If you think a 7.8 percent unemployment rate in this country is terrible, ask an unemployed 18-year-old how their job search is going.

I'll tell you, not well. Today, unemployed workers between the ages of 16 and 19 years old have an unemployment rate of more than 23 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That number falls to 20.9 percent among white kids and explodes to 39.3 percent for African-American youths. The dismal fact is that for America's young adults unemployment is 30 percent higher than the national average.

Youth unemployment is worse than at any time since the Great Depression and will remain stubbornly high largely because the young lack the experience and skills of older workers. So if you believe, like I do, that young people represent the future of this country, something better be done to turn these numbers around and pronto.

In my last column, I wrote that trade/vocational schools were making a comeback. And as this century picks up speed the demand for skilled workers in a variety of high-paying, blue-collar areas is going to accelerate. For many of today's unemployed youth, vocational training should be a no-brainer. Here's why.

Vocational training requires less time to complete than a college degree since most postsecondary vocational degrees can be had in two years. Unlike your college-educated brethren, you will have readily employable skills, therefore you can be working and earning money in as little as 24 months while many college grads will still be searching for a job. And you will do so without an enormous educational debt burden that most college grads will be required to pay down over the next 15-20 years.

But the future of vocational training, in my opinion, must do more. It must reach backward into our high school system. That's where the student's technical training should start. Let's face it, not everyone should go to college, nor do they want to. Yet, for the most part, our educational system is geared for that single objective. That is a big mistake.

Some students, maybe a lot of students, won't be attending college. What about them? Given the high cost of a college education today, many lower and middle income students already know they can't afford college. So why, they ask, should they even remain in a high school dedicated to preparing them for a college they will never attend?

I say bring back shop classes. Why not allow those students to spend at least half their time in a trade area, alternating a full week of career education and a week of academics?

What about trying a Swiss or Netherlands-style vocational education approach? In their systems, students in their last two-years of high school have the option of participating in a structured workplace apprenticeship, making money some of the week while spending the rest of the time in the classroom. That might explain why the Swiss unemployment rate among youths is only 5 percent.

Consider that in the Massachusetts' vocational technical high schools the dropout rate is half the rate of those at comprehensive high schools, according to a recent study by Pioneer Institute, a Boston-based research firm.

Why? Students, who are given a choice between preparing for college (the comprehensive approach) or preparing to learn a skill or trade, feel they have more control of the future. In addition, the academic and applied learning environment in mastering a vocation of their choice tends to keep the student's attention and reinforce their commitment.

Finally, the more a student can apprentice while in the classroom the better. Apprenticeships, in combination with academic education, will improve the transition from schools to careers and higher paying jobs. It can upgrade skills and fine tune them to the needs of our nation's companies. I say urge our nation's businesses to return to the apprenticeship and training model. It worked well in this country for decades and works splendidly today in Germany, Austria and other European countries.

President Obama, in his State of the Union address, appears to recognize the need for a change of direction in how we are educating and training our youth for the challenges ahead. I say he is on the right track. What do you say?

On the eve of what is supposed to be one whopping big snow storm here in the Northeast, one can only wonder if Mother Nature is preparing us for yet another horrendous weather year. Last year was one of the costliest on record.

In 2012, at least 11 weather events, each causing more than $1 billion in losses, were delivered upon this nation. Tornados, hurricanes, wildfires, and drought were just some of the fire and brimstone that left 349 people dead while leaving millions of inhabitants seeking shelter.

Out West, those "purple mountain majesties" were hidden by months of thick smoke as almost 10 million acres of national forest was reduced to blackened stumps. At the same time, those "fruited plains" and "amber waves of grain" shriveled away, replaced by acres of cracked, parched earth. After months of waterless weather, the 2012 drought spread over half the United States, from California, north to Idaho and the Dakotas and then east to Indiana and Illinois. Think "Dust Bowl."

That drought persisted all year and continues today in much of the nation's mid-section. Over 123 of those deaths and billions in damages can be attributed to that drought alone. Of course, the drought played a major role in spreading the wild fires, which gave us our second worst fire season in over a decade in the western U.S.

One can only wonder how the high temperatures interacted with other weather conditions to trigger an unrelenting series of tornados and severe thunderstorms in places like Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado and much of the Southern Plains. Forty-eight deaths, countless casualties and $14.5 billion in damages had many residents in a dozen states as shell-shocked as war victims.  

There was even an unusual combination of high winds and severe storms (called the Derecho Event) that cut a swath of death and damage through the mid-Atlantic from New Jersey to South Carolina this summer. It caused 28 deaths and $3.75 billion in losses.

There was also little left shining from "sea to shining sea" except search lights during the nation's two largest hurricanes: "Isaac," which blew in from the Gulf of Mexico and Hurricane Sandy that made a shambles of much of the East Coast.

It was Sandy that skewed the numbers last year. The Superstorm killed 131 people and estimated damages have peaked at $50 billion. Only 2005, the year of Hurricane Katrina, Wilma, Rita and Dennis, generated more deaths (2,000) and worse damage ($187 billion). And the damage caused by Mother Nature is on the increase.

Back in the '80s and '90s, according to the National Climatic Data Center, which is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, it was rare to see more than two or three $1 billion, weather-related damage events annually. We had many years where the losses totaled less than $20 million a year. But today, the standout years during those decades have now become fairly common. Billion-dollar events have become twice as frequent as they were back in 1996 and in the proceeding 15 years.

So as you read this today, "Nemo the Nor'easter," will have descended upon us. It is forecasted to pile up the white stuff at the rate of an inch an hour around here. Over in Boston, it could be much worse. Let's hope everyone survives it. Unfortunately, this may only be the first big weather event of many that we will endure this year. In which case, 2013 will simply be adhering to what is now the new normal in weather-related costs.

C'mon, Mother Nature, go pick on someone else.

On the technical front, more and more indicators are flashing warning signs. The markets look extended and investor sentiment points to extreme bullishness. Those are usually signals that we are due for a sell off.

That does not mean that the markets won't go higher but the higher the averages climb without a pullback, the sharper the decline will be when it does occur. Remember too that pullbacks are good for the markets. Two steps forward and one step back is the rhythm of just about everything and the markets are simply a reflection of that fact of life. We have had a good run over the last few weeks and the averages are close to historic highs for good reasons.

The traditional Christmas rally was postponed last year because of concerns over the Fiscal Cliff. Prior to that, in November, some investors vented their disappointment over the re-election of President Obama by selling the market. They were convinced that without Mitt Romney, the world would come to an end.

As a result, since the beginning of the year, many investors have been playing catchup. As predicted, once the Cassandras had been proven wrong on tax hikes, spending cuts, the growth of the economy, the debt limit and whatever else they were fretting about, the bears have been making up for lost time and have been throwing money at stocks hand over fist.

As I explained last week, we may also be seeing the beginnings of a shift out of U.S. Treasury bonds and into stocks over the last few weeks.

All of this good news has kept the markets propped up. I expect that enthusiasm will continue over the very short term, but somewhere up ahead lies the possibility of a correction of up to 10%. That might sound like a lot (and it is), but those kinds of corrections normally occur once or twice every 12 months or so. We are overdue for this one.

“Should I sell now?” asks a client.

My answer depends on your circumstances. If you know that at some point over the next few months you will need to raise cash for college tuition, a new roof, an auto or other big ticket purchase, then it probably makes sense to take some profits now and make sure you have the money available for when you will need it.

On the other hand, if it is simply fear and greed spurring your desire to sell, I would advise against it. I have never met anyone who can consistently sell at the highs and buy back at the lows. The majority of times, those who try lose more money than they make.

“So I'm supposed to just sit here and take a 10 percent hit?" the client asks.

My answer is yes. The next thing longtime readers will point out is that over the past few years I have taken action on many similar declines. Why not now?

If I thought that something serious was lurking out there in the bushes, something that could drive the market down a lot further than 10 percent, then I might advise you to step to the sidelines. But I don't see anything like that.

Europe is recovering, not failing. The Fed is easing and the government appears to be getting its act together. Globally, I see more growth ahead. No matter how much I beat the bushes, I just don’t see the kind of dangers that we have had to navigate over the last few years.

There is no way of telling when a correction will occur. We could easily gain another 4-5 percent before it occurs and there is no guarantee that if it does occur it will turn out to be 10 percent. It could be less, a lot less. In which case, selling now will be an exercise in futility. My advice for most investors is simply weather the decline if it occurs. I have a strong feeling that the markets will ultimately make back any losses they may incur and then some.