Job Corps: free, residential training and education for low-income young adults

Although most do, because of the supervision. The "party problem" doesn't really start until sophomore year. Unless you're in a frat or sorority. Those count as "dorms" for the requirement, and are notorious.

Whether you like it or agree with it or not, the math has to be done at some point since we are not (yet?) a post-scarcity species.

How do you think things like life insurance policies and wrongful death awards are calculated?

Consider questions like: Why did we spend so much money trying on a Covid vaccine but not to cure gall bladder cancer? Why does eminent domain exist? Why do young men have to register for selective service?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actuary

But they were clearly talking about ROI of the job training.

Even in a community property state (a small minority operate under this rule, while an even smaller number allow voluntarily designating particular property as community property), without a prenup, its half the marital property, which includes only what is acquired during marriage, and of that excludes property one party receives during marriage through inheritance and similar processes. And, of course, even if your description was accurate, a penniless woman isn’t just going to automatically be able to find and marry a man with assets or likely to acquire them in any significant quantity. (And, conversely, while it is likewise not automatic, men can and do "marry up" financially, its not something that is only possible for women, and where marital assets are a thing, are just as entitled to a division of them.)

> * no programs to help you re-train and college has become completely unaffordable

Job retraining programs, including public community colleges, do, in fact, exist.

> * not nearly enough time to build up any sort of retirement savings suficient to not be eating beans for every meal

This is actually one area where public sector employment is a good deal; the base pay at the low end often isn’t any worse than the private sector, upward mobility (at least in wages) in the low end is also not bad, and defined benefit pensions exists. Even in the 40s, getting in 20 years is doable, and a plan with a 2% per year of service benefit multiplier (which isn’t very high, if you are retiring in your 60s) gives you 40% of your base (usually something like average of highest 3) years pay as your annual pension benefit.

Public sector employers are often also. for jobs where age discrimination is common if illegal in the private sector, much less prone to it.

> * not eligible for any assistance programs (only disabled, parents, and those over 65)

In many jurisdictions, general assistance/general relief is a thing, though the cash benefit levels tend to be low (though they often come bundled with non-cash aid, including food aid, job training, etc.), and there may be time limits with cooling off periods for able-bodied adults (e.g., something like a limit of 9 months in any 12 month period.)

> * ineligible for public service jobs (fire/ems/police) and military (even non-combat roles. We’ll put a morbidly obese 20 year old out there before we’ll put a fit, loaded-with-life-experience 45 year old)

Very few civilian public service jobs have age limits; the military has enlistment age limits (though for the Navy and Coast Guard, you aren’t necessarily past it if you are in your 40s, since it is 41 and 42, respectively), fire/police/EMS very often do not (though this varies by service and jurisdiction), and instead only have required fitness qualifications.

We definitely can use more programs, but there are tons of programs, government and private. Community college is cheap (or free with grants). You can do this.

In the UK, the classification is applied to people aged 16-24 (thus excluding the retired) and sometimes phrased as "respondents who were out of work or looking for a job, looking after children or family members, on unpaid holiday or traveling, sick or disabled, doing voluntary work or engaged in another unspecified activity"

On the other hand in Japan the NEET classification covers ages 15 and 34; and people who are engaged in housework or who are actively seeking work aren't considered NEETs.

Many of our "intractable" issues are policy issues and are completely fixable within 1 or 2 generations and honestly have always been fixable.

It's not much different than China stopping the reporting on their current youth unemployment issue.

"It's not a problem, because we're no longer studying it, therefore it is not a problem."

I suspect the real, actual unemployment number in America is far higher than the official reports.

This means, that until 24, any aid you get is calculated based on your parents’ income + your income. Even if you’ve been fully independent since 18. Combined with the laughable EFC calculations, this often means less aid available. Of course if you make a middle class income, you probably still won’t qualify for any useful aid after 24.

In my time, factors like age mattered as much as other factors that separated you from "the usual". Nowadays that may not be the case.

https://slate.com/technology/2022/11/brain-development-25-ye...

> When we spoke, I told Steinberg his work had been referenced in this way. “Oh no,” he said, laughing. I then asked whether he had insights about where the figure 25 came from, and he said roughly the same thing as Cohen: There’s consensus among neuroscientists that brain development continues into the 20s, but there’s far from any consensus about any specific age that defines the boundary between adolescence and adulthood. “I honestly don’t know why people picked 25,” he said. “It’s a nice-sounding number? It’s divisible by five?”

> Kate Mills, a developmental neuroscientist at the University of Oregon, was equally puzzled. “This is funny to me—I don’t know why 25,” Mills said. “We’re still not there with research to really say the brain is mature at 25, because we still don’t have a good indication of what maturity even looks like.”

I made the comment in the context of:

If you need a program like this between 16-24 AND you are doing drugs, it's much more likely than not that disadvantages have been heaped upon your life.

Also, the idea that girls mature faster than boys is a much more a myth; girls mature _physically_ faster than boys but not psychologically.

> There isn't great evidence linking that to anything behavioral though.

Ish. There are behavioral patterns which run parallel to it, most obvious with young male aggression which plateaus in the late 20s before trending down.

Scamming government benefits and failing to contribute to society when you are entirely able is not just selfish, it directly damages society and harms those with legitimate needs as well.

> Why should they? For what reason? If they do nothing productive and meaningful, don't hurt anyone, and don't desire to change, what is the reason they should change?

As long as scarcity is real, the idea that you are owed an existence without work is beyond selfish and entitled, it is directly harmful. They /are/ hurting others.

They offered a bunch of insane justifications, including the famous "voodoo" "trickle-down economics" idea that if you cut taxes for the wealthy enough, they'd use the money to boost the economy, thereby raising tax revenue, so everybody would win. Absolute bullshit, but it's been seriously spoken of for decades like it's an actual thing with some sort of economic or mathematical backing.

The parent comment strongly rejected the idea that republican presidents were unlikely to support job corps, and I responded by sharing an article about our most recent republican president's attempts to kill the program. It's not that controversial

All I'm saying is that the assertion that there's one in every major city is pretty wide of the mark.

Geographical censorship is bad.