America Is Flunking Out Of Youth 101
The youth unemployment rate has hit 52%.
Yep. You read that right. 52%. As in more than half.
And ok, I realize that there are a certain percentage of young people in that age group that don’t want jobs. So consider that when pondering this number. But the rest of it?
I understand this plight. All too well. Even though I don’t fall into this category of “youth,” who are by definition 16-24 years old, I’ve struggled in the past to find work. A past as recent as this year, when I moved to NYC shortly after the bank crash and stock plummet, when people were losing their jobs by the thousands.
I won’t gloss this over; it got desperate. It took four months. And this is with a beefy resume of solid work since I was 16, a college degree and management experience. I got bored. I got depressed. I came close to broke. And my heart goes out to those in the same boat.
“It’s an extremely dire situation in the short run,” said Heidi Shierholz, an economist with the Washington-based Economic Policy Institute. “This group won’t do as well as their parents unless the jobs situation changes.”
Clearly, Heidi understands the implications of this situation as well. However, I take issue with a part of her statement, namely the latter sentence. While I understand the theory of a child doing better than their parents, I feel as though “do better” relates unfailingly to money. Is the son of a very wealthy man is supposed to earn more than his father? A daughter brought up by an upper-middle-class mother expected to rake in more? And if the answer is yes, where does this end? There really is only so much to go around. And when the wealthier people of the world continue to do better than their parents, the gap between extremely wealthy and everyone else gets that much larger.
This idea born from the idea of America as a melting pot. One of immigrant families landing here and starting from nothing. The first generation makes a home for the family, that family grows and each generation after it does a bit better than the last. But when a family finds stunning wealth, when does this reach end? When is enough enough? Can’t we be satisfied with less?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for any family that grows up in poverty to rise above, to make good on the promise their parents passed down and achieve something greater. But when will “success” be defined by something other than cash? In the current America, where our economy is being reshaped as we speak, maybe we can start to redefine our expectations with it. Maybe money won’t represent the be all, end all. Maybe charity, community, family and health will become a new priority. After all, shouldn’t they already be?
At this point, the best we can hope for is that when the economy has a chance to right itself, those youth that have been looking for work will find it. And with the work, they will “do better” than their parents by getting more involved, by giving back, caring more about the earth, their community and their fellow human.
Mr. Gardner,
You said, “While I understand the theory of a child doing better than their parents, I feel as though “do better” relates unfailingly to money.” Soon after you asked, “…when will ‘success’ be defined by something other than cash?”
A quick glance at the raw date and it becomes clear that the vast majority of those Americans who have lost their jobs during this recent downturn come from the low-income, “blue collar” sectors of our economy. This is also a population in the US that traditionally lacks the social, political and economic capital required to effect the change they so desperately need.
So, while you make a legitimate argument for redefining the notion of wealth (community is more valuable than currency, etc.), I think it is a decidedly academic (read: theoretical) conceit designed to disturb the ideologies of the urban American middle-class, not the poor. You’re not actually talking to the people who are most affected by the abuses of deregulated capitalism; you’re talking to privileged, educated (probably white) kids with access to the internet and a heart full of pity.
Did you say were out of work for four months when you moved to New York City? You “came close to broke,” is that right? Well, try a year and a half. Then try that with debt, no education, cutbacks on social welfare programming (food stamps, etc.), and rapidly dwindling job prospects outside urban America.
For the poor, the unemployed, the relative impoverished, “doing better” is ALL about money. There is no gray area: you have or you have not. Put another way, we just can’t afford the empty philosophical lamentations you put forward in this blog post. We got bills to pay. We need money, not heart-felt intellectual rhetoric.
Regards,
Ryn Shane-Armstrong
Ryn,
You’ve made a passionate, articulate argument. However, I’m afraid you’ve completely missed Sean’s point.
What he’s saying is that by judging success in our society only on dollar amounts, we create a culture of competition that’s impossible to satisfy. And when that happens, “…the wealthier people of the world continue to do better than their parents, the gap between extremely wealthy and everyone else gets that much larger.”
Sean isn’t suggesting the the “have-nots” buck up and appreciate their riches of community, he’s suggesting that the “haves” do so, by supporting our brothers and sisters who need it most.
Being unemployed, especially right now, really sucks. And while I’m incredibly sorry to hear about your recent/current situation, there does seem to be a bit of a gray area, as you sound like a pretty educated person with access to the internet.
If I were you, I’d try to view commentary like Sean’s not as “empty philosophical lamentations”, but as one more person stepping up to bat for those who don’t have a platform (like the internet) for their voice to be heard.