then doing volunteer work would probably have been a better choice in terms of college applications.
This coming summer I'll be doing a job (I'm at university), and while it is appealing in some sense (I'm getting paid for it), I know what I'd rather be doing.
I just don't understand why parents are asking their children to spend that long time of summer to do things they don't want to. They're already given homework, and school life is stressfull, especially when most of it is days that last from 9am until 4pm with added homework and maybe learning an instrument meanwhile.
I say let them do what they want, and they won't come out worse for it. I think it is a very strong criticism that only "official" extracurricular activities are looked upon favorably by the capitalists, and I suggest there ought to be a shift in that situation. You don't have to start getting people on the wage labour mill as soon as possible, and for me it's quite sad to learn that it may be becoming the norm.
My friends and I got together last weekend to lay about and play video games (Paragon and L4D2 for what its worth) for the first time in a while (everyone getting married and having kids etc) and I can still feel the slight condemnation but given we're all stable, good job having members of society nobody can really say anything about it anymore ;)
Suppose you were to direct a teenager to do a hobby he/she isn't too keen on, in which case the fun time will be consumed with instant gratification. Then suppose you give them the free time to find and cultivate hobbies at will.
I am experiencing this right now. My exams just finished and I'm finding more time to do programming (a close replica of the 2003 Japanese futaba imageboard script in modern PHP), and Overwatch. Sure, I'm not programming all the time, and it's not an "extracurricular activity" (at least not an official one) but it's mighty fun.
they just wanted to make their own dough. both already have retirement accounts running too...even the 16 year-old...we had bank accounts for them starting in 6th grade and forced them to balance, etc...
get 'em going early then they get on autopilot. gotta get the good feedback loop going asap...
And, completely anecdotally, but measuring my friends it seems like the earlier a person started working the more well-rounded and level-headed they are today.
"Millennials are buying fewer cars and houses. Does their 'culture' favor non-ownership?"
No... they have higher levels of student load debt than previous generations, and lower income prospects due to stagnating wages. Almost everyone I know who DOES get a high-paying job eventually winds up buying a car and house.
"Fewer teenagers are working jobs. Are they more lazy?"
No... there are more unemployed adults these days, who are forced into the restaurant and retail jobs traditionally filled by teens. As professionals in the financial industry, surely you understand well enough that the official "unemployment rate" does not reflect the true "labor participation" rate.
Is all of this willful ignorance? Or are financial writers not researching and thinking anymore?
If you are ideologically incapable of agreeing with the latter, it will affect your ability to recognize the former.
Why aren't teens working?... They're being crowded out of the workforce by older Americans, now working past 65 at the highest rates in more than 50 years. Immigrants are competing with teens for jobs... College-bound teens aren't looking for work because the money doesn't go as far as it used to.
Perhaps the headline is asking a "willfully ignorant" question; but the reason is to get you to click through to the article, which does seem to be trying to put forth some theories.
[1] Entirely fictitious title, was too millennial and lazy to find a proper article studying this ;)
Also, I can't resist griping about this:
> The U.S. unemployment rate fell to 4.3 percent in May, the lowest in 16 years, ...
The article later discloses that the labor force participation rate is now about 63%. And it hasn't recovered at all since 2008. It's just plateaued.
Since 1970, the rate has varied between 60% and 67%. It peaked at around 67% in 1998 and is currently around 63%.
It hovered around 60% until 1970, and then increased, hitting about 67% in 2000. I'm guessing that reflected increasing paid employment of women, at least in part. Since 2000, it's dropped, plateauing at around 66% until 2008, and then plateauing at around 63% since 2012.
So... not representative of most of the US.
They can't get that much in places like Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Birmingham, or Memphis, though.
Opportunity cost $0
This was in Southern Illinois mind you so it was blazing hot and humid everyday. The dust from the warehouse walls would aggravate my allergies and send me off on sneezing fits. I hated every second of it.
This work made me appreciate how important it was to go to college do well in school. It also made me appreciate the "hard work" people do that goes unnoticed.
My longest "hardest" days as a Software Engineer in SF do not compare to that maintenance job. I did not gain much financially but I did learn a lot about endurance.
While I generally agree with that thesis, everywhere I go in the USA I see an abundance of job openings at those levels. Help wanted signs are literally everywhere.
Unemployment is at 4%, which is nearly full employment - yes there is a separate wages problem too, but right now nearly nationwide there are huge numbers of job openings for low skilled work.
2. Radio shack had a were hiring ad at all locations in my area up until a few weeks ago when they went under. It signals they were doing well. Also, companies are always trying to add people with great skills or replace people if they have high turnover. They might not actually be hiring, just backing themselves up or replacing people.
* Retiring baby boomers
* Married women not needing to work
* Young, work-eligible adults are in college, not employed
* Robust-enough welfare that work is optional
Aside from the latter, I don't know that any of the above are cause for concern.
1. Baby boomers are not retiring at the levels previously expected, and they're not retiring (and slowing down promotions for juniors).
2. Marriage rates are lower than ever. Single parent households are becoming a new norm.
3. Too many college graduates have experienced low salaries or poor job prospects compared to expectations (and now they're defaulting on their loans!)
4. Welfare/transfers are not enough and mostly go to those already in jobs, subsidizing the low wages. (The Walmart class, etc.)
Now we have political instability and that's not a cause for concern?
Also, for what it's worth, I didn't intend to refer to it as political instability, rather, just the usual situation in which one administration explains uncomfortable facts differently from another.
I have no idea what Trump's response to it would be, but IIRC, the Obama administration spun the low participation rate as something akin to "Well, now that people don't have to have jobs for medical insurance, now they're free to drop out of the workforce and pursue their hobbies" or something. To be fair, that didn't strike me as a terribly convincing answer, but I'd wager it unlikely that the Trump administration would "credit" the ACA for the low participation rate, even if it were true.
You recall incorrectly. The Obama Administration never spun low labor force participation like that.
When I have kids, they will not work jobs like bussing tables, or bagging groceries. I would support them taking on entrepreneurial activities like starting their own mowing/leaning/whatever business, but bagging groceries is a waste of time if you don't need the resources. If I was able to do it over again, I would do more to specialize in a skill set early on at the expense of less menial labor at 6.50/hr. Time is the most expensive resource we have, and the ROI on the current level of minimum wage jobs is little to none.
That said, depending upon your geographical location, mathematically you pretty much have to start working and saving/compounding at 15 to even hope to have a chance at what would historically be considered a middle class standard of living, so your advice is probably sound. Plus, self-employment offers a far better opportunity for tax evasion, which is something I intend to teach my children as soon as they're old enough to keep their mouth shut and ready to start learning how the world really works.
There's a time and a place to tell someone that the work they want you to do is not your job, but if you've worked in a true-entry level job you are far more likely to have some perspective on the matter. Plus you have to communicate with a wide variety of people in most of these jobs, which is a really important skill that I think a lot of my well-off friends who never worked before graduating college are missing.
Time is definitely our most important asset, but I think it's also possible to try optimizing a bit too much. Not that I want my kids working in a steel mill or a slaughterhouse as a janitor like my dad did when he was a kid. But I think a menial job is pretty important for development.
Requirements: 5 years experience with Customer facing roles and Point of Sale systems. College degree preferred.
It seems to have gone unmentioned that the internet up and ate a great many of the jobs teens used to do.
The author describes a time before child labor laws, where energetic teenagers were a valuable asset on farms (before the onset of industrialization). As children even, they worked and learned concepts and virtues that schools try to teach, and they were exposed to enough bacteria and dirt during their outdoor labor to establish strong immune systems early on.
It is appalling that a teenager can say that he or she is "bored" or get into trouble in the late hours. There could be plenty to do around the family property if parents knew how to live self-sufficiently using traditions inherited from pre-industrialized generations.
First, you have your kid work that grueling and thankless job. Then you can take them to your desk job, and show them your company's lowest-level job postings.
Many of the people I know with really nice jobs have a story about that one job they worked before graduation that taught them the value of working smart rather than hard. Mine was on a shipping dock.
https://www.ssa.gov/planners/credits.html
It's another cruel way the system screws over teachers:
https://financeforteachers.com/can-i-collect-trs-and-social-...
What type of jobs do you think you'll be going after later in life?
Our work got an influx of teenage applicants once because the Carl Jr's down the road was acquired by a corporate owner and they laid off everyone under 18 (apparently for liability reasons). We picked up a ton of great workers.
Part of the reason I feel is minimum wage. In my state, I started out at $10.50ish with health benefits! (I did not have my own through my parents). As a teenager, this was more than enough money for me, I would have gladly taken less for more hours. But management always (rightly so) gave more hours to older workers with more experience and who needed the money more.
If you think there is intrinsic value in teenagers working (which I do), dependents should probably be allowed to work for less than minimum wage (there are already such allowances for pre-teens or farm workers). I have to imagine teen employment will fall to practically zero with some of the proposed $15 an hour minimum wages (it's after all a "living wage", not a dependent one). This may displace the more expensive adult workers, but we also need a pipeline for younger people entering the workforce to gain experience at a discounted rate, whatever that may be. Maybe I'm alone in this.
The article mentions a lot of possible factors, bit I think the best of two are (both are mentioned):
* For teens from working class backgrounds that otherwise would work from need, adults (both seniors and underemployed younger adults) are doing the jobs they would have done, and
* For teens from more privileged backgrounds that would work not from need but for spending money and to help defray college expenses, the fact that the pay for the jobs they would do hasn't kept up with general (or, by an even larger margin, college cost) inflation means it's just not worth it.
Why would they take a minimum wage job if there are nonjob ways to earn money with passive income?