unemployment

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.

Great story on CNN about how a group of young entrepreneurs are working with their local Chamber of Commerce and City Council to keep young people in the city. A lot of politicians pay a lip service saying they want to help keep young workers in their state but here's a group of young people who are actually doing it.

Learn more about MIX Santa Fe on their website and follow them on twitter and the facebook.

The Economic Policy Institute has released a new briefing paper entitled "The Kids Aren't Alright: A Labor Market Analysis of Young Workers." (Seriously though, that Kids Aren't Alright line is getting way overused). Despite the uninspired title, there is a lot of interesting information in this analysis.

Young adults have faced the highest unemployment rate on record (since 1948) with workers 16 to 24 peaking at 19.2% last September. Especially interesting is the sub-demographic breakdown:

The difference between male and female unemployment rates for 16-24 year olds started 2010 at 7.5 percentage points; young men have a rate for 22.5% and young women 15.0%. This is the largest gap between men and women in any age group—the difference for 25-54 year olds is 1.7 points, and for workers 55 and older it is 1.4 points. The disparities between the unemployment rates of white, black, and Hispanic young workers are also stark. Black 16-24 year-old workers had the highest rate, starting 2010 at 32.5%, followed by Hispanics (24.2%), and then whites (15.2%). However, it is 16-24 year-old Hispanics workers who saw the largest increase in
unemployment (13.2 percentage points), compared to their black (10.7 percentage points) or white (8.2 percentage points) counterparts.

I would like to see further study at some point as to why the sub-demographic differences are so dramatically starker with young workers than other age groups. This has serious consequences:

Because rates of unemployment for minorities have risen faster than for whites, the recession has exacerbated existing racial disparities among young adult workers.

The report reveals other significant statistics:

• One in every four unemployed persons in America is under
  the age of 25.
• Half of unemployed young workers have been unemployed for more than 15 weeks.
• If all those young workers who left the labor market (and have stopped looking for work) were counted as unemployed, the unemployment rate for 16-24-year-old workers would be 23.9%.

The analysis portrays a dark image of the youth employment environment, with young workers left behind as older Americans come out of retirement to rejoin the workforce. The 10 page report is worth a read and should cause us to seriously look at unemployment from a youth lens.

I want to start today by pointing to a post by Jonathan Chait at The New Republic. Chait attempts to refute the suggestion the Wall Street Journal put forth in an editorial claiming that the minimum wage increase was to blame for rising youth unemployment numbers. The chart to the left appeared in the Journal to augment the editorial board's argument.

Chait draws on analysis from University of Michigan political scientist Brendan Nyhan explaining that the unemployment increase in ALL age demographics undoes the Journal's argument. The Journal can't seem to distinguish between correlation and causation, Nyhan writes.

While it's certainly plausible that the increases in the minimum wage over the last three years have worsened teen unemployment, correlation doesn't prove causation. Any variable that trended in one direction during the current economic downturn will be correlated with the unemployment rate among teens or any other group.

More importantly, unemployment is rising across the board, which cuts against the WSJ's hypothesis that the minimum wage is having a particularly devastating effect on teens.

Though the Wall Street Journal might like to think they can downplay youth unemployment by practicing amateur science, they've made their ignorance quite apparent. It's another example of a contribution to our political dialogue that misleads citizens in an attempt to assist the right-wing conspiracy.

Beware of reports that unemployment is getting better. Because for our nation's future, it isn't.

The LA Times reports:

For 20- to 24-year-olds, the jobless rate rose four-tenths of a percent to 16% in November, even as unemployment nationally slipped to 10% from 10.2%.

And data from the Labor Department show that the unemployment figure for college graduates in that age group was 10.6% in the third quarter -- the highest since early 1983 and more than double the rate for older college-educated workers.

What's scary is how long this could linger with our generation, even after this recession passes and unemployment begins recovery.

Eventually, things will probably get better for Daley and for classmates he said were having similar problems. After all, job and pay prospects for college graduates are generally stronger than for workers with less education. But studies also suggest that graduates entering the workforce in a recession see negative effects not only in the short term but for years into the future in terms of pay and career mobility.

Entry-level salaries are usually lower in tough times, and for most workers, where they start is one of the biggest factors in how much they're earning a decade later. The slower start can also influence family formation and consumer spending on such things as cars and houses.

Those effects are likely to be even more pronounced this time given the severity of the latest recession.

"At this point, it's almost like I can't even start on building a career or a life if I can't get my foot in the door," Daley said.

Some of the numbers are starting to come in for institutional job placement, and they're not pretty (surprise, surprise):

Last year, an average of 67% of students had full-time jobs within six months of graduation, according to reports from 557 four-year colleges. That was a decline from a placement rate of 75% for the class of 2007 and 77% the year before.

Edwin Koc, the association's research director, said he'd had discussions with several dozen colleges in recent weeks, and some of them are seeing employment rates as low as 30% for those who graduated six or seven months ago.

The lasting effects of this recession on young people MUST lead to quick, targeted relief for youth. It's not just college youth. It's not just youth who feel pinched because they might be forced to save something instead of blowing through their paycheck. Everyone needs relief here, and while the numbers might be rebounding in particular places and among particular segments of society, youth risk being forgotten. Story of our lives, right?

Continued coverage of A Better Deal brings us a great video of participants and some of the topics discussed.

Another unemployment report, more bad news about American youth.

The first to be laid off in a recession, and the last to be hired following one, youth are stuck in a hell of a rut.

This August, the teenage unemployment rate — that is, the percentage of teenagers who wanted a job who could not find one — was 25.5 percent, its highest level since the government began keeping track of such statistics in 1948. Likewise, the percentage of teenagers over all who were working was at its lowest level in recorded history.

“There are an amazing number of kids out there looking for work,” said Andrew M. Sum, an economics professor at Northeastern University. “And given that unemployment is a lagging indicator, and young people’s unemployment even lags behind the rest of unemployment, we’re going to see a lot of kids of out work for a long, long, long, long time.”

The Times article also explained the cyclical problem for many youth, being "stuck at the bottom of the totem pole" in the American economy.

Economists say there are multiple explanations for why young workers have suffered so much in this downturn, but they mostly boil down to being at the bottom of the totem pole.

Recent college graduates, unable to find higher-paying jobs, are working at places like Starbucks and Gap, taking jobs once held by their younger peers. Half of college graduates under age 25 are in jobs that do not require college degrees, the highest portion in at least 18 years, Mr. Sum said.

Likewise, the reluctance or inability of older workers to retire has led to less attrition and fewer opportunities for workers to move up a rung and make room for new workers at the bottom of the corporate ladder.

At the end, the article points out that while going to college is perceived as some valuable time to shield teens from the rough economy, attending college itself requires those jobs that, for many, just aren't available.

• From the White House Blog, Jill Biden extols the virtues of community colleges.
• A new study suggests that Facebook users are getting older.
• Remember the election protection effort Twitter Vote Report? Check out a case study of the project.
• Kal Penn has officially started his White House job.
• ePolitics discusses Iran, Independence Day, and the limits of Online Politics.
• The New York Times covers the latest in summer trends: jobless summers.
• Generation Y reflects on what it means to be American.
• Youth-magnet cities continue to see growth during recession.
• Young Mayors bring fresh perspectives.

I just want to take a moment here and highlight a blog post and a press release that hit my inbox in the last 24 hours. Taken together, they paint a frightening picture of the current economic environment for youth of all races and education levels.

From 80 Million Strong and Voto Latino:

80 Million Strong and its coalition partner Voto Latino today announced that Hispanic youth are being disproportionately affected by the economic crisis. The statement was released on the heels of a new Employment Situation Summary from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showing that Hispanic unemployment for 20-24 year olds was at 16.5% for May 2009, a nearly 3% increase from last month’s figures. In the 16-19 year old bracket, the numbers are even more alarming, with Hispanic unemployment reaching 31% in May 2009, almost 4% higher than April’s numbers. [...]

According to other statistics, the unemployment rate for young people aged 20-24 increased from 10.3% to 15% since May 2008 - a rate that is higher than the national average. In addition, since April, the unemployment rate for 16-24 year olds increased from 16.7% to 17.3%, while the national unemployment rate increased from 8.9% to 9.4%.

From Seth Godin's blog:

Fewer college grads have jobs than at any other time in recent memory—a report by the National Association of Colleges and Employers annual student survey said that 20 percent of 2009 college graduates who applied for a job actually have one.

I was at a townhall hosted by A New Way Forward earlier this week where Leo Hindery made much the same point about unemployment among recent college grads. I know that coalitions like 80 Million Strong are working to make sure that young people benefit from the economic stimulus package, and times are tough for everybody, not just youth, but these numbers are shocking. Why aren't more people talking about this?

Matt Segal of the 80 Million Strong coalition was on CNN this week talking about youth unemployment. Check it out here: