Young Black High School Grads Face Astonishing Underemployment

Last week, I wrote about how high school graduates will face significant economic challenges when they graduate this spring. High school graduates almost always experience higher levels of unemployment and lower wages than their counterparts with a college degree, and their labor market difficulties were particularly exacerbated by the Great Recession. Despite officially ending in June 2009, the recession left millions unemployed for prolonged spells, with recent workforce entrants such as young high school grads being particularly vulnerable.

Underemployment is one of the major problems that young workers currently face. Approximately 19.5 percent of young high school graduates (those ages 17–20) are unemployed and about 37.0 percent are underemployed. For young college graduates (those ages 21–24) the unemployment rate is 7.2 percent and the underemployment rate is 14.9 percent. Our measure of underemployment is the U-6 measure from the BLS, which includes not only unemployed workers but also those who are part-time for economic reasons and those who are marginally attached to the labor force.

When we look at the underemployment data by race, we often see an even worse situation. As shown in the charts below, 23.0 percent of young black college graduates are currently underemployed, compared with 22.4 percent of young Hispanic college grads and 12.9 percent of white college grads. And as elevated as these rates are, the picture is bleakest for young high school graduates, who are majority of young workers.

Underemployment

Underemployment rate of young college graduates, by race and ethnicity, 2000–2015*

 Date White Black
2000-01-01 7.6% 17.5%
2000-02-01 7.5% 17.8%
2000-03-01 7.8% 17.8%
2000-04-01 7.8% 17.0%
2000-05-01 7.9% 16.1%
2000-06-01 7.8% 16.6%
2000-07-01 7.7% 15.4%
2000-08-01 7.4% 14.6%
2000-09-01 7.3% 15.1%
2000-10-01 7.2% 15.3%
2000-11-01 7.0% 15.7%
2000-12-01 6.9% 15.4%
2001-01-01 6.8% 14.2%
2001-02-01 6.8% 12.2%
2001-03-01 6.9% 11.6%
2001-04-01 7.0% 11.6%
2001-05-01 6.9% 11.3%
2001-06-01 7.1% 12.0%
2001-07-01 7.1% 12.3%
2001-08-01 7.6% 13.3%
2001-09-01 8.1% 13.3%
2001-10-01 8.3% 14.0%
2001-11-01 8.5% 14.7%
2001-12-01 8.6% 15.9%
2002-01-01 8.8% 16.4%
2002-02-01 9.0% 17.6%
2002-03-01 8.9% 17.6%
2002-04-01 8.9% 18.3%
2002-05-01 9.0% 18.5%
2002-06-01 8.8% 18.2%
2002-07-01 8.9% 18.3%
2002-08-01 8.6% 17.5%
2002-09-01 8.6% 17.5%
2002-10-01 8.4% 17.3%
2002-11-01 8.4% 17.1%
2002-12-01 8.7% 15.7%
2003-01-01 9.0% 15.3%
2003-02-01 8.9% 14.9%
2003-03-01 9.2% 14.8%
2003-04-01 9.1% 14.3%
2003-05-01 9.3% 15.9%
2003-06-01 9.6% 15.2%
2003-07-01 10.0% 15.5%
2003-08-01 10.3% 15.5%
2003-09-01 10.2% 15.4%
2003-10-01 10.4% 15.1%
2003-11-01 10.5% 15.0%
2003-12-01 10.4% 15.1%
2004-01-01 10.3% 15.9%
2004-02-01 10.5% 16.9%
2004-03-01 10.5% 17.5%
2004-04-01 10.7% 17.4%
2004-05-01 10.5% 15.9%
2004-06-01 10.6% 15.4%
2004-07-01 10.3% 15.5%
2004-08-01 10.1% 14.6%
2004-09-01 10.0% 14.5%
2004-10-01 9.8% 15.9%
2004-11-01 9.8% 16.5%
2004-12-01 9.8% 16.7%
2005-01-01 9.8% 16.3%
2005-02-01 9.8% 15.5%
2005-03-01 9.7% 15.7%
2005-04-01 9.7% 15.8%
2005-05-01 9.9% 16.6%
2005-06-01 9.6% 16.5%
2005-07-01 9.5% 16.6%
2005-08-01 9.6% 17.5%
2005-09-01 9.7% 17.6%
2005-10-01 9.6% 16.5%
2005-11-01 9.6% 15.8%
2005-12-01 9.5% 15.5%
2006-01-01 9.4% 15.0%
2006-02-01 9.4% 15.2%
2006-03-01 9.3% 15.2%
2006-04-01 9.0% 14.5%
2006-05-01 8.8% 13.2%
2006-06-01 8.9% 13.8%
2006-07-01 8.9% 14.8%
2006-08-01 8.6% 14.6%
2006-09-01 8.5% 14.3%
2006-10-01 8.7% 13.7%
2006-11-01 8.5% 13.3%
2006-12-01 8.7% 13.2%
2007-01-01 8.7% 13.4%
2007-02-01 8.4% 13.2%
2007-03-01 8.2% 13.4%
2007-04-01 8.2% 14.6%
2007-05-01 8.3% 15.3%
2007-06-01 8.4% 15.2%
2007-07-01 8.5% 14.6%
2007-08-01 8.8% 13.6%
2007-09-01 9.1% 14.5%
2007-10-01 9.0% 15.1%
2007-11-01 9.2% 15.4%
2007-12-01 9.0% 16.2%
2008-01-01 8.9% 16.6%
2008-02-01 9.0% 17.0%
2008-03-01 9.1% 16.1%
2008-04-01 9.2% 15.5%
2008-05-01 9.4% 15.6%
2008-06-01 9.8% 15.6%
2008-07-01 9.9% 15.4%
2008-08-01 9.9% 16.5%
2008-09-01 10.0% 15.8%
2008-10-01 10.2% 14.9%
2008-11-01 10.3% 14.8%
2008-12-01 10.6% 14.7%
2009-01-01 11.1% 14.9%
2009-02-01 11.5% 16.0%
2009-03-01 12.2% 18.0%
2009-04-01 12.5% 19.5%
2009-05-01 12.8% 20.4%
2009-06-01 13.3% 20.7%
2009-07-01 13.6% 22.3%
2009-08-01 14.4% 24.1%
2009-09-01 14.8% 25.9%
2009-10-01 15.1% 26.1%
2009-11-01 15.5% 25.1%
2009-12-01 15.8% 25.9%
2010-01-01 16.0% 26.3%
2010-02-01 16.2% 25.8%
2010-03-01 16.1% 24.6%
2010-04-01 16.4% 25.3%
2010-05-01 16.6% 24.9%
2010-06-01 16.6% 26.6%
2010-07-01 16.7% 28.5%
2010-08-01 16.2% 28.9%
2010-09-01 16.5% 28.7%
2010-10-01 16.6% 29.2%
2010-11-01 16.7% 29.3%
2010-12-01 16.7% 30.0%
2011-01-01 17.0% 30.8%
2011-02-01 17.2% 30.7%
2011-03-01 17.5% 31.0%
2011-04-01 17.3% 28.8%
2011-05-01 17.1% 28.2%
2011-06-01 17.1% 28.4%
2011-07-01 17.6% 26.0%
2011-08-01 18.1% 24.6%
2011-09-01 18.0% 23.7%
2011-10-01 17.7% 23.5%
2011-11-01 17.6% 22.5%
2011-12-01 17.3% 21.3%
2012-01-01 17.2% 20.9%
2012-02-01 17.0% 21.1%
2012-03-01 16.7% 21.4%
2012-04-01 16.5% 22.4%
2012-05-01 16.5% 22.2%
2012-06-01 16.4% 20.3%
2012-07-01 16.3% 19.8%
2012-08-01 15.9% 20.6%
2012-09-01 15.8% 21.2%
2012-10-01 15.7% 20.6%
2012-11-01 15.3% 20.8%
2012-12-01 15.5% 20.8%
2013-01-01 15.6% 21.2%
2013-02-01 15.6% 22.9%
2013-03-01 15.6% 23.5%
2013-04-01 15.7% 23.0%
2013-05-01 15.8% 24.0%
2013-06-01 15.7% 25.2%
2013-07-01 15.5% 25.0%
2013-08-01 15.5% 26.4%
2013-09-01 15.7% 27.5%
2013-10-01 16.0% 28.2%
2013-11-01 16.2% 28.4%
2013-12-01 16.1% 29.0%
2014-01-01 16.1% 29.5%
2014-02-01 16.0% 28.2%
2014-03-01 15.8% 28.1%
2014-04-01 15.4% 27.8%
2014-05-01 15.0% 26.8%
2014-06-01 14.9% 26.2%
2014-07-01 14.6% 27.0%
2014-08-01 14.3% 25.3%
2014-09-01 13.9% 24.0%
2014-10-01 13.6% 23.4%
2014-11-01 13.4% 22.7%
2014-12-01 13.4% 22.2%
2015-01-01 13.1% 21.7%
2015-02-01 13.0% 23.7%
2015-03-01 12.9% 23.0%

 

ChartData Download data

The data below can be saved or copied directly into Excel.

* Data reflect 12-month moving averages; data for 2015 represent 12-month average from April 2014 to March 2015.

Note: Data are for college graduates age 21–24 who are not enrolled in further schooling. Shaded areas denote recessions. Race/ethnicity categories are mutually exclusive (i.e., white non-Hispanic and black non-Hispanic).  The Hispanic category is not included due to insufficient sample sizes over part of the series.

Source: EPI analysis of basic monthly Current Population Survey microdata

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

51.3 percent of young black high school graduates are underemployed, compared with 36.1 percent of young Hispanic high school grads and 33.8 percent of white high school grads. This means a significant share of young high school graduates in all racial groups either want a job or have a job that does not provide the hours they need. A majority of young black high school graduates wish they could work more but can’t because of weak job opportunities.

Underemployment

Underemployment rate of young high school graduates, by race and ethnicity, 2000–2015*

Date White Black Hispanic
2000-01-01 17.8% 37.8% 22.2%
2000-02-01 17.7% 36.8% 21.8%
2000-03-01 17.7% 37.0% 21.4%
2000-04-01 17.7% 36.5% 20.9%
2000-05-01 17.9% 36.7% 20.5%
2000-06-01 17.9% 36.5% 20.8%
2000-07-01 17.8% 35.9% 20.8%
2000-08-01 17.9% 36.1% 20.3%
2000-09-01 17.7% 35.3% 19.5%
2000-10-01 17.9% 34.7% 19.4%
2000-11-01 18.0% 33.7% 19.4%
2000-12-01 18.1% 33.6% 19.5%
2001-01-01 18.2% 33.3% 20.3%
2001-02-01 18.4% 33.4% 20.9%
2001-03-01 18.3% 32.9% 21.3%
2001-04-01 18.2% 33.3% 22.0%
2001-05-01 17.9% 32.6% 22.0%
2001-06-01 17.8% 33.6% 22.3%
2001-07-01 18.0% 33.6% 22.9%
2001-08-01 18.3% 33.4% 23.2%
2001-09-01 18.9% 34.8% 24.0%
2001-10-01 19.3% 35.3% 25.2%
2001-11-01 19.7% 37.3% 26.3%
2001-12-01 20.1% 38.6% 27.0%
2002-01-01 20.5% 39.5% 26.6%
2002-02-01 20.8% 40.4% 26.2%
2002-03-01 21.4% 40.5% 26.2%
2002-04-01 22.0% 40.3% 26.2%
2002-05-01 22.6% 40.0% 26.8%
2002-06-01 23.2% 39.8% 26.6%
2002-07-01 24.0% 41.1% 26.2%
2002-08-01 24.3% 42.2% 26.5%
2002-09-01 24.4% 43.3% 26.1%
2002-10-01 24.4% 43.4% 25.6%
2002-11-01 24.8% 42.3% 25.0%
2002-12-01 24.8% 41.4% 24.2%
2003-01-01 24.9% 42.0% 24.6%
2003-02-01 25.2% 42.1% 25.3%
2003-03-01 25.1% 42.1% 25.8%
2003-04-01 25.1% 42.8% 26.0%
2003-05-01 25.1% 44.5% 26.1%
2003-06-01 25.3% 45.2% 26.4%
2003-07-01 25.5% 45.2% 27.2%
2003-08-01 25.6% 44.7% 27.7%
2003-09-01 25.8% 43.5% 27.9%
2003-10-01 26.2% 43.7% 28.4%
2003-11-01 26.1% 44.0% 28.9%
2003-12-01 26.1% 44.6% 29.9%
2004-01-01 26.0% 44.2% 30.0%
2004-02-01 25.8% 44.1% 30.3%
2004-03-01 26.1% 44.5% 30.7%
2004-04-01 26.0% 44.7% 31.0%
2004-05-01 26.1% 44.3% 31.2%
2004-06-01 26.0% 43.3% 31.4%
2004-07-01 25.5% 43.5% 30.6%
2004-08-01 25.5% 42.7% 30.3%
2004-09-01 25.4% 42.2% 30.1%
2004-10-01 25.4% 42.0% 29.6%
2004-11-01 25.2% 42.2% 29.1%
2004-12-01 25.3% 41.6% 28.1%
2005-01-01 25.1% 41.2% 27.5%
2005-02-01 25.1% 40.8% 27.2%
2005-03-01 25.0% 40.6% 27.1%
2005-04-01 25.0% 40.2% 26.9%
2005-05-01 24.8% 41.0% 26.7%
2005-06-01 25.0% 41.5% 26.7%
2005-07-01 24.9% 41.5% 26.6%
2005-08-01 25.1% 42.7% 26.4%
2005-09-01 24.9% 42.8% 26.4%
2005-10-01 24.6% 42.4% 26.3%
2005-11-01 24.2% 42.7% 26.2%
2005-12-01 23.8% 42.2% 26.2%
2006-01-01 23.7% 42.2% 26.4%
2006-02-01 23.5% 42.1% 26.4%
2006-03-01 23.3% 41.4% 25.3%
2006-04-01 23.3% 41.6% 25.0%
2006-05-01 23.5% 40.5% 24.4%
2006-06-01 23.2% 40.2% 24.0%
2006-07-01 23.4% 40.0% 23.3%
2006-08-01 23.3% 40.1% 22.8%
2006-09-01 23.4% 40.7% 22.4%
2006-10-01 23.8% 41.2% 22.4%
2006-11-01 23.9% 40.6% 22.5%
2006-12-01 24.4% 41.7% 23.0%
2007-01-01 24.3% 41.7% 23.1%
2007-02-01 24.3% 41.6% 23.1%
2007-03-01 24.5% 41.8% 23.0%
2007-04-01 24.7% 41.5% 22.7%
2007-05-01 24.6% 41.6% 23.0%
2007-06-01 24.4% 42.2% 23.1%
2007-07-01 24.1% 42.3% 24.2%
2007-08-01 24.1% 41.9% 24.4%
2007-09-01 24.1% 41.0% 24.3%
2007-10-01 24.0% 40.2% 24.3%
2007-11-01 24.1% 40.0% 23.9%
2007-12-01 24.3% 40.8% 24.2%
2008-01-01 24.7% 41.0% 24.1%
2008-02-01 25.3% 41.9% 23.9%
2008-03-01 25.7% 43.1% 24.4%
2008-04-01 25.9% 43.1% 25.5%
2008-05-01 26.5% 43.7% 26.0%
2008-06-01 27.5% 43.4% 26.4%
2008-07-01 28.6% 43.8% 27.1%
2008-08-01 29.1% 43.5% 27.9%
2008-09-01 29.6% 43.6% 29.4%
2008-10-01 30.4% 44.3% 30.5%
2008-11-01 31.4% 44.1% 31.8%
2008-12-01 32.5% 43.9% 32.1%
2009-01-01 33.1% 44.8% 33.2%
2009-02-01 33.8% 45.7% 34.5%
2009-03-01 34.6% 46.2% 35.8%
2009-04-01 35.2% 47.7% 37.0%
2009-05-01 35.8% 48.9% 38.7%
2009-06-01 36.4% 49.4% 40.2%
2009-07-01 37.8% 49.8% 41.1%
2009-08-01 39.2% 51.2% 42.6%
2009-09-01 40.0% 53.4% 43.6%
2009-10-01 41.1% 54.8% 44.8%
2009-11-01 41.5% 56.8% 45.8%
2009-12-01 41.6% 57.5% 47.6%
2010-01-01 42.3% 57.4% 48.6%
2010-02-01 42.6% 57.6% 49.9%
2010-03-01 42.6% 57.1% 50.5%
2010-04-01 43.2% 56.7% 50.1%
2010-05-01 43.6% 55.5% 49.5%
2010-06-01 43.7% 55.6% 49.6%
2010-07-01 43.1% 55.6% 50.0%
2010-08-01 43.2% 56.7% 49.2%
2010-09-01 43.4% 56.8% 48.6%
2010-10-01 43.2% 56.6% 48.1%
2010-11-01 43.5% 57.4% 47.9%
2010-12-01 43.5% 57.6% 47.5%
2011-01-01 43.5% 58.0% 47.0%
2011-02-01 43.4% 57.6% 46.4%
2011-03-01 43.7% 57.6% 46.1%
2011-04-01 43.7% 57.7% 46.7%
2011-05-01 43.3% 58.6% 47.1%
2011-06-01 42.9% 59.9% 47.3%
2011-07-01 43.3% 60.8% 48.3%
2011-08-01 42.7% 60.4% 49.6%
2011-09-01 42.3% 60.5% 49.6%
2011-10-01 42.1% 60.6% 49.5%
2011-11-01 41.6% 60.1% 50.0%
2011-12-01 41.4% 60.0% 49.6%
2012-01-01 41.1% 59.6% 49.4%
2012-02-01 41.0% 59.7% 48.9%
2012-03-01 40.4% 60.0% 48.0%
2012-04-01 40.4% 59.9% 46.9%
2012-05-01 40.6% 60.4% 46.2%
2012-06-01 40.7% 60.0% 45.8%
2012-07-01 40.4% 59.7% 43.7%
2012-08-01 40.6% 59.7% 42.7%
2012-09-01 41.0% 59.8% 42.3%
2012-10-01 40.9% 59.9% 42.5%
2012-11-01 40.9% 59.6% 41.8%
2012-12-01 40.7% 58.9% 42.2%
2013-01-01 40.5% 57.4% 42.4%
2013-02-01 40.1% 57.2% 42.9%
2013-03-01 40.2% 57.0% 43.2%
2013-04-01 39.9% 57.6% 43.5%
2013-05-01 39.8% 58.3% 43.2%
2013-06-01 39.9% 58.9% 43.0%
2013-07-01 39.4% 59.1% 42.9%
2013-08-01 39.2% 58.8% 43.0%
2013-09-01 38.5% 57.7% 44.2%
2013-10-01 38.0% 57.4% 43.8%
2013-11-01 37.9% 56.8% 43.5%
2013-12-01 37.4% 56.6% 42.8%
2014-01-01 37.1% 56.8% 42.4%
2014-02-01 37.2% 56.7% 41.9%
2014-03-01 36.8% 56.6% 41.9%
2014-04-01 36.5% 55.4% 41.7%
2014-05-01 36.2% 53.4% 41.4%
2014-06-01 35.9% 52.4% 41.2%
2014-07-01 36.0% 52.2% 41.3%
2014-08-01 35.8% 51.7% 40.1%
2014-09-01 35.8% 51.7% 38.6%
2014-10-01 35.4% 51.8% 38.3%
2014-11-01 35.2% 52.6% 37.7%
2014-12-01 34.7% 52.2% 37.0%
2015-01-01 34.5% 52.4% 36.4%
2015-02-01 34.0% 52.0% 36.2%
2015-03-01 33.8% 51.3% 36.1%

 

ChartData Download data

The data below can be saved or copied directly into Excel.

* Data reflect 12-month moving averages; data for 2015 represent 12-month average from April 2014 to March 2015.

Note: Data are for high school graduates age 17–20 who are not enrolled in further schooling. Shaded areas denote recessions. Race/ethnicity categories are mutually exclusive (i.e., white non-Hispanic, black non-Hispanic, and Hispanic any race).

Source: EPI analysis of basic monthly Current Population Survey microdata

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

While there has been real progress in healing the damage inflicted on the labor market by the Great Recession, these underemployment rates among young high school graduates remain quite elevated relative to pre-recession levels. In order to correct these high rates, we need to prioritize low rates of unemployment and boost aggregate demand for workers. Last week, Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative John Conyers introduced the Employ Young Americans Now Act to help young Americans find pathways to employment. This bill is a necessary first step to putting young high school graduates back to work and to put our economy on the road to full employment.


  • ddrew2u

    WAY, WAY DOWN THE END OF THIS ESSAY IS THE ANSWER TO YOUR PROBLEM — AND MOST OF AMERICA’S PROBLEMS — DEAD LAST AT THE END (it’s all about labor unions of course)

    Headline: Chicago’s Stop-And-Frisk Rate Four Times New York At Its Worst, ACLU Says
    Headline: 12Killed, 43 Wounded In [Chicago] Memorial Day Weekend Shootings

    Maybe Chicago should switch off from New York’s now former macro intrusion on the poor to New York’s continuing micro intrusion (to the far horizon) on everyone; so-called broken windows policing:
    A woman puts her dog leash down for a moment to pick up poop – a plainclothesman pops out of the shadows to ticket her;
    A man leaves his car door open while gassing up, allowing his radio to be heard by others – a ticket;
    Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk (ooh; pedestrians are killed by bicycles in the street – particularly crosswalks – do the cops tell 15-year-old boys to go bike in traffic?);
    Riding a bicycle the wrong way down a one-way street (oooh; best way to avoid being doored – been doored; broken wrist – broken hip if you get one is 25% fatal; DVT becomes PE);
    Walking between subway cars – will never get hit by a bicycle;
    ”Manspreading” — the latest: spreading knees too wide in subway seat; not touching anyone.
    If somebody breaks a window and nobody repairs it that may invite others to break more windows – an out-of-control atmosphere supposedly may develop.

    I was there when Times Square was transformed from the Great White Way into Robert De Niro’s Hell. It all began with the US Supreme Court protecting pornography under the First Amendment (which of course it had to do) which for whatever reason resulted in an explosion of naughty shops throughout the area, followed by an influx of massage parlors and the lowest of supply and demand of the oldest profession.

    This coincided with a heroin explosion that nobody who was not there to witness it can imagine. Methadone quelled the panic in needle park – dopies now have a way to avoid getting sick that didn’t include crawling up your fire escape.

    During the 1990s 75% of robberies and burglaries, etc., nationwide went away. Everything from lower lead in the atmosphere to legalized abortion has been credited for the drop. My first pick is the nationwide emergence of massive drug dealing street gangs. Now a boy going wayward (and many who were not) has a criminal franchise right on his own block (often to join whether he wants to or not) which will put him to work immediately for sub-minimum wage (Five-O!) and offer the promise of promotion to guns and more macho mayhem later. No need to snatch purses or climb in your window for your costume jewelry.

    In Chicago, 100,000 out of (my guesstimate) 200,000 gang age, minority males are in street gangs: dealing drugs, shooting each other (along with an amazing amount of innocent bystanders) and doing hard time (where some catch up on robbery and burglary).

    As long what starts in the Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Chicago stays in Black and Hispanic neighborhoods, the city government seems content to leave the police department sitting on the lids on the garbage cans. Conventional wisdom has it there is not a lot even progressive local officials can do about the national economic maladies underlying the permanent underclass. There’s not much police can do – macro or micro – beyond cleaning up messes afterwards (think Taxi Driver).

    I came of age in an America where the federal minimum wage kept up with inflation – and — economic growth. In 1956, Senate majority leader Lyndon Johnson guided passage of an $8.75 minimum wage in today’s dollars (which a Republican president duly signed). In 1968, President Lyndon Johnson oversaw a $10.75 minimum wage – reflecting 23% average income growth inbetween. Union density in that era was in the neighborhood of 35%.

    Today, a $600 a week minimum wage coupled with an $800 normal expectation for everyday positions like supermarket employee would disappear the Crips and Bloods faster than they appeared. I read Wilson’s When Work Disappears at the same time as Venkatesh’s American Project. Project went on longer than Work and the housing projects only descended into gang infested hell as the minimum wage descended to nearly half its 1968 purchasing power – double the average income later.

    Chicago has scheduled a minimum wage hike to $13 for 2019 – make that $12 with inflation (2% a year – 8 cents X 13 = 1.04) – a dollar more than LBJ’s peak, half a century — and — double average income later. The poor will still be poor but be better off.

    Missing union density? As easy as saying “lost employee price setting mechanism” – a restraint of trade wrought via ruthless economic pressure under the shadow of union organizing legislation that has gone practicably toothless in old age. Simple enough resolution: new dentures — make union busting a felony in as many states as possible to begin – which will also make it subject to federal RICO prosecution (33 states have RICO laws).

    To take the biggest possible bite out of inner city crime: prosecute union busting.

  • chris511

    It’s hard to talk about but I believe it is the intense pressure from poor immigrants that has pushed wages down. This is an overabundance of workers who will not only work long hours but never complain for fear of being deported. They directly compete with low-skilled US workers.

  • jdrago999

    There are a number of factors that go into these kinds of numbers.

    For one, where are these kids anyway?

    Are their parents employed?

    Are there jobs to be had?

    Are there entry-level positions with non-exploitative companies and small businesses? Must they have a college degree or other qualifications to be considered for these jobs?

    Growing up surrounded by people who are working, living stable productive lives with a secure future vs growing up surrounded by poverty, crime, desperation and an uncertain future will express itself in every way imaginable, including career and life choices.

    If this is what you call research, I suggest you return to the drawing board. If you have more to share (and just ran past your 350 word limit) then please follow up with a more informative post.