Craig Berger's blog

It's not every day we report on a campus newspaper editorial here, but sometimes one is problematic enough to require a response.

The Georgetown student newspaper -- the Hoya -- published a disappointing editorial today, calling for the disempowerment of students while arguing that national leaders should be left to continue their assault on our generation.

...Student body presidents are elected to represent their peers in campus-specific proposals that are designed to make college life easier. National political representation, however, should be left to the congressmen and senators that many of those two million-plus college students elect of their own free will.

The campaign, which kicked off August 2, claimed to represent "our generation," but what it became was a grandstanding gesture by student leaders who saw a publicity opening. They got what they wanted: endless web, newspaper and television press, including buzz over a conference call with President Obama. The coalition expanded quickly, not because the student body presidents were being urged by their respective constituents to mobilize, but because they found company in their equally ambitious counterparts at other universities.

But in the end, what was actually accomplished? Elected campus leaders may have written a letter and filled the Twitter feeds of Congressmen with the now famous hashtag, but students did not march en masse in the streets of Washington. Student body presidents did not compel their peers to action by coordinating a phone-a-thon to congressional leaders. Nor did they solicit the cooperation of the College Republicans or College Democrats, two political forces on campus who may have been better equipped to take on Capitol Hill during the debt crisis.

While we understand GUSA's good intentions, it is important they remember their place as representatives of Georgetown students to the administration, not to politicians. GUSA executive representatives did not advertise a political campaign when they were running back in February. While Healy Hall and Capitol Hill were designed to mirror each other across Washington, GUSA leaders should stick to leading who they were elected to lead — our student body.

The editorial board disapproved of their fellow Georgetown student, student body president Mike Meaney, organizing a coalition of national student government presidents. The campaign--"Do We Have a Deal Yet"--was created to pressure Congress to stop bickering during the debt ceiling debate/budget crisis and to strike a deal with the next generation in mind, not the next election. It seems that the editorial board would have rather seen more of a focus on campus-specific matters than on "grandstanding gestures" protesting policies and discussions that ostensibly have no direct relevance to Georgetown students' lives.

Of course, the discussions and eventual compromise--if one could call it that--absolutely impacts the quality of life of each college student. For example, did you know that part of the ceiling deal takes money out of the pockets of loan-paying students? Grad students--used to being able to attend class without worrying about interest accruing on their loans--now find that reality taken away. Students who made 12 consecutive payments on their loans in a timely fashion used to be rewarded with a credit. As of July 1, 2012, that no longer exists.

Yes, these issues are made abstract and mind-numbing by the media, which generally aren't capable of facilitating a meaningful, substantive discussion on issues. And a system of higher education, resting on a bunch of siloed departments and divisions unwilling to cooperate, doesn't exactly serve as the best socializing force. Mix those together with an inability to see healthy conflict and a distaste for anything containing the word "politics," and we get the editorial quoted above, which surely represents something close to the views of many students.

What's sad is that this view--that officeholders are the experts and that students' roles are to merely take space on college campuses and exclusively agonize about matters like campus pub closures--is misguided at best and simply unaffordable right now given the problems we all face. Yes--there are problems on our campuses that student governments were elected to solve. But any student government with which I've affiliated is tasked with the responsibility of improving the lives of the students they represent. There is no such thing as a "campus bubble."

Various cultural, economic, and social forces infiltrate campus confines every second of every day. In taking on the task of representing students, student government representatives are obligated to lobby their local, state, and federal governments. Because politics is everywhere, the reality is that everyone is a politician, navigating various systems of power whether they like it or not--even the student journalists writing the editorial.

While compartmentalizing these systems would simplify the job of covering their campus, unfortunately things in the "real world" aren't that cut and dry. Yes, students are citizens of their campus and should have a say on something like a campus pub being slated to close. But students are also citizens of the town, state, country, and planet in which their campus is located. Policies passed at various levels of society impact the student experience, thereby creating a need for any elected student representative to serve as an advocate on and off campus; it also creates a need for student journalists to help their peers understand these impacts. Even though it might make these journalists' jobs a bit more complicated, that's what we need.

Students and young people are marginalized enough in our society; we don't need to do it to ourselves. If it were up to the Hoya editorial board, young people would go back to the kids' table and mind our p's and q's. We can't afford to take that approach any longer, however. The college student body presidents should be commended for 1.) observing the impact the debt discussion has on our generation--their campuses included--and 2.) for speaking out against the process. If anything, these student leaders had the opportunity to, and could have done more to stand up for their constituents, including broadening the number of participants to include the constituents themselves. I hope this collaborative activism continues and intensifies, and I hope to see the Hoya and other student newspapers cover it as they should.

Yesterday, Kevin wrote a post that carefully and thoroughly proved that Generation Opportunity--at first glance, a non-partisan, non-threatening organization targeting youth to engage in positive change--is a sham.

To summarize, Generation Opportunity created a Facebook page titled "Being American" complete with random, non-descript photographs, encouraging young people to like the page just like they'd like apple pie, and then once it reached about 600,000 likes, they began to introduce their "non-partisan" organization.

I think the thing that strikes me the most about Kevin's post after some reflection is that Generation Opportunity--and by association, conservatives/Republicans--is admitting that it can't attract young people to its movement on its own merits. Basically, this means that The Right acknowledges that it needs to hide in the American flag like a Trojan horse in order to build any momentum among young people.

All the research that supposedly signals a conservative swing within the Millennial generation? It's misleading. And the very act of hiding behind "being American" and the "non-partisan" label to keep young people from knowing what your organization actually advocates points to an admission that youth aren't buying what you're actually selling.

As a reminder, Kevin, in beating back some of Generation Opportunity's claims (that Millennials are big on tax cuts, hate government spending, are American exceptionalists, believe the national debt is the most severe national security concern, and support expanding domestic coal and oil), puts forth the more credible research from Millennial Makeover and Pew; it happens to show a different picture.

Millennials, also to a greater degree than members of older generations, have confidence in the federal government and are more likely to favor a clear, rather than ancillary role for it in American life. A decisive majority (64%) of Millennials disagrees with the statement, 'When the federal government runs something it is usually inefficient and wasteful,' while 58 percent of older generations agree with that harsh appraisal. Millennials are also substantially less likely to believe that the federal government should run only those things that can't be run at the local level (63% vs. 71%).

These more favorable Millennial Generation attitudes toward the federal government are not simply a matter of 'normal' youthful liberalism. Millennials today are far less likely than Gen-Xers were in the late 1980s to believe that the federal government is usually wasteful and inefficient (32% for Millennials, 47% for young Gen-Xers) and that it should do only what can't be done at the local level (63% vs. 76%) (Pew Research Center 2007a).

And when these patriotic Millennials, who like "being American" but predictably don't enjoy having conservative talking points shoved down their throats, begin to resist on that Facebook page, what happens? They are silenced, of course. How American is that?

Before 2004/8, Republicans believed--with some Democrats--that the youth vote didn't exist and wasn't worth worrying about. However, as the first Millennials began to vote for Kerry in 2004, overwhelmingly supported Democrats in their 2006 midterm takeover of Congress, and showed up to the polls en masse in 2008 to vote for Obama, the Right took note and understood the youth vote is indeed a force to be reckoned with.

Instead of pursuing honest, genuine efforts to engage young people in the process and persuade them to think about moving to the right, however, they are apparently embracing cynicism, holding to stances and values that Millennials view as toxic according to the credible research. They hope that if they dress up these views a little bit, throw the American flag, apple pie--hell, maybe even some BBQ, fireworks, and a Main Street parade--at them, Millennials will bite.

What's that saying about pigs and lipstick again?

Our friends at SparkAction are promoting the Young Minds contest, which is sponsored by Google and will send 12 young people (18-24) to Zeitgeist Americas in Arizona this September. Be sure to apply!

What is Young Minds?

Young Minds is a competition to find twelve young people who have made or are trying to make a positive difference in the world.  It’s a platform to promote what young people are doing to improve their communities and make a difference in the world.

Previous Young Minds winners have had big ideas and taken steps to make them a reality.  The winners attended Zeitgeist Europe 2011, met an array of influential business leaders and thinkers; three of the winners even had a chance to speak at the event.

Now it’s your turn.  We want to find twelve 18- to 24-year-olds who will win entry to a special program of events and master classes held at this year’s Zeitgeist Americas 2011. 

How do you enter? Upload a 1-minute video by August 25, 2011 for the chance to rub elbows with the best and brightest people on the planet.

What is Zeitgeist?

Zeitgeist is a special event hosted by Google that brings together over 400 of the planet’s top leaders and biggest brains – from businessmen to bloggers and inventors to activists.  That’s guest speakers like Professor Stephen Hawking, Desmond Tutu, Bill Clinton, Will.I.Am and Queen Rania of Jordan.  Why?  To talk about the big issues affecting our everyday lives, hear what they think is shaping this world of ours and begin to identify solutions to longstanding concerns.  You can view talks from past Zeitgeist events in full at zeitgeistminds.com.

Who, What, When & How

Young Minds is open to all 18-24 year olds from the USA, Canada, Brazil, Mexico and Argentina.  (Click here for complete rules.)

Zeitgeist Americas 2011

September 25-27, 2011

Montelucia Resort & Spa

Paradise Valley, AZ

http://zeitgeistamericas.com

Submitting an entry is easy:

1. Record a 1 minute video describing how you are making an impact in the world.
2. Upload it to your YouTube account.
3. Click this link to fill out the entry form.
4. Hit submit!

Maria Kefalas has written an interesting post at The Atlantic. She begins by relaying a phenomenon she heard immigration scholar Frank Bean discuss, pointing out the decrease in the number of native-born men who have completed the 12th grade while also noting the increase in the number of men enrolling in post-secondary education. Kefalas and Bean posit that immigrant men--mainly from Mexico--account for the discrepancy. On the ladder of social mobility, both black and white native men from the working class are going head-to-head at an increasing rate with the immigrant men, and the latter group is winning.

Why? Kefalas explains:

In this competition, immigrant men have the edge, not simply because they take lower wages and don't have union protection, but also because, as a group, they have lower rates of criminality and drug abuse--and that may become even more true as today's out-of-work blue collar workers remain out of work for a year or two or more. So as more and more native high-school-educated workers find themselves unemployed (and possibly become unemployable), Bean speculates that immigrant workers may fill the gap, and get many of the blue collar jobs that return, as we recover.

Kefalas, while noting her support of immigration and its societal benefits (which I also share), goes on to raise a concern regarding what this means for young native men who, out of options, look for some way to express their frustrations. The consequences of a large, downtrodden segment of the population recognizing their impotence would probably have enormously detrimental--possibly destructive--effects on society, especially when other complicating factors like race, ethnicity, and generational dynamics are thrown in (cue the footage of the London riots).

Kefalas sees the notion of "college-for-everyone" as a pipe dream doing a disservice to this group of native men; even as someone working in higher education, I tend to agree that college is not for everyone. Yet, school systems today won't hear any of this. Kefalas proposes her own solution.

Americans hate the idea of educational tracking, and I'm not proposing is a system that would give teachers and administrators all the power to determine a teenager's educational trajectory. But right now the only tracks are "college" or "bust." We need to provide alternative pathways for high school students, including those that would mix classroom learning with apprenticeship and applied-skill training.

What would be wrong with creating a system that honors a young person's dreams but also respects the practical concerns of a kid's abilities and talents? What purpose does it serve to tell a kid graduating from high school who tests below 9th-grade levels in math and English that he or she should head off to college to become a doctor?

No other system in the developed world would allow such a thing to happen. It wastes people's time, money, and resources. And it is soul-destroying for the young people who endure it. Foundations and philanthropists should be looking to programs like those in Germany where kids can finish the equivalent of high school (for free) with the training to enter the full-time labor force in a good job. Here, high school graduates end up in community colleges only to languish in remedial courses when they could be in trade and vocational programs preparing them for work that is respected, well-paying, and secure.

I mostly agree with Kefalas' proposal. I do believe that our educational system does a relatively poor job of preparing students for a variety of options not including college. One report from 2006, called "The Silent Epidemic: Perspectives of High School Dropouts" and released by Civic Enterprises in association with Peter D. Hart and Associates for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, cited a handful of reasons why high school students drop out. Two of the reasons are particularly interesting when thinking about the dilemma of young native men discussed above:

• Nearly half (47 percent) said a major reason for dropping out was that classes were not interesting. These young people reported being bored and disengaged from high school. Almost as many (42 percent) spent time with people who were not interested in school. These were among the top reasons selected by those with high GPAs and by those who said they were motivated to work hard.
• Nearly 7 in 10 respondents (69 percent) said they were not motivated or inspired to work hard, 80 percent did one hour or less of homework each day in high school, two-thirds would have worked harder if more was demanded of them (higher academic standards and more studying and homework), and 70 percent were confident they could have graduated if they had tried. Even a majority of those with low GPAs thought they could have graduated.

In addition to agreeing with Kefalas that more educational "tracks" may be needed, the statistics above also leave me wondering if part of the problem lies with the staffing of junior high and high school teachers. Are we hiring teachers whose experiences connect with these students? Are we providing educational experiences that match a variety of students' backgrounds, situating the learning in their worlds, or are we shoving the cliched square peg through the round hole in the name of efficiency and standardized testing? Granted, The Silent Epidemic statistics represent the experiences of both men and women, but they still hint that many of those young men leaving school experience significant boredom with their education. They, and we, deserve better.

On the heels of my post yesterday asking if younger Millennials were "lost" amid economic turmoil, here's one proposed solution: embrace Millennial entrepreneurship.

"You have 77 million Gen Y-ers out there," said 27-year-old Scott Gerber, the founder of The Young Entrepreneur Council. "The reality is if you don't want a lost generation, you need to start thinking about the future."

[...]

Gerber and others like him think the traditional route to employment has failed their generation. "It's a scary moment we're in, but entrepreneurship can get us out," he said.

Forty percent of those in Generation Y, roughly defined as Americans born from the mid-1970s to mid-1990s, envision starting their own business, and about 20 percent already have, according to a report published last month by The Affluence Collaborative, a research partnership.

"This is a generation of serial entrepreneurs," said Donna Fenn, a journalist who wrote "Upstarts!," one of the first books identifying the Gen Y entrepreneur trend. "A lot of them start businesses in their 20s and many of them don't think that their first business will be their last. They're addicted to creating things, to the startup phase. By the time they reach their 40s, they will have started three, four or five companies."

Many Millennial entrepreneurs and activists (including Gerber's Young Entrepreneur Council) are pushing for the development of a bill--the Youth Entrepreneurship Act--that would eliminate some barriers to young entrepreneurs starting new businesses.

One element would be a program to forgive student loans and debt for young entrepreneurs, which he says would address a major hindrance to recent graduates who want to set up their own shop.

"Now more than ever, with young unemployment being so high, we have to be educating people that youth entrepreneurship is a viable career path and not some renegade choice," Gerber said.

Aaron Smith, co-founder of another young advocacy organization Young Invincibles, is also working with Gerber on the Youth Entrepreneurship Act. He acknowledges that now is a tough time to get anything passed in Congress, but contends that a bill helping young entrepreneurs would give the government a good return on investment.

"Increasingly, Congress is looking at ways to create jobs at a relatively low cost," the 29-year-old said. "One of the interesting things about young people is that their barrier to starting a business is small, in terms of the monetary amount. We're talking only a few thousand dollars."

Unfortunately, Smith is right. This Congress isn't likely to be hospitable to this legislation, even though its passage could relieve some economic strife among many young people in the short-term, while spurring the kind of economic development we need to revitalize the economy down the road.

However, while Gerber, Smith, and their organizations rally support for the bill, Matt Segal and Our Time, another organization supporting entrepreneurs under 30, are working with consumers on the other end of things.

...[Our Time] recently launched a "Buy Young" campaign. The idea is to encourage Americans to support more than 125 member businesses, including discount luxury retailer Gilt Groupe, clothing company Karmaloop and dry-erase paint company IdeaPaint, by offering exclusive discounts on their products and services.

The companies are responsible for creating more than 7,000 jobs since they were founded, Segal said. Since the campaign launched, the website has received more than 30,000 visitors.

If we are going to find our way out of this mess, we need to foster an environment supportive of the innovation needed to move us forward. Kudos to Gerber, Smith, and Segal and everyone else involved in doing this work.

Editor's note: This post originally appeared on Idealist.org. It has been republished here with permission from the author and Idealist.org.

Guest blogger Heather Jarvis provides education and training “for student loan borrowers and the people who love them.” Here she sums up what college students, recent graduates, and folks considering grad school need to know about the debt ceiling deal.

Last week the House and Senate passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 [PDF] just ahead of the deadline, and President Obama has signed the act into law. Key student aid programs are largely intact, and I am relieved to report that the new law avoids some of the proposed cuts that would have hurt students the most.

There are three main provisions in the debt ceiling deal related to higher education:

• Funding is provided for the Pell Grant program.
• The in-school loan interest subsidy for graduate and professional students is eliminated beginning July 1, 2012.
• "Repayment incentives," or cost reductions earned by certain borrowers, are eliminated for loans disbursed on or after July 1, 2012.

Now for some Q&A…

Q. Students shoulder $4.6 billion of the deficit reduction (so far)?! How is that possible?

The elimination of the graduate and professional interest subsidy and the loan repayment incentives are estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to produce a savings of $21.6 billion. $17 billion of that savings will go to shore up the Pell Grant program, and $4.6 billion will be used to reduce the deficit. Read on for more details about all of these changes.

Q. I have student loans. What steps should I take?

• Always borrow federal student loans first and only consider more expensive private student loans if you must.
• If you are still in school and you can afford it, consider paying student loan interest as it accrues.  You’ll lower your costs over time.
• Choose the repayment plan that makes the most sense for you. Income-Based Repayment (IBR) is a good option for people with low income compared to their student loan debt.
• Pay off your most expensive loans first.
• Find out if Public Service Loan Forgiveness can help.

Q. Is my Pell Grant safe?

Pell Grants are safe for now; the White House indicates that the funding will be sufficient to keep them at their current level of $5,500. If they  had been cut, students may well have had to increase their reliance on student loans. Thankfully, the Budget Control Act shores up the Pell Grant program by providing $17 billion in funding over the next two fiscal years. However, with spending cuts anticipated in the future, Pell Grants remain at risk.

Q. What should graduate and professional students expect?

Graduate and professional students will pay more for student loans. The Budget Control Act eliminates the in-school interest subsidy for graduate and professional students, so these folks will pay more interest over time.  However, it does not eliminate the interest subsidy for undergraduate borrowers.

Subsidized Stafford Loans have historically been available to both undergraduate and graduate borrowers with demonstrated financial need.  In the case of Subsidized Loans, the government pays the interest that accrues on the loan while the student is in college.  Without the subsidy, students must themselves pay the accruing interest as they go, or have the unpaid interest added to the principle amount of their loan and pay it later.

(Ed. note: You can learn more about financial aid on Idealist.org's financing your graduate education page.)

Q. What about repayment incentives?

To encourage borrowers to repay on time, the Department of Education was previously authorized to provide certain incentives, including an origination fee rebate and interest rate reduction.  Borrowers would earn these benefits by making on-time payments over 12 months.  Beginning on July 1, 2012, the Department of Education is no longer authorized to provide these repayment incentives, but may continue to allow an interest rate reduction for borrowers who enroll in payment by automatic electronic debit.

Q. Is it possible that there will be even more cuts to student aid?

Yes. The Budget Control Act requires Congress to come up with a lot more deficit reduction by Thanksgiving.  Additional spending cuts may come in part from higher education. Stay tuned…

—

About the author:

Former capital defense attorney and long-time public service advocate Heather Jarvis dedicates herself to helping students make informed decisions about their student loans. Since 2005, Heather has helped more than an estimated 25,000 students understand and overcome college debt through in-person and online trainings and resources. As Senior Program Manager for Advocacy and Outreach at Equal Justice Works, Heather played a role in the passage of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act, which made IBR and Public Service Loan Forgiveness a reality.

Want to learn more about Public Service Loan Forgiveness?  Register for one of Heather’s popular free webinars and get the scoop.  Heather provides free tools and information for student loan borrowers and the people who love them at www.askheatherjarvis.com.

NPR is up with a piece this week suggesting that today's youth, many of whom have never known anything other than an over-saturated jobs market, are "lost."

As we discuss teen unemployment numbers--at last glance, 25 percent of teenagers were jobless--it might be easy to blow it off and assume that parents will take on the added burden. One expert explains why that's a narrow and faulty assumption.

"It's tempting to look at the teen unemployment rate and sort of shrug and assume that ... the only consequence is that maybe the parents are giving [teenagers] money to go out to the movies this summer instead of the kids earning the money themselves," Saltsman says.

But working a summer job as a teen is not just about earning extra spending money. Saltsman says it's also about learning skills so you can become a good worker later in your adult life.

"The risk is that if [teenagers] miss out on [the summer job experience], they become part of this lost generation of teens who never had a chance to get a foothold to take that first step on that career ladder," Saltsman says.

While the lost paychecks are compiling every day, another, often unlooked component of this crisis is the lost opportunity for young people to create and develop a pool of skills for future employment.

As this reality sets in, teens are becoming desperate. There haven't been any riots yet, but young people are going to alarming ends to pay for college and to pay back student loans. One high school student from the District of Columbia describes what he's noticed among his peers:

Jacquan Clark, 16, would have liked a job this summer, but he says the competition among his teenage peers is brutal.

"It's like crabs in a barrel," the Washington, D.C., resident says. "We're trying to all get jobs, but we're also pulling each other back because we want the jobs."

The more I read stories like this, the more I find the notion of cutting services to be ridiculous. What will our government's inaction on behalf of today's young people cost us tomorrow? It's frightening to think about.

Jon Huntsman, in campaigning for the Republican nomination for the presidency, is encountering a rough reality five months removed from the New Hampshire primary: voters don't know who he is. And if general voters don't know who he is, I'm guessing young voters aren't well aware of the former governor-turned presidential candidate either.

While Huntsman has some work to do with the general electorate, And maybe some his daughters are attempting to do their part in reaching out to young voters through Twitter.

On July 28, Huntsman's three oldest daughters started their own Twitter account. At the outset, the Twitter account was created based on the daughters' desire to share where they are and what they are doing with friends. But then they thought about other uses.

Abby Huntsman, 25, said she and her sisters came up with the idea on their own as a way to keep friends informed.

'All our friends are like, "Where are you? You’re always in different places and doing interesting things!"

'And we thought, "This is a great way to reach out to, not only our friends, but to the youth and to anybody interested in following the campaign",' she said.

[...]

Abby Huntsman said she’s not sure what role the @Jon2012girls account will play in the upcoming election, but she believes she and her sisters have a basic duty to their dad.

'I think our involvement is pretty simple. It’s just getting out there, getting people excited and getting them to know a little bit about my dad,' she said.

I'm not one to knock efforts to appeal to young voters or engage in social media, so kudos to the Huntsmans.

However, I think we need to remember that technology in 2008 campaigns and technology in 2012 campaigns are entirely different phenomena. So while simply "getting a Twitter or Facebook" might have been able to pass as some kind of appeal to youth in 2008 (even that is highly doubtful), doing that alone definitely won't work in 2012.

If the Huntsman daughters legitimately want to appeal to young voters, maybe they need to tell their dad to campaign and advocate for true pro-growth policies, strategies that create jobs and increase government revenues. That's what we want and need. That he definitely wouldn't get out of the GOP primary after spreading this message shows you just how far the Republican Party is from young voters' priorities.

Over the last few years, publications like Mother Jones and the New York Times magazine both have exposed us to the sugar daddy/baby phenomenon. Wealthy older men -- some married, some not -- plop their money down to entice young women to spend time with them, often with expectations of sexual activity.

However, as our economy has spiraled even further out of control, this activity is picking up steam. This past week we learned from the Huffington Post that the phenomenon has overlapped with the student debt crisis. The story describes several relationships borne out of economic strife and the desperation that accompanies the racking up of large amounts of debt to finance one's education. It also reveals that the increasing popularity of matchmaking sites like seekingarrangement.com have aided the sugar daddy/baby boom.

The Huffington Post piece spurred Bill Maher and his panel to discuss the issue last night.

The first thing that strikes me about this conversation is that it happened. We are so often saturated with positive portrayals of capitalism and what that economic system does for us (that whole American Dream thing) that when we hear personal accounts of the desperation it's wrought, our society -- particularly the establishment -- acts like it's some curious, extraordinary event. Now that the street economy is impacting elite college students, it's suddenly real and they are taken aback.

The second thing I am thinking about is the whole notion that American youth -- and Bourdain specifically mentions this at 5:15 -- just don't want to do jobs that they perceive as being below them. This narrative has been around a while, and it might be true of a certain demographic. But we're forgetting that most youth are in such a poor economic position right now that they simply can't live or survive on these jobs because they don't pay enough. And when there is a small number of other, barely better-paying jobs with benefits that are available, youth will hold out for those, even if they appear as a mirage on the horizon. And especially if they have the student debt that is simply no match for the low wage, no-health care jobs.

So, actually, the question Bourdain poses is unfair. "Why won't young people take jobs that are below them," should be rephrased: "Why won't young people take jobs that don't pay them enough?"

The question answers itself.

The sugar daddy/sugar baby phenomenon goes back to the need for (and absence of) well-paying jobs for young people. Imagine that.

Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.
-Bob Dylan

Some Cleveland-area businesses, officials, and citizens were frustrated in June when what was believed to be a flash mob disrupted an arts fair in Cleveland Heights. Take a peek:

Officials estimate that nearly 1,000 youth showed up spontaneously. Apparently there were random fights (though little information about these fights is provided in either the video or the Cleveland Plain Dealer's account).

This event, along with other alleged violent flash mobs, spurred Cleveland city council member Zach Reed (pictured, right) to introduce an ordinance criminalizing the use of social media - Facebook, Twitter, etc. - to organize crowds.

Under existing law, any member of a flash mob can be charged with disorderly conduct or other offenses carrying jail if there is a disturbance. Reed's legislation would have added a misdemeanor charge for summoning a crowd through social media. A first offense carried a $100 fine.

Reed said the new measure moved beyond "antiquated legislation" that never imagined social media.

To his credit, Cleveland mayor Frank Jackson vetoed that legislation this week, noting that while he is sympathetic to it's goal, the ordinance was not narrowly tailored enough to pass constitutional muster.

Reading about this on the heels of reading an articulate post by Sam DuPont at NDN - which calls for more examination of how social media can enhance civic engagement and social capital, I'm thinking about this flash mob issue in a few ways.

First, Reed's proposal to specifically criminalize social media-induced flash mobs is ridiculous. The last thing we need is another petty law on the books that we ask police officers to enforce, especially when we already have laws that address the issue. If a large group of people convenes and is hellbent on disrupting an otherwise peaceful event with violence, then the laws should be enforced. Some comments from festival attendees actually suggest that the Cleveland Heights PD efficiently defused the mob.

But instead, Reed - while admirably looking to solve the problem - throws the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Reed's proposed ordinance is far from being narrowly tailored. An Ohio ACLU official points out that the law could penalize innocent citizens; should two or three friends agree to meet up somewhere to talk, dance, listen to music, or whatever, and several others show up and cause problems, the two or three friends would bear the responsibility under this ordinance. In fact, what Reed proposes would have criminalized the actions of those young people abroad who used social media to gather and rally against their oppressive governments and in support of democracy. Effective government can't simply pass a broad, sweeping law and - voila! - expect results.

I'm not arguing that there isn't a problem to be solved when people congregate with the intention of disrupting a community. However, the question Cleveland and its suburbs should be asking is not "How are these youth organizing," as this legislation does, but "Why?" I wonder if it has something to do with 25 percent of teenagers in this country being unemployed? Perhaps many youth have nowhere left to gather, other than 24 hour Wal-Marts?

What is this subculture resisting? Perhaps it's not the suburban couple or family, but a society and community that seems to have forgotten about them?

I hope Zach Reed reads Sam DuPont's blog post. DuPont doesn't view social media as a menacing threat to society. Instead, he suggests that our communities and young people could benefit from a leveraging of these technological tools to increase social capital.

[I]f this generation is to rebuild American social capital, it needs fora in which to connect, build bonds, and establish the mutual obligations of social relationships. While the primary causes Putnam points to are immense, historical shifts, the secondary causes can be largely boiled down to the resultant decline of membership in general community organizations: churches, Rotary clubs, PTAs, etc. It's hard to imagine most of these organizations making a powerful comeback among the Millennial generation, and we're left with the question of where, exactly, Millennials will come together to build social bonds.

Another cause Putnam identifies as contributing an additional 10% toward the decline in social capital is "suburbanization, commuting, and sprawl." This trend has reoriented American communities away from the neighborhoods, downtown areas, corner bars, and public squares where social capital was once forged, to a landscape dominated by highways and strip malls where the closest thing to a shared public space can be found in the Caverns of Walmart. And so, in addition to the evaporation of civic groups, our shared physical spaces are also disappearing, and the question of where social capital can be created in the 21st century becomes still more confounding.

As you've no doubt guessed by now (Sorry this took so long. Actually, I'm not sorry at all. Brevity is for cowards.), the point I'm driving toward is this: with the decline of community organizations and associations, and the disappearance of shared public spaces, I look to new network technologies to bridge some of those gaps, and help create the shared public spaces of the 21st century.

Perhaps instead of fearing and resisting social media and flash mobs, the local government in Cleveland and its suburbs could make an effort to learn about and embrace these phenomena, while also trying to understand how to improve youth quality of life in the area? Yes, cities like Cleveland and the suburbs have lots going on and many priorities in these tough times, but ignoring youth issues and rejecting their culture is not effective problem-solving, it's sinking like a stone.