TED Conversations

Levi LCL

Director-General , The Universal Party

TEDCRED 10+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Global youth unemployment is off the charts all around the world. Will the international community continue to ignore their plight? WARNING.

Unemployment is a volital issue, it always has been and it always will be. Primarily because it dictates an individuals role in society. When you grow up you hear endless requests from your family, friends, teachers, and peers about what job you want, so you pick one, and learn to indentify with it. Most if not all youth by the time they graduate from Highschool or University have expectations to get a job to eat and if possible fulfill their ambitions, this however is becoming increasingly impossible for student the world over.

Youth unemployment is expected to raise to 12.7 percent and stay there until 2016 according to the International Labor Organization (ILO). This is so bad that many World Bank and IMF leaders and managers have warned of a "Lost Generation" globally. In countries like Greece, Spain, Egypt and most of the Middle East, youth unemployment is near 50 percent or higher. My question is, do you think the world community will take the measures necessary to help this 'Lost Generation', or will they let time pass, and simply replace them with a younger eager generation willing to work for less, effectively strangling the generation for life.

If so there is the strong possibility of a large, global social and political backlash that may change the fabric of our modern society. For the best?

0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Sep 3 2012: Here is a well explained interview worth listening to. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RDihFrV_Os
    • thumb
      Sep 3 2012: The Zeitgeist Movement, are you proposing this as a solution to global unemployment? To throw out the existing system. There are many systemic and severe problems but if anything can be learned from previous attempts to throw out any system, that those who replace it perpetuate the same problems. People who support revolutions are generally blind to history, most recently communism of course.

      In my opinion the best method of overhall is one based on the actual needs of society and not a predesigned dogma that often clashes with the real demands of people worldwide. When you disagree with something you don't need to annihlate it, this knee jerk reaction often leads only to violence, compromise is the best way to navigate things between large groups of people - so long as it yeilds fast equitable results. A social economy might be a good idea, inwhich on a grand scale the general public and policy makers commit to confronting head on the flaws of the current economic system, by public acknowledgement of its flaws, open forums on its solution, and the immediate implementation of a solution. Most people know whats wrong, and have a good idea how to fix it, but it is a taboo subject inwhich anyone trying to make a difference quickly becomes a 'revolutionary' which in many places is a dangerous political label that gets you into trouble. Not everyonee can afford the free political speech afforded to the founders of the Zeitgeist movement, thus a tactful but honest approach may be best.

      Russia Today is a direct line to the Kremlin, basically anyone criticising the west can get on there. It's not all bad and can be used to see how some people see the west, but its about as useful to social or political analysis as People Magazine or other gossip features. Even RT used the Zeitgeist Movement as a puff piece to show the psychology that was perhaps behind the new Occupy Wallstreet movement at the time. An informed and non-western news source is Al-Jazeera which reports fair
      • thumb
        Sep 3 2012: Yes, it is plain that any change should be evolutionary. But having some reference to break out of the box is hgelpful - to know that there *an* be an outside-the-box - specially when the box appears to be sinking.
        The one very nice bit of cogent information in the Zietgeist interview is the reference to incentives - there are a couple of talks on TED about that very thing. I do note that Zietgeist have appropriated that after the fact.
        THe problem I have with Zietgeist style utopia is the same problem I have with techno-churchmen such as this guy:
        http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/peter_diamandis_abundance_is_our_future.html
        And people who kid themselves that there is an open market.

        One interesting conjecture is that as the systems of human civillisation press harder and harder for efficiency and conformity, everyone will find themselves being incrementally criminalized - such that nothing legal can be done that is not at the behest of the system.
        At that point we are all criminals - then the fun can really begin.
        • thumb
          Sep 3 2012: Yeah Mitch evolutionary change seems to be the best, then you allude to a revolution at the end which is confusing. It is defintly good to have an alternative to 'the system' or 'the box' out there, however I find polarized conspiracy theories arent the best method. Usually with a leader eager to vault themselves to Presidential status within whatever framework they may wish to create.

          I think its important to make a distincition between politics and economy. Economy is more powerful and consistent, mainly because we have hundreds of goverments and Presidents and Prime Ministers and only one global economy. I find it unlikely the worlds economy will bend to any authoritarian rule in the future, as tyranny is toxic to the economy in the long run. Countries which suppress human rights or the well-being of their citizens for several decades experience growth then collapse unless modernized. Korea and Japan are proof of this, both succeeded and modernized from reletively recently feudal cultures. I really doubt the emperor of Japan makes economic decisions, this is the fate of all strict political leaders, as citizens realize the less power their leaders have the more money they have. Political leadership has been taking a dive to the economy for generations, and countries with strong political leadership (North Korea, Zimbabwe) fail. China is not an exception, by Chinese standards their leadership has greatly softened itself to allow for market growth (and are 100 percent aware of this issue publicly).

          Tyranny within economic models such as corporations and businesses are a whole another game. Which requires likely the same solution, people realizing the economic and personal gain from limiting their leaders to just obligations, in essence leaders in both economics and politics must become moderate and sustainable. History has shown people can and will live under incredibly unjust systems, but time, heals all wounds. Principally because the realization is inevitable
      • thumb
        Sep 3 2012: AH yes - sorry for the unbridged jump. But there are tipping points.
        Evolution may be too slow.
        I try to hasten evolution by throwing alternative models around.
        One of the suggestions I make is that each person should sit down and do a serious attempt at designing a currency and the rules of its operation (an economy).
        I have done several of these. It does not matter how egalatarian or drakonian I make the ruleset, one factor remains the same - the issuer of currency holds absolute power of life and death over all who use it. It would take an extaordinarily saintly human to not be corrupted by that.
        People point and shout "Illuminati!" at the money-changers, but I point at them and say "Participant!"
        Illuminatii is a concept in a Tom Hanks movie. I am appalled at how it took off and became a credible concept in the minds of otherwise rational humans!
        I am sure there are conspiracies, but the Illuminatii is not one of them - what we see is just the inevitable outcome of money - corrupt bankers.
        This analysis (from another thread) puts it all nicely in context:
        http://canadianclimateaction.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/citigroup-oct-16-2005-plutonomy-report-part-1.pdf

        The faultline in the concept of "Jobs" only becomes clear when one has been an employer, and then, later discovered true "work".
        Those who are now "unemployed" must be encouraged to find their work - there will never again be any "jobs" for them. THe "Technocratii" have seen to that ;).
        • thumb
          Sep 4 2012: I do a similar practice, except I have people sit down and try and write up models for global governance, i find it makes they're world-view more informed as well.

          There are many people who resort only to criticism and have no insight to offer, it is humorous to consider that many newspaper editors consider writing criticism the easiest of assignments, yet the general public seems to think its such a massive talent.

          So I appreciate creative views.
      • thumb
        Sep 4 2012: It seems reasonable that now we have global saturation of connected humans that a global jurisdiction would be necassary. however the nacent global unity represented by the UN was comprehensively scuttled by the US and England via the gulph maneovre. With the UN set back 50 years, there arises the vacuum of a judiciary in the internet. This was a blunder on the part of the control-and-command brigade and has allowed the beginnings of a new global community independent of national borders.
        I would advise the young unemployed to pirate the heck out of IP - IP is the device by which the avenues of new work by individuals is stiffled and it is vulnerable right now.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.