I discovered I’d forgotten to post this column from a couple of weeks ago that examines youth unemployment.

In the last decade, the share of employed youth has fallen dramatically and it continues to drop. Nationally, the youth unemployment rate for those aged 16 to 19 years old is about 22 percent. In Washington, that number has approached 30 percent, well above the U.S. average.

 

It doesn’t get much better when we extend the picture a few years. A May report by the Brookings Institution reports an unemployment rate for 16 to 24 year olds of 14.5 percent. Analyst Elisabeth Jacobs writes, “Youth unemployment is one of the most serious economic and social problems facing the United States today.”

My take: the reasons for the rise reflect cultural and public policy dynamics. Please give it a read.

This week’s column – entirely inadvertently – goes to the other end of the age spectrum, those receiving or anticipating pensions in the next few years. It pegs of a pair of recent state Supreme Court rulings that provided some good news for legislative budget writers.

Pension policy can be insidious. Seemingly small benefit changes turn costly over time. That’s why it makes no sense for lawmakers to tamper with established plans. But when they do, they should give themselves a clear out.

 

That’s what state legislators did with two pension enhancements adopted when the economy was more robust. Recognizing that the good times may not always roll, they included language reserving the right to amend or repeal the enhancements. When they exercised that right, public employee unions took them to court. While lower courts held for the unions, the state Supreme Court last week upheld the Legislature’s actions, saving the state billions of dollars in pension costs.

These were sensible decisions. The column looks at them in a bit more detail and closes with a policy recommendation.