published Saturday, January 28th, 2012

U.S. joblessness among young veterans shockingly high

It is heartbreaking when anyone is willing and able to work but cannot find a job.

There is an added dimension to that pain, however, when the unemployed person is a veteran of the U.S. armed forces who has only recently returned from honorably serving in Afghanistan or Iraq.

The shockingly high unemployment rate for some of our nation's youngest veterans -- those who are 20 to 24 years old -- averaged 30 percent in 2011! That is about double the rate of joblessness among non-veterans in the same age range.

Some companies have made a commitment to hiring more of our returning troops. We commend them for that effort.

But that really only shuffles around jobs among different segments of the population; it does not solve the basic problem of a lack of jobs.

Unfortunately, the federal government continues to pursue policies that have little prospect of boosting employment, and may well hurt job creation.

ObamaCare, for instance, will perversely penalize companies that grow beyond 50 employees. Businesses that expand to more than 50 workers will eventually have to start offering health insurance approved by the federal government. If they do not offer coverage, they will have to pay an annual fine of $2,000 for every full-time worker they employ -- excluding their first 30 employees.

That's a recipe for discouraging those companies from expanding -- even though the growth of small businesses is exactly what our country needs to get on solid economic footing again.

For the sake of both our unemployed veterans and all other Americans who want to work but can't get a job, we hope the 2012 elections represent a turning away from big-government policies that are draining the lifeblood from our economy.

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.

Well, we could just give military veterans healthcare for life. Didn't they get promised that once upon a time?

January 28, 2012 at 1:25 a.m.
rolando said...

Happy -- They were "promised" that only for service-connected injuries, diseases, and/or physical deterioration and then through the VA. That is and has been an ongoing process. The VA is doing an outstanding job of it, I might add.

"Healthcare for life" [sic] for military retirees was never guaranteed...only implied. Retirees could supposedly receive routine and non-routine medical care at a military facility on a space-available basis. To my knowledge, they still can. But their military health insurance program -- TriCare for Life -- will soon be priced beyond reach of many over-65 military retirees...if The Obama has his way.

All of which is neither here nor there in re the article...the thrust of which was government regulatory and legislative opposition to an expanding private industry and a consequent drop in un- or under-employed returning military members.

January 28, 2012 at 7:06 a.m.
EaTn said...

Maybe some of the companies that are holding back on hiring until after the elections will put aside partisan politics and profits and hire the returning vets to show appreciation for the freedom of opportunity in this country.

January 28, 2012 at 7:10 a.m.
rolando said...

No one willingly self-destructs their own company, EaTn. [Unless they are a tax-payer supported "Green" company.] That's what expansion amounts to under this administration.

Hopefully that will change next November...but I am not holding my breath.

January 28, 2012 at 7:23 a.m.
EaTn said...

rolando..I don't think pocketing major profits at the expense of adding jobs is self-destruction, short sightedness maybe.

January 28, 2012 at 7:36 a.m.
conservative said...

Socialist countries have high unemployment, witness Europe, so we also will have higher unemployment as our nation becomes more Socialist. It is not complicated.

We have a Socialist interventionist government policy pertaining to hiring known as "quotas". People and the federal government will sue companies for discrimination if the percentage of their employees does not meet the gender and race quotas prescribed by the feds. Lieberals will surely play the quota card if this Socialist policy is upset by hiring vets.

January 28, 2012 at 8:30 a.m.
EaTn said...

conservative, by it's nature socialist countries have little unemployment since everyone works for the government. Unchecked capitalism in this country allowing companies to move work off shore while enjoying lucrative tax breaks is a major cause of unemployment.

January 28, 2012 at 8:47 a.m.
Haiku said...

Strange how no one from the right raised concerns about unemployed veterans under Bush. When veterans were returning from Iraq and sleeping in their cars and under bridges. Homeless and unemployed veterans were rampant down in and around Fort Benning Ga under Bush and other areas of the country. Where were all these right wingers then? They were bashing and taunting any veteran, any service man or woman still in the war zone who complained about unsafe and dangerous equipment and conditions. I'll never forget the words of the likes of Rush Limbaugh who said, "They volunteered didn't they?" When servicement and women complained about unsafe and dangerous conditions in Iraq. Then there was Beck, rumsyfeld and chin chin cheney and even Bush who made sarcastic remarks about America's service men and women former or presently serving at the time.

And to think these people still have dedicated followers. shameful!

January 28, 2012 at 9:18 a.m.

rolando: Recruiters did actually "promise" that. Which is the problem, they were making promises in the name of the US that were not real. It's terrible that they felt that they had to do such a thing.

But so what? I'm suggesting it more as a solution that would fix the "concern" about healthcare premiums AND reward service members who need employment. You got all hopped up over history and never even gave a thought to consider the ramifications of what I suggested.

And yes, you will find people harming, even destroying their own companies, for a variety of reasons in a diversity of ways. Sometimes it is foolishness drive to expand, sometimes it is an unwillingness to expand. Sometimes it's just because of their own greed. People make bad decisions for all sorts of causes, and what's good for one, can be bad for another.

It is not just "Green" companies though, but any and all can be victims of such conduct. Or beneficiaries, depending.

Besides, every single industry that can afford onem has a lobbyist in the capitals. You want to stop lobbying, to deter the buying of politicians? GREAT. Do that. But don't think it's just the industries you love to hate, it's the ones whose successes you probably celebrate.

EaTN: Well, such pocketing can be destructive, but the guy doing the pocketing gets out of it with full pockets, so he can be quite happy. And sometimes they don't care mind putting up with a little less today to get more (they think) tomorrow.

In the right context, it could be laudable.

Haiku: Well, see, now it's somebody else's problem to fix, so they can complain about it. Not fix it, mind you, just complain.

I still go with my suggestion.

January 28, 2012 at 9:21 a.m.
conservative said...


Countries such as France, Germany and Spain have been called Socialist for quite some time. Spain has unemploymet rate of over 20% and France and Germany have been in the 10% range.

America has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. This tax is a cost of business which is largely passed onto the consumer. Now think about this, Lieberals want to tax corporations even more but the goods and services they purchase from these corprations will only cost them more. Now isn't that stupid? Isn't it?

Lieberals don't seem to know that corporations seek to make money ( another word for that is profit) and are NOT in business to break even or even lose money. They will move their business out of the country to a more profitable location when our government imposes high taxes and regulations on them.

The lower taxes and regulations in the great state of Tennessee have enticed companies to locate and relocate here. They want to make a greater profit or even RECORD profits.

I don't know why Lieberals can't understand that, do you?

January 28, 2012 at 9:47 a.m.
chet123 said...

Shockingly high?????? Is this coming from the party that blocked the JOB BILL????? Really Amazing!....Really Amazing!!!

This an example of see no evil,hear no evil,say no evil....WHEN ITS THEIR OWN SINS!!!! ha ha ha

January 28, 2012 at 10:14 a.m.

Conservative, I don't think you get it, the corporations you talk about being overtaxed aren't paying that tax rate, they have an effective tax rate that is much lower, even negative.

And what you don't realize is that if their profits are quite high, where do you think their profit comes from? Oh wait, it comes from the people whose money they took. OMG, they're taxing you too! Evil, isn't it? Besides, at a certain point, they can't raise their prices but instead have to sacrifice some of their precious profit. Why? Because the consumers won't (or can't!) pay that much.

Besides, a corporation that threatens to move overseas? You don't seem to realize that the only reason they exist is because they are granted one by the government. If a corporation starts behaving in a way that is detrimental to the nation, what do you think we should do with them? What would you do with an individual who causes harm to the United States?

Please tell us.

Besides, to move overseas like you suggest, they'd have to get along without doing business in the US. That means somebody else will do it instead.

That's what the free market is about, not being held hostage to some actors who refuse to participate without being able to screw the others.

January 28, 2012 at 10:38 a.m.
acerigger said...

rolando said... "TriCare for Life -- will soon be priced beyond reach of many over-65 military retirees...if The Obama has his way."

Surely someone will correct me if I'm wrong,but,Pres. Obama did not make the decision to make those particular cuts! With all the waste and fraud that,I'm sure,exists in the spending and allocation of defense dollars, something besides pay and benefits for our service members could be cut. The number of military members who must have food stamps to survive is a disgrace to our nation! Do we "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS" or not?

January 28, 2012 at 10:49 a.m.
rolando said...

The Obama didn't propose any cuts, ace. He proposed starting to charge retirees over 65 for their "promised" health insurance.

Better he should start charging for all the stuff the HUD gives away...or stop giving stuff to the young and healthy who do nothing to earn it. There are thousands of ways to cut Social Services to those multi-generation leeches.

January 28, 2012 at 6:04 p.m.

You'll want to produce a breakdown of the spending in those programs then. How much goes to the disabled, how much to the elderly, and how much to children, and how much to those persons you are complaining about.

January 28, 2012 at 6:22 p.m.
328Kwebsite said...

As a veteran who is unemployed, and who has applied for work at your paper, I would like to point out that you did not bother to call for an interview or send a form letter rejecting my application.

I find that over 90% of local businesses respond with only silence. Your paper is like that, too.

If you want to see more veterans hired, it would help if you took any action at all when we applied to work with you. While we do not expect to be hired solely on the basis of our service, my overwhelming impression of this editorial is that it is hypocritical.

Ask yourself: why do you ignore us when we apply to you? Maybe then you'll discover why the unemployment rate for veterans is "shockingly high."

I have long supposed that businesses do not react when veterans apply because, in truth, the well-advertised paths to employment are often a sham. For example, it's become common for local corporations to not hire directly from the general public, but to use temp agencies as a cheap substitute for applicant vetting and placement.

Here in Chattanooga, we often see jobs advertised as a cheap alternative to advertising genuine profitability; the job ads will be fake, but the appearance of progress might be needed. Employment ads are sometimes used to create the aura of profitability when real sales or services can't be seen.

Part of the reason why veterans are not being hired at a normal rate is because most companies have been carrying out such poor business practices for so long that they can't hire an employee properly anymore.

The Times-Free Press, for example, can't even summon the professional courage to send a form letter email when the job postings close.

If you want to see better conditions for getting vets hired, start having the courage to exercise basic hiring and firing decisions with ethics and class. That's be a good innovation for our business community to develop. No one expects to be hired on the first application. But it would be a nice change to see businesses provide a strait answer instead of not responding to applications.

January 28, 2012 at 7:10 p.m.
carlB said...

It would appear that when the "persons" in our voluntary military were used to invade Iraq, what happened to them and the expense and the aftermath of the "selected" invasion was not taken into consideration. Especially the length of time the war lasted and the number of troops killed and the over 30,000 wounded.

The lack of jobs is for the military veterans and the other citizens is a complicated situation. The job losses appears to have started in 1973 and then the losses peaked from the causes and effects of the 2007 deep recession, in 2009-2010.

There are certain periods in the USA's financial history that should be used as examples, analyzed and taught using the facts and the results of what our elected leaders will do and not do when it comes to their political agendas and their ideological beliefs. The period I am referring to ranges from the lead up before the 1929 great depression through the year of 2012.

Do the Republicans and the Capitalist have the voters in the "right" frame of mind for hating the unions, hating the workers who have health care, retirement plans, and are against the purposes the "big government" that FDR's New Deal policies created? Have President Obama's enemies convinced the voters that he has been a complete failure and should be voted out of office, letting the Republicans continue destroying this Republic? If not then, the voters will have to take things "in their own hands," voting for whom is best for them and this Republic in the long-term. We have already had a "dose" of the elected Congress looking out for themselves and the Capitalist instead of our citizen workers. We, the US consumers, also need to help reduce our trade deficit with the global corporations, forcing them to reinvest in more manufacturing plants here, creating jobs making the goods that are now imported. The KEY to recovery is the creation of middle class manufacturing jobs and the decrease in the cost of living expenses while decreasing the "wage gap," with sacrifices made by everybody, not the depressing of the middle classes and not forcing an increase in the number of people living in Poverty.

January 28, 2012 at 8:02 p.m.
rogerdodger said...

ACE just thought you would like to know it was IN FACT Obama that did call for these cuts. Guess it was easy for him considering he will have his benefits for life and that he never served in the military.

January 28, 2012 at 8:26 p.m.
carlB said...

328Kwebsite, I certainly appreciate the content and the points made in your post.
When there are people employed in a "right to work state" who do not have any representation and want to work and with the conditions of high unemployment, the tactics used by most employers is to give a minimum amount of respect to the employees. You might be familiar with this line of thought in keeping the Employees in line? It is not the best working conditions and they are at the mercy of the uncertainly every day they show up to work.

January 28, 2012 at 9:07 p.m.
acerigger said...

Thanks for that link rogerdodger,but I stand by the rest of that post."With all the waste and fraud that,I'm sure,exists in the spending and allocation of defense dollars, something besides pay and benefits for our service members could be cut. The number of military members who must have food stamps to survive is a disgrace to our nation! Do we "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS" or not?

January 28, 2012 at 9:51 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.