New York Times

Many people view Detroit these days as some kind of urban hellhole. Yet, countering this myth, The New York Times published an article today that explores the revitalization of Detroit, led by young entrepreneurs and a community supportive of these efforts.

The scene might have been run of the mill in Seattle or Williamsburg, Brooklyn, or other urban enclaves that draw the young, the entrepreneurial and the hip. But this was downtown Detroit, far better known in recent years for crime, blight and economic decline.

Recent census figures show that Detroit’s overall population shrank by 25 percent in the last 10 years. But another figure tells a different and more intriguing story: During the same time period, downtown Detroit experienced a 59 percent increase in the number of college-educated residents under the age of 35, nearly 30 percent more than two-thirds of the nation’s 51 largest cities.

These days the word “movement” is often heard to describe the influx of socially aware hipsters and artists now roaming the streets of Detroit. Not unlike Berlin, which was revitalized in the 1990s by young artists migrating there for the cheap studio space, Detroit may have this new generation of what city leaders are calling “creatives” to thank if it comes through its transition from a one-industry.

Emphasis mine.

Thankfully, these young people aren't just there to hang out and have fun. Rather, those "creative" types, who have already settled in the city, are establishing efforts like Move Detroit 11/11/11, which aims to get 1,100 people to move to Detroit by November. Recognizing that they need to do more to make the city more attractive to outsiders, a number of shops and restaurants have established themselves in the last several years.

With these new residents have come the trappings of a thriving youth culture: trendy bars and restaurants that have brought pedestrians back to once-empty streets. Places like the Grand Trunk pub, Raw Cafe, Le Petit Zinc and Avalon Bakery mingle with shops with names like City Bird, Sole Sisters and the Bureau of Urban Living.

Those familiar with past neighborhoods-of-the-moment recognize the mood. “It feels like TriBeCa back in the early days, before double strollers, sidewalk cafes and Whole Foods,” said Amy Moore, 50, a film producer working on three Detroit projects. “There is a buzz here that is real, and the kids drip with talent and commitment, and aren’t spoiled.”

But while these residents have built some infrastructure to support themselves, the city of Detroit and the region has welcomed this influx of young people, providing supportive services aimed to nourish this growth.

Part of the allure of Detroit lies in simple economics. Real estate is cheap by urban standards (Ms. Myles lives in a $900-a-month one-bedroom apartment with a garage), and the city is so eager to draw educated young residents that it is offering numerous subsidies to new arrivals. Ms. Myles, for instance, received $3,500 from her employer, which, like many companies in the city, is offering rent or purchasing subsidies to staff members who choose to live in the city.

Detroit Venture Partners is offering start-up financing to early-stage technology companies; Techtown, a business incubator, research and technology park associated with Wayne State University in Detroit, is providing support to entrepreneurs and emerging companies through its “Thrive” program. And Bizdom U, an “entrepreneurial boot camp” started by Dan Gilbert, the founder and chairman of Quicken Loans, is offering graduates of its four-month-long course financing opportunities of up to $100,000 if they base their start-up in Detroit.

[...]

In addition, Green Garage Detroit, an incubator for environmentally friendly companies, plans to open its doors in August to lend support to at least a dozen start-ups. And there’s the Detroit Creative Corridor Center, which supplies infrastructure, strategic counseling, consulting and resources for those wanting to start businesses in film, fashion, digital media, production or architecture. With all this help, the city seems like a giant candy store for young college graduates wanting to be their own bosses.

In addition, many urban farms have sprouted throughout the city, providing its residents with opportunities to directly support the local economy and live more sustainable lives.

Perhaps most importantly, the city already has a vision and initiative in place -- similar to the more short-term Move Detroit 11/11/11 -- that hopes to create "young talented households" in the city.

Detroit’s revival is also being attributed to the city’s “15 by 15” initiative, started in 2008. With a goal of getting 15,000 young talented households to downtown by 2015, government workers, entrepreneurs, philanthropists, business leaders and individuals, along with nonprofit groups, have been working to entice the 94 percent of college graduates who initially migrate to cities, according to recent census figures.

“Our goal is to attract and retain this young talent pool,” said David Egner, president and chief executive of the nonprofit Hudson Webber Foundation, spearheading the “15 by 15” initiative. “We want to give them affordable housing, interesting jobs and business opportunities they cannot find in other cities.” His biggest obstacle, he added, is still the city’s reputation of being a dangerous place to live. “Crime in downtown Detroit is actually 37 percent less than the national average, but few people know that,” he said.

In the end, Detroit's example is a great one to learn about. While not finished, it's a great example of how Millennial entrepreneurs can generate the momentum needed to revive a once foundering community, while being supported by the local government.

You've probably seen a story the last few days regarding students' poor performance in American history. In fact, alarmingly, a national test showed that students are least proficient in American history than in any other subject.

This New York Times writeup explains:

American students are less proficient in their nation’s history than in any other subject, according to results of a nationwide test released on Tuesday, with most fourth graders unable to say why Abraham Lincoln was an important figure and few high school seniors able to identify China as the North Korean ally that fought American troops during the Korean War.

Over all, 20 percent of fourth graders, 17 percent of eighth graders and 12 percent of high school seniors demonstrated proficiency on the exam, the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Federal officials said they were encouraged by a slight increase in eighth-grade scores since the last history test, in 2006. But even those gains offered little to celebrate because, for example, fewer than a third of eighth graders could answer even a “seemingly easy question” asking them to identify an important advantage American forces had over the British during the Revolution, the government’s statement on the results said.

Of course, we can sit around and lob grenades at the students taking these exams, describing them as lazy, disappointing, and the like. But the real perpetrator here is our education system, which repeatedly spurns history and civics education in favor of the more rational science and math. No Child Left Behind has only accelerated this trend over the last decade.

History advocates contend that students’ poor showing on the tests underlines neglect shown to the subject by federal and state policy makers, especially since the 2002 No Child Left Behind act began requiring schools to raise scores in math and reading but in no other subject. The federal accountability law, the advocates say, has given schools and teachers an incentive to spend less time on history and other subjects.

“History is very much being shortchanged,” said Linda K. Salvucci, a history professor in San Antonio who is chairwoman-elect of the National Council for History Education.

Many teacher-education programs, Ms. Salvucci said, also contribute to the problem by encouraging aspiring teachers to seek certification in social studies, rather than in history. “They think they’ll be more versatile, that they can teach civics, government, whatever,” she said. “But they’re not prepared to teach history.”

Salvucci's point is interesting, especially given that I and others here have called for more civic education. Perhaps history is being shortchanged.

However, we should be careful to not view history as some static set of facts that need to be deposited into students' brains. History is a set of complicated lessons and problems that, unfortunately, aren't mined at all. In my experience, for example, high school history classes are too scared to touch anything after World War II for fear of parental rage over indoctrination and the like.

Yet, the complex nature of our problems these days--created by many of those who use this study as ammunition to attack youth--demand students who can sort through the messy stuff. Yes, funding is limited, and we have already committed to investing much of it in science, math, and reading, but history and civics are also more important than ever. And we simply can't afford to watch this area of our education atrophy.

Originally posted on Citizen Orange.

Senator George LeMieux (R-FL) is starting to feel the heat of pro-migrant voters, specifically Latino voters. Tonight, Univision will air a debate in which current Florida governor and U.S. Senate nominee Charlie Crist will come out in support of the DREAM Act.  The day before yesterday, Representive Kendrick Meek (D-FL), and also a nominee for U.S. Senate, hand delivered a letter to LeMieux.  This part of Meek's letter says it all:

It is important to note that the State of Florida stands much to gain from the passage of this legislation.  By alowing certain youths an opportunity at a solid education and a pathway to citizenship, we can stop the current cycle of immigrant poverty and break the social caste systems that discourage economic and personal growth.  Passage of the legislation will also help reduce high school dropout rates, boost college attendance and increas the poll of nurses, teachers, highly qualified recruits for the U.S. armed forces, and other high-need areas of our workforce.

Further, Florida has had a standing tradition of bi-partisan support for immigration reform with Senators Bill Nelson and Mel Martinez helping lead the way with their sponsorship of the DREAM Act.  On the House side the legislation enjoys bi-partisan support with eight Florida members currently signed on as co-sponsors.

Kendrick Meek (16 September 2010)

In Arizona, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) is also facing significant pressure.  The migrant youth movement in Arizona has been hounding him and converting Republicans wherever he goes.  Currently, undocumented youth who would benefit from the DREAM Act are camped outside of his office until he passes the DREAM Act.  A few days ago, members of the Arizona DREAM Act Coalition approached his daughter, Meghan McCain, and got her to state her support for the DREAM Act:

So it goes with the rest of the twelve Republican Senators we need to support the DREAM Act as actions happen across the country. 

Seven Republicans voted for the DREAM Act in 2007: Bob Bennett (R-UT), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Susan Collins (R-ME), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX), Richard Lugar (R-IN), and Olympia Snowe (R-ME).  If they refuse to vote for the exact same bill in 2010 they will expose themselves as the "party of no" that Democrats have accused them of.  It is bigger than just the 2010 elections, though.  If the Republicans do not vote in favor of getting the DREAM Act passed, now, they will turn off an entire generation of Latino voters. 

If the Democrats are playing politics with the DREAM Act, so be it.  Moderate Republicans should not let politics get in the way of the lives of millions of migrant youth, or the lives of the voters in the communities that undocumented youth are intertwined with, for that matter.  I personally can say that as furious as I've been at Democrats for tearing apart our communities with over a thousand deportations a day, they've got me focused on Republican votes and the upcoming elections, right now, like I've never been before. 

If my senator from Massachusetts, Scott Brown (R-MA), votes against the DREAM Act I will work harder than I've ever worked on anything like this before to get him replaced with a pro-migrant Senator in 2012.  As Latino migrant youth leader Carlos Saavedra said in the New York Times "Our people will remember in November.  They will be ready to reward or punish."

Though he tries to act like he's playing the role of peacemaking conciliator, New York Times columnist Ross Douthat eventually reveals his true feelings:

By global standards, [Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the mosque] may be the model of a “moderate Muslim.” But global standards and American standards are different. For Muslim Americans to integrate fully into our national life, they’ll need leaders who don’t describe America as “an accessory to the crime” of 9/11 (as Rauf did shortly after the 2001 attacks), or duck questions about whether groups like Hamas count as terrorist organizations (as Rauf did in a radio interview in June). And they’ll need leaders whose antennas are sensitive enough to recognize that the quest for inter-religious dialogue is ill served by throwing up a high-profile mosque two blocks from the site of a mass murder committed in the name of Islam.

Douthat makes the same error that most other observers are making in failing to see the wide spectrum of beliefs in Islam. Yes, there are those (al-Qaeda) who couch their hatred of America in the religion (just like there are Christians who use their faith to justify their hatred of our government). But there are also Muslims -- in fact, the large majority of those in the United States -- who worship peacefully, just like other the Judeo-Christian worship communities Douthat taps earlier in his piece.

I wouldn't like to be told as a Christian that I could not buy a property in Wichita, Kansas because Scott Roeder, a Christian zealot, killed a doctor who performed abortions. Same goes for Atlanta, Georgia, when Eric Rudolph bombed the Olympic Park during the ceremonies in 1996, to "to confound, anger and embarrass the Washington government in the eyes of the world for its abominable sanctioning of abortion on demand." But because Christianity is the privileged religion in Douthat's second America, we simply understand that Roeder and Rudolph are right-wing nut jobs that do not represent the wide majority of Christians. The same doesn't go for Muslims.

David Brooks argued the other day that Stanley McChrystal's now-famous comments should have never been made public. Brooks laments the inability of today's elite figures to "kvetch," to blow off some steam with underlings in response to their tough lives.

General McChrystal was excellent at his job. He had outstanding relations with the White House and entirely proper relationships with his various civilian partners in the State Department and beyond. He set up a superb decision-making apparatus that deftly used military and civilian expertise.

But McChrystal, like everyone else, kvetched. And having apparently missed the last 50 years of cultural history, he did so on the record, in front of a reporter. And this reporter, being a product of the culture of exposure, made the kvetching the center of his magazine profile.

By putting the kvetching in the magazine, the reporter essentially took run-of-the-mill complaining and turned it into a direct challenge to presidential authority. He took a successful general and made it impossible for President Obama to retain him.

The reticent ethos had its flaws. But the exposure ethos, with its relentless emphasis on destroying privacy and exposing impurities, has chased good people from public life, undermined public faith in institutions and elevated the trivial over the important.

I understand Brooks's argument here. And I do think "gotcha journalism" is a major fault of today's politics, dissuading many an ideal public servant from running for office or even getting involved.

However, Brooks' line of thinking in this context is problematic. First, it is a symptom of another large problem with our politics: the media's cozy relationship with those in office. As Andrew Sullivan wrote this week (as well as Frank Rich today), it's problematic we did not hear more about McChrystal sooner. Though Brooks tries to get away with painting McChrystal as an angel who enjoyed great relations with the White House, that's not the case. And despite McChrystal's penchant for risky behavior, Obama continued to provide him with all he could want.

That leads me to the second problem with Brooks' column. The public has a right to know when a general jeopardizes a mission funded by their tax dollars, especially a mission that is a part of the longest war in this country's history. This wasn't run of the mill complaining, either. McChrystal again challenged the authority of the President's administration, and he did so with considerable audacity.

Brooks seems to be doing the compartmentalizing Harry Boyte, from yesterday's post, rejects. Brooks assumes that because we're all fallible as humans, we all should be given time to indulge our inner monster, to spew a few choice words to no particular audience. Unfortunately, we don't live in that vacuum. Everything is political, whether we like it or not.

But in this particular situation, Hastings, the Rolling Stone reporter who embarrassed the traditional media, did the right thing. McChrystal's comments illustrated a pattern of behavior that undermined civilian authority over the United States military. Hastings did not make it impossible for Obama to retain his general, as Brooks argues; McChrystal did it himself.

Tim Egan wrote an interesting blog post last night at the New York Times, describing that the Millennials are exactly what this country needs after all it's been through. Surprisingly, with all the recent focus on how Millennials lack empathy or how they are narcissistic, Egan wasn't being sarcastic.

After going through the myriad reasons for why Millennial tendencies, characteristics, and attitudes match up well against the contemporary issues plaguing our nation (the BP oil spill and drilling policy, Arizona's SB 1070 and immigration policy, and gay men and women being allowed to serve in the military), Egan concludes, in my favorite part of the post, that Obama needs to ask Millennials to flex their political/activist muscles and get involved.

“This is the most diverse generation in history,” said Heather Smith, the president of Rock the Vote, a nonpartisan youth political advocacy group. “They’re also optimistic, and don’t participate in all the fear-mongering.”

Obama could rouse this generation to help save the oil-choked gulf, much the way Franklin Roosevelt did with his youthful Civilian Conservation Corps. While still holding BP accountable, the president could set up a millennial corps of workers, calling on their sense of service, their desire for change, their youthful belief in restoration.

Now some of this language is a little bit romantic for even me, one who identifies as one of the most fervently liberal Millennials. But the spirit of Egan's words rings true. If Obama is so good at turning crises into defining moments, he'll realize that he has an army of young people ready to make change, and he'll mobilize them. Once the leak is stopped and controlled, it'd be a great sight to see young people from all over the country taking ownership -- along with BP -- of the crisis by flocking to the Gulf Coast and restoring it.

A New York Times piece published this morning sheds light on the generation gap present in views on immigration.

In the wake of the new Arizona law allowing the police to detain people they suspect of entering the country illegally, young people are largely displaying vehement opposition — leading protests on Monday at Senator John McCain’s offices in Tucson, and at the game here between the Florida Marlins and the Arizona Diamondbacks.

Meanwhile, baby boomers, despite a youth of “live and let live,” are siding with older Americans and supporting the Arizona law.

This emerging divide has appeared in a handful of surveys taken since the measure was signed into law, including a New York Times/CBS News poll this month that found that Americans 45 and older were more likely than the young to say the Arizona law was “about right” (as opposed to “going too far” or “not far enough”). Boomers were also more likely to say that “no newcomers” should be allowed to enter the country while more young people favored a “welcome all” approach.

This makes sense given what we know about the diversity in the Millennial generation. The New Politics Institute's 2007 Report, "The Progressive Politics of the Millennial Generation," cites Census data showing that nearly 40 percent of Millennials do not identify as being white. "[A]bout 62 percent of Millennial adults are non-Hispanic white, 18 percent are Hispanic, 14 percent are black and 5 percent are Asian," the report notes. What sharpens the debate is that many of the areas having the most diversity among youth also have fairly homogeneous white Boomer/Silent populations.

Given their demographic diversity, Millennials hold progressive opinions about immigration compared to the rest of the population. The Times piece, for example, provides some anecdotal evidence ensconced in the opinions and stories of youths Meaghan Patrick and Nicole Vespia.

Meaghan Patrick, a junior at New College of Florida, a tiny liberal arts college in Sarasota, says discussing immigration with her older relatives is like “hitting your head against a brick wall.”

[...]

Nicole Vespia, 18, of Selden, N.Y., said older people who were worried about immigrants stealing jobs were giving up on an American ideal: capitalist meritocracy.

“If someone works better than I do, they deserve to get the job,” Ms. Vespia said. “I work in a stockroom, and my best workers are people who don’t really speak English. It’s cool to get to know them.”

Her parents’ generation, she added, just needs to adapt.

“My stepdad says, ‘Why do I have to press 1 for English?’ I think that’s ridiculous,” Ms. Vespia said, referring to the common instruction on customer-service lines. “It’s not that big of a deal. Quit crying about it. Press the button.”

The stories are backed up by data on Millennials. In his 2008 book/project Generation WE, Eric Greenberg cites data revealing Millennials' open attitudes on immigration.

Generation We also has an open and positive attitude toward immigration, much more so than older generations. In the Pew Gen Next poll, 18- to 25-year-olds, by 52 to 38, said immigrants strengthen the country with their hard work and talent, rather than are a burden on the country because they take our jobs, housing, and healthcare, compared to very narrow pluralities in this direction among Gen Xers and Boomers and 50–30 sentiment in the other direction among those 61 and over. In a 2004 Pew survey, 67 percent of 18- to 25-year-old Millennials thought the growing number of immigrants strengthens American society and only 30 percent believed this trend threatens our customs and values—again, much stronger positive sentiment than among any other generation.

Unfortunately, most Boomer-run news outlets do not pay attention to Millennial opinion on this issue. With older Americans voting at higher rates than young people, the age and views of Congress and other officeholders reinforce the fear-driven status quo. Just like many other issues, to change this reality, youth must vote in higher numbers, be willing to run for office themselves, and pair this with some organized, non-traditional resistance to mount a strong opposition.

It might be convenient to take a John Mayer approach and wait for the world to change, but how many hard-working families who already embody American values will suffer in the meantime? This is yet another issue on which we must begin making change now.

The New York Times published an article on Friday examining the battle for jobs between youth and their grandparents. It finds that senior citizens are pushing retirement back due to the hit their 401ks have taken, chasing what once were thought to be entry-level jobs for income at the expense of today's youth.

“The boomers are staying in the system longer, and that’s clogging the system,” said Mason Jackson, president of Workforce One, a federally funded agency that helps Broward County’s unemployed. “Many want to retire, but they can’t.”

He characterized the dominant attitude among employers now as: “In with the old and out with the new.”

While the Times quoted a senior citizen who complained that employers are not hiring seniors, their research proves that youth, indeed, have the hardest time in this job market.

The latest reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics buttress her view. The number of employed workers ages 16 to 24 has fallen by two million over the last two years, to 18.3 million, while the number of Americans 65 and over who are working has risen by 700,000, to 6 million.

[...]

The proportion of older Americans who hold jobs has also risen strongly — 16 percent of Americans 65 and over had jobs last month, up from 11 percent 10 years earlier. But for workers age 16 to 24 the percentage with jobs has fallen to 49 percent, from 59 percent a decade ago. As for Americans age 25 to 29, 74 percent now have jobs, down from 81 percent a decade ago.

“Younger people are taking an extreme pounding,” said Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University. “It’s worrisome because they’re not developing the experience and the soft skills that they’ll need and the nation’s economy will need.”

The article goes on to point out that the highest decrease in employment among youth can be found among males with little or no college experience.

One advantage youth have is no surprise -- their natural affinity for technology. Employers find that young employees take naturally to jobs relying heavily on technology. On the other hand, the story points out that youth need to be trained -- added time and expenses that many companies simply won't take on during these hard times.

The Times covers much of what I've been discussing the past couple weeks. An interesting read -- check it out.

Update: I don't pretend to believe that Huntsman's economic policies are going to be appealing to Millennials. But even so, the GOP is in such a bad strategic spot right now that merely talking about the economy represents a turn in the right direction. --Craig

In my last post, I used Frank Rich's column to point out the triumph of the economy over social and cultural issues in the national political conversation. In this one, I'll use a Times story on Gov. Jon Huntsman in Utah to look at a way forward among youth for the GOP, now handcuffed thanks to their inability to pursue social issues.

The majority of Utah's population is affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (including Huntsman himself). Because of the church's staunch stance against the use of alcohol, the state's liquor laws have been extremely restrictive since the 1960s. But Huntsman is one Republican who wasn't afraid to sacrifice a social issue for the betterment of the economy.

The old law [in Utah]... required anyone who walked into a bar to first buy a membership card to the bar’s “private club,” which typically cost $10 to $15. Tourism and restaurant lobby groups complained for years, saying the law made the state seem unwelcoming to outsiders.

“One of our economic pillars is travel and tourism,” said Mr. Huntsman, whose family roots in Utah — and family fortune in the Huntman Corporation, a chemical manufacturer — made him prominent here long before he first ran for governor in 2004. “And if that’s going to be hampered by these jaded and old-fashioned views, then that’s going to impact the cash register and therefore our ability to fund the things that most citizens care deeply about, like our schools.”

Talk like that, at a time of economic pain and budget turmoil, gave the liquor proposal legs, and led to a compromise that would abolish the private club system while tightening rules intended to keep under-age drinkers out of the bars. It is the most sweeping overhaul of state alcohol law since the 1960s.

So here's the first lesson Huntsman is teaching his fellow Republicans, similar to what I argued in my earlier post -- in economic hardship, cultural issues are less important. While one might think this move on Huntsman's part would be political suicide in Utah, it was not. Huntsman's adjustment to the liquor law was made to push Utah's tourism-driven economy forward; the legislature met him halfway because they know their constituents care about their own economic situations, not whether people might be drinking alcohol miles away from them.

“It’s been a kindler, gentler session,” said State Representative David Litvack, a Democrat from Salt Lake City and the minority leader in the House. “Where we are economically has made a big difference.”

And then we get to the GOP's second lesson from Huntsman: If you're going to talk about social issues, moderation is the name of the game.

But there are hints that Mr. Huntsman’s message of moderation, especially given his popularity in the state, is resonating beyond the Legislature and drawing support among the broader population.

In February, for example, when the governor announced that he would support civil unions for gay couples, many politicians here braced for a backlash.

Utah voters had approved an amendment to the State Constitution in 2004 banning same-sex marriage or anything that might approximate it, and one opinion poll by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research in January said 70 percent of Utahans still opposed civil unions.

But the backlash never developed. Indeed, after his announcement, a poll by Deseret News/KSL-TV found that two-thirds of respondents said their opinion of the governor had not changed or had become more positive because of his position on civil unions. Over all, the governor’s approval rating had barely budged, with 80 percent of residents saying they thought he was doing a good job.

While civil unions are hella anachronistic in many parts of the country, the statistic above illustrates the big step Huntsman was taking when he announced his support for civil unions for gay couples. But again, in a tough economy, the public doesn't have the luxury of worrying about social issues.

What does this have to do with young people? Over the past couple weeks, many of the writers at FM have explored the impact of the economy on youth. Faced with student loan debt or in a financial situation that kept them from going to college in the first place, many young people are squeezed more each day in the job market, either being laid off or unable to find a steady job to pay the bills. Many are risking everything to hone entrepreneurial skills that might get them quick cash. If a Republican candidate can understand this and sacrifice conservative stands on social issues for some straight talk on the economy, like Huntsman has begun to do in Utah, the GOP might gain some relevance among youth.

Unfortunately, though, party boss Rush Limbaugh and his machine still control the GOP, and they'd rather become irrelevant among today's youth than give up dividing people.

It might be easy for many of us to get distracted by the struggles inherent in strengthening the political influence of the youth constituency, especially among the press and within the Democratic Party, but Bob Herbert's column on Friday reminded us that there are lots of young people who couldn't care any less about these squabbles. Instead, this generation of young Americans is getting squeezed by the economy like no other generation in recent history.

The employment situation in the U.S. is, if anything, worse than most people realize. And huge numbers of young people, ages 16 to 30, are being beaten down in ways that could leave scars for a lifetime.

[...]

The ones who are being hit the hardest and will have the most difficult time recovering are America’s young workers. Nearly 2.2 million young people, ages 16 through 29, have already lost their jobs in this recession. This follows an already steep decline in employment opportunities for young workers over the past several years.

Good jobs were hard to find for most categories of workers during that period. One of the results has been that older men and women have been taking and holding onto jobs that in prior eras would have gone to young people.

“What we’ve seen over the past eight years, for young people under 30, is the largest age reversal with regard to jobs that we’ve ever had in our history,” said Andrew Sum, the director of the Center for Labor Market Studies. “The younger you are, the more you got pushed out of this labor market.”

There were not enough jobs to go around before the recession took hold. So the young, the poor and the poorly educated were already suffering. Now that pool of suffering is rapidly expanding.

[...]

Young men and women who remain unemployed for substantial periods of time find it very difficult to make up that ground. They lose the experience and training they would have gained by working. Even if they eventually find employment, they tend to lag behind their peers when it comes to wages, promotions and job security.

Moreover, as the economy worsens, even the college educated are feeling the crunch.

According to a report by researchers working with Mr. Sum: “While young college graduates have fared the best in maintaining some type of employment, a growing fraction of them are becoming mal-employed, holding jobs in occupations that do not require much schooling beyond high school, often displacing their less-educated peers.”

It's columns like this one that make me realize that the work done on this blog and by other people, both online and offline, should not be for any reason other than advocating for a set of policies that helps the youth mentioned above to rebound from a decades-old economic collapse.

Only now have we begun to hear stories about this recession's impact on the youth job market. Herbert's on to something when he discusses the consequences of the Millennials' dreadful job prospects and how they might impact the U.S. in the future. It'd be great if NBC News planned a Luke Russert special on this topic to further increase the exposure of this issue in the media (a story in Buffalo might be especially pertinent).

The Democrats have a large opportunity here, and while they are moving forward, the risk, of course, is to become complacent and ignore the nitty-gritty work of improving quality of life among Millennials, while instead throwing money at new service programs intended for young Americans. Our responsibility is to make sure we do everything we can to fight for the economic policies that get young Americans back to work.