College Grads: No Jobs, so time to Occupy (Wall Street)

College is a lot of fun, peppered with iconoclastic activities that establish emerging adults in their own not-our-parents identities.  One of them is protesting the establishment, a time-honored college pastime now continuing with its second, or even third generation.

Oh yeah, matriculation also means studying, drinking, sororities and part-time jobs.  And finally, there's graduation.

Graduation with a baccalaureate in the past was soon followed by entrance into the work world, armed with the sheepskin guaranteeing at least an entry-level position in a company with prospects of advancement.  That BA enabled launching a creative new business, or heading out into traditional paths of marriage, parenthood and responsibilities.

But kids who graduated in the last three years, during the "economic crisis," have found a new post-college occupation: Wall Street, Seattle, Oakland, Los Angeles and Boston. Instead of finding jobs, these youths, at their physical peaks with revved up energy and ready-to-pounce pent-up ambitions, are largely stymied. A huge percentage must settle for limited-future positions beneath their capabilities, or can find no job at all.

Though college grads overall enjoy a low 4.2% unemployment rate (compared to 9.7% for high school grads), recent degree-holders face 10.7% unemployment.  What's worse, these kids often then endure the indignity of staying the child in Daddy's house--according to a Wall Street Journal piece today, "More than 14% of Americans between 25 and 34 (5.9 million in all) are living with their parents, up significantly from before the recession."

So they're "occupying" cities across America to express their frustration and ennui, their feeling gypped by a system that promised them a reward at the end of their academic persistence, or at least some path to pay back the staggering loans so many students or their folks took out to foot the tuitions tall as the Ivory Towers and Halls of Ivy they recently inhabited.

One such recent college grad, a dynamic, attractive young woman whose stellar academic achievements at a top-20 university should have allowed her an array of options felt lucky to beat out 200 others for a job working with kids at $13 per hour.

Many in her cohort have no employment at all.

Equally disheartening is the plight of her friend, another high-GPA grad from the same university, whose years of experience part-time in the financial field gave him no advantage for finding steady post-grad positions.  After months taking temp work, he finally landed a low-pay slot at a six-employee business; he's now considering law--though new attorneys too face poor employment prospects. I must clarify that college grads earnestly seeking careers don't have time to sit in urban plazas.  But their difficulties form the backdrop for a general malaise that fuels those who do.

If you look at Occupy Wall Street, which now like a spilled glass of milk has oozed out across the nation, you'll see one thing:  class envy.  Like early 1970s Boomers who "occupied" university campuses, they want the rich not so rich, and the poor made less so via the government taking some from the rich and giving it to them.  An "unofficial" website called Occupy Wall Street describes its goals as "fighting back against the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process, and the role of Wall Street in creating an economic collapse that has caused the greatest recession in generations. The movement is inspired by popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, and aims to expose how the richest 1% of people are writing the rules of an unfair global economy that is foreclosing on our future."

I'm not sure I completely understand those flowing prose, but here's what I get: Banks, "multinational corporations" and stock market investors conspired, creating self-serving "rules" that caused the US economy to collapse. The "richest 1% of people," (presumably banks, corporations and Wall Street?) colluded to create "an unfair global economy" that bars everyone but themselves from getting wealth.  Right?  Makes sense?

Interestingly, when my Fave Radio Host asked participants at Occupy Seattle their goals, several responded with long silence.  When asked by Host what they wanted to do to the rich, corporations and banks, protesters were at a loss--or said to tax the rich, spread the wealth.

Meanwhile, the demonstrators at Zuccotti Park in Manhattan, the real Occupy Wall Street, seem to be having a party.  Well, until the cadre of volunteer chefs serving up " the usual menu of organic chicken and vegetables, spaghetti Bolognese, and roasted beet and sheep’s-milk-cheese salad" staged their own "'counter' revolution yesterday -- because they’re angry about working 18-hour days to provide food for 'professional homeless' people and ex-cons masquerading as protesters," according to the New York Post.

Apparently when word got out about the gourmet grub the elite Occupiers were enjoying for free, "vagrants" from other parks invaded--to the consternation of the more genteel demonstrators.  Disgruntled chefs showed their ire by refusing to serve food for two hours "to show they mean business," and dispensing only peanut butter sandwiches and chips for a time after the staff meeting where volunteers aired their grievances.

In addition, the "unwelcome guests" have created a climate of danger at Zuccotti. An understood "no snitch" rule kept much of the unpleasantries quiet, discovered the Post reporter, though "overall security at the park had deteriorated to the point where many frightened female protesters had abandoned the increasingly out-of-control occupation, security- team members said."

If you can't take the heat, get out of the Slow-Food kitchen.

What is this "movement" but a redeux of 70s-style liberal self-interest?  Its goals are vague platitudes.  It's easy to say the poor should be given some of the money earned by the rich.  The underlying politics of envy decrees that the limited "pie" of wealth should be sliced in equal pieces, and that those who "have more than they need" should provide their excess--which is implicitly ill-gained--to those who have little.  So why can't the volunteer chefs share their roasted beet-and-sheep's-milk cheese salads with their fellow unfortunates of Zuccotti Park?  Don't the homeless, who are surely as much victims of Wall Street and multi-national corporations as they, deserve some of the culinary wealth they're distributing?

No, the "derelicts" don't deserve the fancy comestibles, because the protesters sincerely believe that corporations are bad and bankers are hoarding wealth for their cronies, and so they're the ones entitled to the organic chicken and vegetables--while the freeloaders don't even care.  To earn gourmet fare, Occupiers hold the "we're the 99%" signs for hours, especially when news photographers happen by.  The others, the ones who just come for the efforts of professional chefs like Chris O'Donnell, 24, who "used to cook at Mario Bateli's restaurant Lupa" in the West Village, will now be directed to local soup kitchens.

I well remember the days of anti-Vietnam protests, when we or our boyfriends were subject to conscription into the military.  There's far greater urgency to protest when your very life may be on the line, torn from your personal plan for two years for a miserable Asian war.  You may recall that once the lottery removed most 19-year-olds from draft vulnerability, the protests (though not the war) petered out.

Occupy Wall Streeters don't like the economy, don't like that others have more than they do, and may be frustrated they can't easily address their own financial woes.  They also have drivers honking support and showing thumbs-up, plenty of interesting people to talk with, and free victuals worthy of any connoisseur.  Even with all these perks, the scene is winding down as cities tire of providing expensive police supervision and sanitation, not to mention the traffic and logistical headaches of hosting crowds of protesters and gawkers in congested areas.

On Tuesday, Oakland police and protesters battled over City Hall plaza, resulting in more than 100 arrests and one injury, perhaps the most visible of several cities' efforts to clear protesters from central locations, after days or weeks of easy-going tolerance.  The New York Times reported on police-protester conflicts in a handful of cities, including Chicago, where Democratic Mayor Rahm Emanuel's office was the site of demonstrators demanding the city drop charges against 300 arrested protesters.

The liberal stance of Occupy efforts was clear as The NY Times noted, "Still, the scenes of tear gas in the streets and provocative graffiti--including one spray-painted message reading 'Kill Pigs' in Oakland--has been seized on by some Republicans to try to make the protests a political liability for Democrats." 

While normal Americans watch the youthful outpourings with amusement, alarm or boredom, the Occupiers create their own embarrassing political statements, neither sacrificing anything personally, nor standing to gain much more than 30 forgettable seconds on the evening news.

Yes, the economy is frustrating, the camaraderie of demonstrating exhilarating, and the whole Occupy thing is cooling off with the weather (or freezing in the snow).  However, the flailing of new college grads unable to find appropriate employment remains, and unless that real problem is solved, Barack Obama and Democratic candidates will find youths' continued distress expressed not in plazas and parks, but on ballots across the land.

What is "Service?" New Obama Programs Distort the Concept

I'm spending spare moments pulling out yellowed envelopes of snapshots, seeking more newly-precious glimpses of my father-in-law to scan into my computer to share with our family. From divergent points on the globe, we weep privately and together over the loss of our role model of exuberant joy in life.

It's ironic that we're now made so sad by the loss of one who so vibrantly personified happiness.

It was in this context that I found myself actually irate reading a New York Times piece on Obama's tripling of AmeriCorps, to the tune of $6 billion over five years. Hailed as an altruistic opportunity in the tradition of JFK's 1965 "Vista" (Volunteers in Service to America, which was in imitation of Peace Corps), The Times fairly sings that the expansion "would establish Mr. Obama as the boldest proponent of service programs since Kennedy exhorted Americans to 'ask what you can do for your country.'"

Apparently even 70 Republican congressmen bought the hype--along with 251 Democrats, of course. One hundred four of the GOP voted nay, joined by one courageous Democrat.

But is this really service, or just another government make-work ploy? "Volunteers" get a living allowance, health care "and other benefits" says the Vista website. And after the year of service, there's a bonus of your choice of $4,725 for education (which will jump to $5,350 with the Obama bill) or, currently, $1,200 in cash (not sure what the higher cash reward will be with the additional funding). The stated goal is "to fight poverty," but "VISTA members generally do not provide direct services, such as tutoring children or building homes. Instead, they focus their efforts on building the organizational, administrative, and financial capacity of organizations..."

Vista is one of three existing AmeriCorps programs, the others being AmeriCorps State and National and AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps. The Obama plan, however, creates several additional government entities taxpayers will be funding, which include "new service programs focused on education, health care and clean energy." If the participants get living allowances, health care, child care and other perks, why is their involvement "service" any more than those employed by those same programs? Is it called "service" if you're paid by the government, and "work" if you're paid by anyone else? Perhaps it's the fact that the length of commitment is only twelve months, whereas employees' prospects are long-term? Tell that to the many people whose "permanent" jobs--surprise!--got axed due to the economic malaise.

I can imagine many folk who were laid off jumping at the chance for a secure income and health insurance for a year.

This all relates to my father-in-law, mourned by a wide circle of family, friends and admirers. He was a brilliant physicist, whose inventions in fiber optics and many other scientific fields helped push our nation into the high-tech age. By creating a company to execute, manufacture and distribute his innovations, he employed hundreds--probably thousands--of people. He toiled day and night, immersing himself in problem-solving and the hands-on development of products that changed the nature of communications internationally.

How is this kind of creativity and entrepreneurial accomplishment any less "service" than the administrative work in non-profit organizations of Vista "volunteers"? The difference was, he put all his own personal financial worth on the line to make it happen. And along the way, he experienced complete loss, only to build it back, undeterred. He took the risks personally, spurred by his enthusiasm for science and the need of his genius for expression. He had no guaranteed living allowance, no taxpayer-funded health care, no education bonus or cash option after a year of his total devotion.

But he, and other entrepreneurs who succeed, are now the bad guys, demonized. If they were able to parlay their efforts and investments into something that actually grew a lot--and they were able to grow into a large company and create tens of thousands or more jobs, well, they're now a "rich corporation" who must pay a far higher percentage of their earnings in order to "spread the wealth." Not that they spread it by hiring more people and investing in new ideas.

The way I see it, real "service" is provided by those who sacrifice and assume risks. That's why those in the military, who not only forego their careers and leave their families to submit to orders, often risking their very lives, truly serve.

I don't want to disparage the many people who choose careers in which they help others--to the contrary. But it frosts me to put our nation in subterranean debt to fund programs that falsely praise and honor what are in actuality one-year hires--when millions of people by their hard work (and often, similarly low pay) perform equally valuable "service." I'm not surprised the new Obama bill is called the GIVE Act, because we taxpayers certainly must.

It so happened that in the end, Zayde did not have the financial fruits of his labors. And were it up to Obama, if Zayde had been able to own a nice house, and it had perhaps even appreciated, the government's greedy hand would have forced its sale for death taxes--the only "bonus" for Zayde's commitment being his already-taxed savings confiscated to fund "service" programs--for participants lauded for selflessly fighting poverty.

Now that's ironic.

Solution for the Economy: Print Money--right?

OK, OK, I'm really consumed by this economy thing. I just heard Ben Stein say something OUTRAGEOUS to my fave radio host, who was quoting an article saying the federal government doesn't just "have" money; all its funds are taken from somewhere else, like taxpayers, or borrowed from China.

Ben Stein said, "that's easy to dispense with, because it's simply not true. The government can just print more money."

I was going nuts at that--thinking, OK, so there are rooms full of piles of money. What does the government DO with it? It's useless unless it's part of a transaction--somebody has to provide some product or service to earn it, and then somebody has to use it to buy something, right?

Wrong. Government can simply give it away! Good old Government, my favorite uncle! My sugar Daddy! Ben Stein said that if the government wants to do some massive program, they'll just print the money or notes or checks and give it out! Nobody has to pay it back. Nobody has to DO anything for it. It can "bail out" delinquent car companies or defaulting sub-prime mortgage homeowners, or perhaps even be "used" for projects, just like Roosevelt after the Great Depression did(who cares if that exacerbated the problem instead of solving it?).

The Government has unlimited funds! I'm finally educated. And now I wonder why the government even NEEDS our taxes.

Ben Stein said that putting too much fabricated money out there is terribly inflationary. Gee, in a country as big as ours, if we just put out the few billions it takes to run things, who'd notice? We could all be busy generating lots and lots MORE money, making our economy explode with productivity, if there were no taxes!!

Tell me where I'm wrong. I've got to get back to cooking for Shabbat--it comes in at 4 pm in the winter!!

Obama Wins--But Will the Economy Lose?

As I walked back in the nip and chill of the evening,far too early and dejected, from the hotel where Republicans celebrate with their candidates, I looked at the tony stores lining the boulevard--and feared for their survival.

I'd just watched on a huge projected TV Sen. McCain's gracious and generous concession speech. Our nation lost the leadership of one who is temperate, dedicated and moral. And my mind turned to the likely consequences of that loss.

Stocks tomorrow and the rest of the week are likely to tumble, at the prospect of serious taxes on businesses already jabbed by the credit squeeze and weak economy. Many will have to contract. I looked at the swanky shops in the newly-expanded shopping corridor: Ex Officio offers "performance" wear for "enhanced comfort," and enhanced price. Nearby, 7 for All Mankind, Eileen Fischer, Rag ("Men's Style"), LaCoste and Free People just opened up. Blue jeans for $200? Not likely this year if taxes skyrocket among the more affluent who are the entire customer base of these stores.

How about the chi-chi eateries offering 3-D dinners--referring to the stacked presentation of items on the plate, as well as the triple-digit charge. A dozen bistros offer lovely ambiance, luscious cuisines of every kind--but they're likely to lose even more profit (restauranteurs report a 10-20% decline since the gas crunch a couple months ago) if gas goes back up, taxes restrict patrons' disposible income and they, as employers, have to kick in for their workers' health plans.

It's not a pretty picture.

Why did Americans let themselves in for all this tsuris (that's Yiddish for trouble)? Easy: emotion trumps logic. I've said it before, and it never fails. Obama's entire strategy, his encompassing approach, and indeed the typical pull of liberals is--well, that famous bleeding heart. "Taking care of you; taking care of others," the sad anecdotes featured on Obama's pre-World Series Infomercial, the dying Grandma whose only wish is to see her grandson become president...compassion, caring, hope and change! It was irresistible.

Sure, the Iraq war had dragged on, and we got used to feeling safe again. And George Bush had acted like a Democrat, expanding federal intrusion into education, and spending up a storm. It was a climate ripe for emotions to dominate.

Enter the economic crisis. The tired pun is that Americans felt over the barrel when it came to filling their tanks to drive to work, at $4 a gallon. Higher gas prices reverberated to everything that required transporting--and that would be everything. Spaghetti that used to cost $1 a pound now is 50% more. Lettuce and flour and pickles and juice all went up. It was a squeeze. Blame Bush! It hurts! Blame Bush! He's an old white guy...we want a young black guy!

By the time the election got close, Obama's policies were immaterial. When you look at him, you see--change. "Ninety-five percent of you are going to get a tax cut!" How? From the rich guys. Relief.

What can solve the economic crisis? First off, it's already easing--but this would instantly revive the economy: Flat tax of 18% across the board on incomes above $25,000, no deductions. Slash business taxes, slash taxes on capital gains and profits. Reward entrepreneureal risk-taking, and more businesses will re-invest what they earn from those risks, hiring more employees, and taking further risks. Our productivity and innovation grow.

But this is not about logic, remember. This is about caring, and caring is important. The question is--what kind of caring is most effective in stemming social problems? Dems don't like the term "trickle down," and yet they want help and aid to trickle down from huge governmental programs. Better is compassion on the personal and local level (which is much more responsive): Extended family, churches, civic groups, communities exemplifying values that encourage personal responsibility--for oneself and for others--and pride in one's daily performance. These are motivators for productivity.

Lots of Americans still champion these qualities. But when the government becomes the teat from which the little helpless ones suckle, only a very compelling factor can wean them from that free, intoxicating nectar of dependence.

And that's why the cold autumn air matched my dampened mood. Who's going to buy all the designer jeans and fancy purses and layered scallop dinners when the wealth is redistributed and the free market is fraught with expense? Who will be left to shop when all the well-to-do must flee? Our nation will survive, but we may be in for some tough times first. Hold on (to the ones you love) and keep praying.

Financial Crisis and G-D

Over the last two days of Jewish holiday--Rosh Hashana, the birthday of mankind and the beginning of the year 5769, we have spent many hours in synagogue focusing on God's role as sovereign of the universe, and determiner of the fate of each of us. We heard hundreds of blasts from the shofar, the ram's horn that calls us to repentance and is a means of connection with God (as the sound of life and death, as the noise accompanying His delivery of commandments to the Jews gathered at the foot of Mt. Sinai).

At the same time, we entered into the incommunicado time of the holiday--no TV, radio, phones or other contact with the wider world--tense with the drop in the stock market of 777 points and the rejection of a bail-out package by congress.

Our friend, Rabbi Benjamin Blech, wrote on the eve of this holiday of introspection and recognition of God's kingship that every "shmitta" year, the seven year agricultural cycle that occurred this year, God seems to punch us to attention with a huge financial whammy. Last time, Rabbi Blech himself lost his fortune in the dot-com bubble burst. This time, we've got Wall Street meltdown. Seven year cycle. Stock market down by 777.

Seven, btw, is the number that represents completion for man. Have you ever considered why the week is seven days? It could just as easily have been five or four. It's seven because that's the way God created the world, in a cycle of seven.

So, here I was Tuesday night on Rosh Hashana, in the evening after our holiday meal (and after doing the dishes) and I pick up a financial section of the newspaper, I think it was the Wall Street Journal, and in the column on the left front top, I see something that floored me.

The article began something like, "Is it time we start to think about G-D?" For the uninitiated, people who are quite religious, in an effort to not even take the English word for the Lord in vain, will write His title as G-d, omitting the middle "o." So you can imagine my shock when a secular newspaper begins its article on our economic collapse asking if we need Him.

"With so many indicators seeming to point to G-D, we would do well to look to the flaws that led to this situation." Indeed. I have many sins for which I must better atone. "Some may say it's premature to consider G-D, but many experts are warning that unless drastic action is taken, our entire economy will surely suffer radically."

And so it is. We stood in shul pledging our fealty to God, beseeching Him to grant us life and the positive resolution to our problems. I personally had to consciously resist asking for help for our financial system, feeling that I better concentrate on my own worthiness for another year of well-being. And yet, there was a prayer for sustenance. And a prayer for our government. We need to better acknowledge the true source of our success, and not get too confident, secure or cocky.

I kept reading the article, feeling that it had been placed there just for me, to concentrate my thoughts beyond the headlines. And as I kept reading, I found out something wild: the article wasn't about God at all--G-D stands for "Great Depression." Is it too early to start talking about another Great Depression? I don't know. But it's certainly the right time for Jews to be thinking about God.