9
Economic worries weigh on the young
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
John Della Volpe is director of polling at Harvard University's Institute of Politics.
TEXT OF STORY
KAI RYSSDAL: Thanks to the miracle of compound interest, that $700 billion we're collectively going to have to borrow to bail out the global economy could wind up being a whole lot more. If that happens, it's going to handcuff what the country will be able to do in the future, beyond even what Robert Shapiro was just talking about.
Most of us aren't going to be around to pay the bills and see the long-term impact. But kids graduating from college this year might. At the same time they're entering the "real world," the class of 2008 will also be heading to the polls this November. Some of them for the first time.
And in the first installment of our election series, "Interested Parties," we wanted to find out what recent graduates and current students want from the next administration.
We sent Marketplace's Sean Cole to ask around.
SEAN COLE: So no radio story about recently graduated seniors would be complete without this music . . .["Pomp and Circumstance"]
And maybe some pearl of wisdom from a commencement speaker, like "Today Show" host Meredith Viera.
MEREDITH VIERA: I've interviewed presidents and I've interviewed poor people just trying to make it. I actually prefer the latter group, to be honest with you.
Which is apropos considering that a lot of these kids are asking themselves, "Which presidential candidate is going to keep me from becoming a poor person?"
RAHUL CHANDIOK: The job hunt hasn't been as successful as I had hoped.
SARAH GARTON: I have been taking those jobs that, um, that don't really pay you.
COLE: When do you finish?
DAVID ANDERSON: Ideally August.
COLE: And then what?
DAVID: Um, then I hope to start working and making money.
JOHN DELLA VOLPE: That's only one of their economic concerns heading towards this election year.
John Della Volpe is the director of polling at the Harvard Institute of Politics. He's citing a bi-annual survey of more than 2,000 18-to-24 year olds. Half of them are in four-year colleges and universities. The other half is a mishmash -- graduates, high schoolers. And right before commencement this past spring...
DELLA VOLPE: The issue of the economy was the number one concern among young people. This is the first time in the last five years that we've done our survey that an issue other than Iraq was number one.
Partly because young people are starting to think of every issue as an economic issue, including the war. Right young people?
SARAH: Definitely.
DAVID: Absolutely.
SHAUN: I mean, everything boils down to being an economic issue.
DELLA VOLPE: They certainly look at our energy and environemental policy as an economic issue. They even look at health care as an economic issue.
Not to mention Social Security, which allof the young people I spoke with had something to say about.
RAHUL: Yeah, when I'm older, I definitely expect the government to take care of me.
Rahul Chandiok is 21. Finishing up his bachelor's degree in business administration at the University of Southern California. He says Social Security better be around when he's older.
RAHUL: Because, I mean, otherwise, it's like why don't I just take that money and invest it in, like, a pension fund or something.
COLE: Which I think is what Bush has been saying. Like, maybe we should all just invest it, instead.
RAHUL: The thing with that, though, is like I feel like in order to get a good long-term return from one of those funds you kinda have to be somewhat educated in that field. And, you know, I mean, like I've taken one course in investments and that barely scratched the surface.
Whereas Sarah Garton feels like she just doesn't know enough about Social Security in general.
SARAH: The way that I've looked at it since I got my first job when I was like 16 was just like, Oh, there's that extra 10 bucks that I didn't get -- You know, that I can't, like, buy pizza with.
Sarah just graduated from Boston University with a cultural anthropology degree. She's from Texas but stuck around the area for the summer, working a temporary job for 14 bucks an hour. Her thoughts on the topic at hand are, in short, Social Security schmocial security.
SARAH: I guess I don't really trust it. I'm not counting on it by any means. I don't think I can count on anything, so . . .
COLE: On anything? That's very nihilistic.
SARAH: Uh-oh. But I'm an idealist. I believe in the good of people. Anything that the government is promising me I don't think I can count on.
Besides, Sarah's more concerned with the here and now. Her college health care and housing both ran out this month so she had to find an affordable insurance plan -- and a new apartment which she's trying to figure out how to pay for. Sound familiar?
Again John Della Volpe.
DELLA VOLPE: These issues are kind of intertwined and they affect people in their 20s just as much, if not more, than people in their 40s, 50s and 60s.
DAVID: I had the fortune of working for Social Security last year, which was kind of an eye-opening job to have.
David Anderson is a grad student in political science at the University of New Hampshire. You heard him laughing before.
He says Social Security is not the inefficient, wasteful bureaucracy it's thought to be. In fact, he says, it's too efficient.
DAVID: It's become so tight-pocketed to avoid the fraud that the people who really need it aren't even getting it.
COLE: And that's what you'd like to see change.
DAVID: Yeah, I would like to see that change. Personally, I have a heart murmur which shouldn't effect me, at least until I'm into my old age. But it's kind of that knowledge that at some point something could happen completely out of my control.
At 29, David's a little older than the demographic we've been talking about so far. But he still fits into that under-30 set that could really drive this upcoming election.
John Della Volpe told me that in the 2004 election voters under 30 outnumbered those over 65 by a million.
In Boston, I'm Sean Cole for Marketplace.
So, where will Obama get the money to pay for Universal Healthcare? How about breaking the military/industrial compound? This "crisis" may be a blessing in disguise. Our first real chance in fifty-odd years to scale down our military and do something useful with our money.
On a socialist note: what about nationalizing our energy companies? I hear they p brought in around $70 billion last year. That would go quite a ways to fixing up Wall Street, wouldn't it? Oh, no! Don't flame me, please!
"they affect people in their 20s just as much, if not more, than people in their 40s, 50s and 60"... How could health insurance affect someone in their 20s more than someone older with a family, perhaps even a child in their 20s who is depending on their parents to help them? Everything is relative to the circumstance of the individual. Just a bit whiny and divisive when I hear things like that!! Such a formula story. Marketplace... I agree with most everything else the story said except for the old school demographic you are portraying. I believe young people are these days are so much different than the media generations of the past. They are not out to rebel against the older generation as previous generations have been taught to do by the media. However, they are much more educated about the issues and in general have a greater desire to see our country cut through the red tape and get things done which make sense!! They are so much less divisive and more broadly aware of the diversity in our society. That's a great thing. The internet generation is way cooler than what you give them credit for by saying this one line.
To James Orleans:
First, very few make $100 million as you suggest. If you find one, you'll most likely find that he/she also lose $100 million just slightly less often they they make it. They are the Bill Gates and the Warren Buffets and they are making BIG bets. They also give away BILLIONS in their foundations, so don't just compare their average salary with yours unless you are willing to also compare their average charity and taxes.
Second, realize that over the past decade, the value of the dollar has dropped about 30%. The markets have NOT kept up with inflation (in spite of what the stock salesmen would like you to believe.)
WHEN YOU START HEARING MARKET AVERAGES QUOTED ONLY IN 1999 DOLLARS, then you can start beginning to believe some honesty is finding its way into the market. THEN you want to see individual stock moves reported ONLY in percentages. THEN you want to see your W-2 including you actual COST to your employer... i.e. the other 7.5% of your FICA taxes that your employer pays, the several percent additional that goes to the state to pay unimployment insurance, etc.
Then you might want to start asking for a "truth in taxation" legislation to match the "truth in packaging" laws.
Truth in taxation would make sure the label reflects the portion of the price that goes to pay the taxes of all those who brought the product to your grocery cart. ...you DO realize the taxes of every employee in the store is paid out of the "profits" tacked on the raw cost of that loaf of bread, right? ...and don't for get the property tax for the building, the truck that delivered the bread, the gas tax on the fuel, the FICA and income taxes of all up the production line back to the farmer.
It all comes out of the coins you dropped on the counter.
The only way to improve our common wealth is to improve our common efficiency.... most businesses must be efficient, or their competitors will take their business away. Unfortunately, the government has NO competitor... so tax money is most likely wasted and wasted badly.
The politicians pushing their parties are trying to sell us either a broken down jackass or a white elephant... neither party is willing to face the facts:
1) print more money... it becomes less valuable;
2) borrow more money... and interest payments chew up that money;
3) cheat and lie to get rich quick... and eventually you'll train someone else to cheat and lie better than you... and they'll eat you lunch, then chew off you face and then eat your children.
Trite as it sounds, honesty is the best policy... too bad it is so hard to find an honest politician.
I hear over and over again that any additional taxation or regulation will strangle competitive spirit and reduce the incentive for entrepreneurs and investors and developers, et. al. to work hard. First, there is little evidence that past taxation and regulation levels have had significant affect on overall productivity, business developement, and innovation. Second, am I being asked to believe that a businessman faced with the prospect of making only 100 million dollars, instead of the 125 million he thinks he should be able to make with fewer taxes and regulations, will throw up his hands and go into Social work or elementary school teaching??? This is one of the most absurd arguments I've ever heard, yet it seems to be accepted theory on which to base system-wide legislation.
Perhaps after this most devastating financial crisis, involving the biggest government bailout (a socialist measure)in our history we will hear less from Rebublicans that big government is a bad thing, and that unfettered capitailsm and the free market can take care of everything. We should no longer give any credibility to either of those specious arguments.
To fix our problems we need some "truth" in taxation and valuation:
1) all valuations and enumerations of wealth and income should be corrected for inflation.
.... it is misleading to say "the market ended the week even" if the dollar declined in value.
.... it is misleading to say "the rich/poor gap is larger" since a shrinking dollar alone explains it.
2) it matters little who the tax is collected from... taxes are fungible:
.... in a competitive market, taxes are just another cost that flows down into price.
.... if a one buys $10 of groceries, $3 to $4 of the money ends up as tax revenue somewhere.
.... tax only the top 5% of earners... and YOU will pay the tax indirectly thru higher prices.
.... proof: GDP is 30% money spent by government, all of which is derived by taxing the rest.
.... history: regardless of tax rates, revenues are essentially flat as percentage of GDP.
Note: part of your grocery money pays the FICA, income, property, fuel and phone taxes of the clerk at check-out, as well as those taxes for everyone up the food chain back to the farmer's helper! Raise taxes on anyone up the line, and they will either quit working or raise their price.
Many promises are made, but those making them are misrepresenting fact and history.
It is not LIES that lead to most of the untruth, but simple ignorance and bad logic.
I find it slightly disturbing that the students interviewed place so much responsibility on the government instead of taking it upon themselves. I'm in my mid-twenties and am a recent graduate. I see no reason to consider social security to be my comprehensive retirement fund. Honestly, it may be a stretch to assume the system will even exist in its current form when we retire. Instead, I have a budget, and part of that budget is purposeful saving for retirement. I will live on less than I make, regardless of what lifestyle that requires. One of the interviewees was concerned that he would need to be educated in investing in order to invest well. I can't argue with that, but life is about learning. By no means did I learn or expect to learn everything I needed to know within the college classroom. You have to take some initiative. Learn. Grow. It's your life, so it's your responsibility.
I too am in your wheelhouse of the 'under 30' voters. I'm also more politically active than most my age--having voted in every election I've been eligible for, which given Virginia's favor for yearly elections is a large number.
I want to believe I could vote for Obama for his promised change; but I can't. Neither can I vote for McCain. In addition to his simpler problems, he's just a bad-luck guy--a Jonah. I don't want to put that kind of karmic lightning rod into the White House.
So I have to vote third party, as usual. But 'everyone' knows that's just throwing my vote away. Why? When neither of the major parties has a candidate with a clue how to handle the most important issue: the economy, why will either one of them win? I'd vote for Bartlett before Obama or McCain, at least he was an economist.
The next president must balance the budget and slash expenditures across the board. That is the only way. And so my candidate, a write in. I might as well, if I'm going to 'throw my vote away' it might as well be for someone I believe in and who can actually implement successful measures.
65 million votes for Obama
63 million for McCain
1 vote for Ron Paul
P.S. my wife (also sub-30) also plans to write in. Tack on a vote for Mickey Mouse. I can't say I approve, but I understand the sentiment.
