Blacks hit hard by economy's punch

Washington Post ^ | November 24, 2009 | V. Dion Haynes

[NRG1973]

These days, 24-year-old Delonta Spriggs spends much of his time cooped up in his mother's one-bedroom apartment in Southwest Washington, the TV blaring soap operas hour after hour, trying to stay out of the streets and out of trouble, held captive by the economy. As a young black man, Spriggs belongs to a group that has been hit much harder than any other by unemployment.

Joblessness for 16-to-24-year-old black men has reached Great Depression proportions -- 34.5 percent in October, more than three times the rate for the general U.S. population. And last Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that unemployment in the District, home to many young black men, rose to 11.9 percent from 11.4 percent, even as it stayed relatively stable in Virginia and Maryland.

----------------------------------------------------

The jobless rate for young black men and women is 30.5 percent. For young blacks -- who experts say are more likely to grow up in impoverished racially isolated neighborhoods, attend subpar public schools and experience discrimination -- race statistically appears to be a bigger factor in their unemployment than age, income or even education. Lower-income white teens were more likely to find work than upper-income black teens, according to the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University, and even blacks who graduate from college suffer from joblessness at twice the rate of their white peers.

Young black women have an unemployment rate of 26.5 percent, while the rate for all 16-to-24-year-old women is 15.4 percent

[wbill]

Traditionally the last hired and first fired, workers in Spriggs's age group have taken the brunt of the difficult economy, with cost-conscious employers wiping out the very apprenticeship, internship and on-the-job-training programs that for generations gave young people a leg up in the work world or a second chance when they made mistakes

BS.

Programs like this - in my experience - are usually the last to go. Partly because they provide a "feeder system" of employees that are a known quantity, are familiar with the business, and are pre-trained.

Mostly, though, the company gets solid, junior-level contributors on the cheap. And more often than not, they're are willing to take on - or too dumb/motivated/whatever to say "no" to - lousy hours and bad assignments.

[wbill]

McD's is hiring here, only the "want to be" unemployed are, in the south.

I dunno, I'm in the South, too, and the unemployment rate here is awful. Employment ain't so hot, either - I know several dozen people, in addition to myself and the 200-odd people that I work with - who have taken paycuts or benefit cuts, or reduced hours.

What the hell, I've still got a job. But things here where I am, at least, are pretty tight.

I'd add, though, that the subject of this article isn't helping himself much. Currently unemployed, unable to hold down a job, and with (I'm assuming) a felony drug possession conviction hanging over his head....I'd not hire him.

Decisions have consequences. Imagine that.

[Skenderbej]

The way I explain it (in simplified form) to people who don’t understand the concept of price floors goes like this:

Suppose you are a business owner and you can afford to pay $20/hour for unskilled labor. With minimum wage at $5/hour, you can afford to give 4 people jobs, each being better off than not being employed. Plus, it gives you the ability to produce more, opening the possibility of both production and job growth in the future. Then, the government tells you that you must now pay each employee $8/hour.

You now have two options, but both require cutting at least one person. You can choose to take a hit, increase your labor overhead by 20%, pay $24/hour and lay off one person only. This option relies mostly upon your benevolence (as the evil capitalist). A businessman would only choose this option if his return on labor is greater than the 20% cost of labor, which is unlikely.

The second option requires you to lay off two people. By doing this you save 20% of you labor overhead, but lose the most amount of production/service capability. You require your remaining employees to become more productive, which may or may not be possible.

In both scenarios, everyone loses after the government gets involved. Production capability is decreased, overall wage payment decreases, and income tax revenue decreases, both on personal and business income. The government is stupid.

[cubreporter]

I think this young man should give the US Army a chance. He would have three solid meals a day, a place to live and work for pay. He can receive additional education but most of all he could look at himself in the mirror and realize he CAN do all the things he thinks he cannot. There is a whole world out there just waiting for him if he will go and check it out. And...on top of all these benefits...he could take pride knowing he was wearing the uniform of his country while doing the most important job he could ever want. Fighting for his and our freedoms. I hope he will consider the Army, meet a young woman, raise a family, be happy and thank God for his opportunities while never looking back. Always go forward to the future.