“It’s really bad when economic systems don’t have jobs available for young adults who are ready form households and achieve independence from their parents.”
It’s bad, but I do see some reasons to be optimistic. It will simply take a re-think of what it means to be employed and what is a realistic lifestyle and how to achieve it. The stereotypical “go to college, get an entry level job, and work your way up to the good life” model is largely extinct in my view. Those who survive and prosper will be those who can hustle a living and take care of themselves. And if you think about it, that may well be a better way to live.
Ask yourself, who has a more fulfilling life? The person who is essentially broke but live modestly, grows their own food, has no debt, and answers to few but God? Or the person who makes a significant salary, works 60 hour weeks, pays most of what they earn in taxes and a lot of the rest in debt payments, rarely has time for church, and never has time for their kids?
I agree with you in principle. I think a life of sufficiency, with an emphasis on the intangible values of family and faith, qualifies as “success.”
However, systems that price out entry-level employees, or that discourage hiring by penalizing firing, restrict the supply of jobs for everyone. The same systems usually have very high barriers to business creation, as well. Even if your business is “Regulatory Compliance Specialist” - included with “Tax-chick” at my former place of employment - starting your business is a nightmare, and most people either don’t try or run illegally until they get busted.
That’s wrong. People should be able to start a regular old retail or service business legally, without undue cost or trauma. They should be able to hire an employee at a price the employer and employee agree on, and they should be able to fire him if he doesn’t do the job.