I just heard from one of the presenters at our upcoming Fashion and Finance NYC retreat (there are a couple of open spots for the June 24-26 event, if you want to join us). Claire Meunier and her mother are going to do a joint session on the “Extreme Networking” it took for Claire to get established after earning an MBA from one of the top schools in the country. Their story is compelling and instructive. More than 16 percent of 20 to 24-year are unemployed and, short of a miracle, I am not feeling Pollyanna-ish about a big improvement anytime soon. The economy is undergoing a massive restructuring that no one wants to talk about. But more on that another day.

Not Enough:

At Fashion and Finance NYC (June 24-26) we about the "Extreme Social Networking" it takes to get great jobs now.

Claire and her mother are going to talk about what it took for Claire to land on her feet in a meaningful position, commensurate with her experience and education. It took Claire almost a year of relentless conversations, meetings, inquiries, reminders, letters, emails, more meetings, and outreach to everyone she had ever met in her life (You think I’m kidding; I’m not.) She understood she had to build a vast web of relationships—REAL relationships, not just Facebook friends or LinkedIn connections. She had to be relentlessly tenacious. She was and she succeeded. And her parents, used to a world in which hard work and a good track record are rewarded, had to adapt to the new environment their daughter faced.

Claire’s story is an important one because in many ways she had EVERYthing going for her: a great experience, top level education, supportive family, intellect, sense of humor, and social network that was already strong. Even with all those assets, her journey was challenging.

The implications for kids who don’t have such resources, or who are not prepared to attack the quest for meaningful, sustaining work are significant. Without Herculean effort, many young people will be left out of the pool for ‘great work’. And if they are counting on less challenging work where they can ‘get by’ they are still in trouble. Those entry-level jobs that used to soak up the energy of American kids are shrinking. Think of all the ticket booths, airline jobs, and retail functions once manned and womanned by actual people, now handled by bank ATMS, airline kiosks, self-service restaurants and electronic touch screens. The entry-level world that launched millions of boomers is vanishing.

Everyone coming to Fashion and Finance next week will enjoy the mother/daughter tale of how Claire got ‘launched.’ I plan to reprise my ‘Launch Webinar’ later this summer and will include stories from their presentation. This new economy requires that families manage their ‘human capital’ with a new attention to developing entrepreneurial kids with extreme networking skills and the capacity to build authentic relationships that will help them find a place in this new and changing economic web.

I got an email from a reporter the other day I thought I’d share with you all! Because I am preparing for the webinar on “The Launch” coming up later this month (email me for more info), his email triggered a small rant (below). I’d love your comments.

Here’s what got me started:

The reporter, Steve Fox, writes for SPAN, a publication produced by the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi with the objective of explaining America to a high-end audience of Indians–lawyers, doctors, legislators, executives, etc. He’s working on a piece explaining why, as he puts it, “we in the U.S. put such a high value on working voluntarily at an early age—the paper route, the lemonade stand, clerking in a store, helping out on the family farm or in the family business, that kind of thing. I’ve explained,” Fox continued, “that things have changed in the U.S. and that, in the current environment, with high unemployment and the prevalence of illegal workers, many jobs that might have been done by teenagers or college students are being filled by someone else.” But they [SPAN] want an article nonetheless, partially because the value system in India is much different—middle-class kids there would not be encouraged to work. So I wonder if you would be wiling to give me your thoughts. Is it the Protestant work ethic, capitalism, or values of learning self-reliance that make a difference here?

Because of the webinar and the white paper we’re about to publish on “How Great Families Launch Twenty Somethings,” I have spent a lot of time thinking about this question. This is what I wrote back to him:

The values you describe (work ethic, early work for success) are still core and active across dominant US cultures. And there is still an equation linking work with worth here in the US. Across all income groups, the idea that you do nothing and pursue idleness is anathema, embarrassing somehow. Philanthropy in the United States is another genuine form of meaningful work. But you’re right that the game has changed.

The work we’re doing on ‘The Launch’ phase of family development emerged from families asking us for help getting twenty-somethings ‘launched’ into independent, self-sufficient lives. Subsidy of adult children is a rising problem in this country, across all income groups and the drive to ‘help kids get on track’ is a reflection of our sense that work and worth are connected.

As I first started to work on this issue, I admit to having leaned toward the bias that we were dealing with ’slacker kids’ and overly protective parents (my own work ethic writ large, front and center). But I was wrong. Even very well connected families with kids who are quite accomplished are finding that entry into the work world—and even the volunteer work world—is pretty challenging.

Here’s why: whole industries are shifting and collapsing. Publishing, which use to swallow up thousands of entry level kids hardly exists as we once knew it. It’s social media now and at the entry level it doesn’t pay. Finance has consolidated and replaced low level jobs with technology, law firms are parking associates in non-profits until things ‘pick up’, taking up non-profit slots entry level kids might have taken. And as manufacturing collapsed, ‘middle class’ and working class adults are moving into what would otherwise have been entry level jobs.

The work ethic is very much alive. How to exercise it is getting more challenging. Meanwhile the department of labor just issued guidelines on internships, making the unpaid route to your first job harder. They had to, abuses were rampant. But still, getting a foot in the door for kids who can AFFORD to work free and want to work is even harder.

Which takes us to my new mantra and the new cry you will be hearing more of (and that we’re working with families on): “You can’t assume your kids will be able to take a job; they will have to learn how to MAKE a job.” Slacker kids will in fact have an ever harder time getting established, but the worry is that kids with a driving work ethic will be struggling too. Everything we’re doing with young people these days is aimed at building their entrepreneurial skills, supporting their most tenacious drives, trying to buttress that connection between early work and experience and later engagement in purposeful, meaningful lives (this is not JUST about the money, it’s about building great lives).

It may be that out there in the future I cannot yet see there is a more laid back, less work driven vision of existence that the next generation will morph into. And maybe that’s a good thing. For the moment at least, the best I can say is that we are ‘in transition.’

What do you think? Is there a new work ethic? Is our thinking unique?

The headline was chilling to firms and families alike: “Growth of Unpaid Internships May Be Illegal, Officials Say.”

In a market offering fewer opportunities for high school and college-age students to acquire life skills once developed as part of a summer job experience, internships have become a significant source of experience and an important part of the launch process for the next generation. But abused by some employers who overuse kids as free summer labor, many companies will become wary of government oversight and may back away from offering internships altogether.

This will be bad for kids—and for companies. Young people will have fewer opportunities to observe and experience the culture of a variety of workplaces, and companies will have fewer low risk ways to vet potential employees.

But there’ s no cause to panic, for either intentional families or good companies. This is an easy—and an important—challenge to manage. The U.S. Department of Labor published [PDF] six criteria for determining if an internship is legitimate or just a thinly disguised means of getting free labor. And the internships we’ve been involved with at IMI meet all these requirements without a stretch.They are:

1. The training, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to what would be given in a vocational school or academic educational institution. This means that the internship setting must treat the intern as a trainee and provide actual instruction. This is what you want anyway. Young people should be able to observe and try activities that are part of a real learning plan. The student can work with employers to create such a plan (much like an independent learning project). Companies can design these as well.
2. The training is for the benefit of the trainees—or intern. While companies certainly benefit from having a chance to observe potential future employees, MOST legitimate internships are too time consuming and expensive to be of much help to the intern host. Free labor is a lot less ‘free’ than most people understand but when the terms of the internship are explicit, this aspect of the criteria is easier to meet.
3. The trainees (interns) do not displace regular employees, but work under their close observation. Since most internships we’ve been involved with only last from two to eight weeks, there is little danger interns are displacing real employees. But this is a workplace accountability issue and one that can be clarified at the start of the internship.
4. The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the trainees, and on occasion the employer’s operations may actually be impeded. Indeed, most internships are done as an act of generosity on the part of the employer. Hosting an intern takes up valuable time and resources. Because an intern can hardly understand the environment in less than three months, let alone make a meaningful contribution to the workplace, employers are making an investment in the future when they offer an internship, not gaining immediate advantage.
5. Trainees are not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the training period. Particularly if an intern is still in school, this is not immediately relevant. But IF the intern goes back to school, or on to another internship and later returns to apply for a job independently, there is no foul.
6. The employer and the trainees understand that the trainees are not entitled to wages for the time spent in training. This is the easy one as most internships are established as free experiences. In some cases the family pays a third party or the employer for young people to gain exposure to industries, professions, and environments they have some interest in or curiosity about.

Internships are vital as vehicles for helping the next generation integrate into the social network of an entrepreneurial culture. Giving kids access to role models, specialized language, and industry knowledge is key to helping them launch into adulthood. Now is not the time to panic. It’s time for next gen members and their families to plan and propose an internship for the summer experience of choice.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor “ADVISORY: TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT GUIDANCE LETTER NO. 12-09”

Last Thursday morning Brian Ross reported for ABC on children working in blueberry fields in Michigan. That night, a  “full investigation” aired on Nightline. It took only a nano-second for the Feds to level fines and Walmart and Kroger to sever ties with the Michigan grower uncovered as the culprits. Listening to the story that morning I was disturbed. Obviously if big companies are making big profits on the backs of little children, there’s something wrong.

But, as the day wore on and the story unfolded, I began to have second thoughts. Watching news clips that morning, then later in the day, I was struck that the kids filmed didn’t actually look all that unhappy. Indeed, I found myself recalling my own work history as a child.

Back in the day, Maine potatoes were harvested by hand and schools closed for six weeks in the fall to so kids could help with harvest. Everyone participated—children of the most prosperous farmers, as well as kids whose parents were just eking it out. It was a rite of passage, an opportunity to earn money, develop work habits, and feel the responsibility of contributing to the well being of the family and the community. Taking care of crops mattered for everyone. Even now, though machines have replaced most human labor, schools in Aroostook County close for three weeks in September (school starts in early August).

My uncle wasn’t a big producer; he sold some of his crop to a co-op and mainly grew potatoes for the family. As a child of 8 or 9, I would plead for a chance to pick potatoes so I could earn a little money. By the time I was 12 or 13 I could count on a part time job during harvest break. My uncle took me seriously, held me to standards, and made time to teach me how to do a job right. He didn’t let me get sloppy because I was a kid. It was in his garden I learned the connection between “doing a good job” and earning money. It was a gift.

One of the questions parents most frequently ask me is, “What can my kids do to earn money?” We have so professionalized work that children have ever-diminishing opportunities to be socialized with a work ethic that is critical to a purposeful life and a competitive economy.  Lawns are mowed by lawn care companies, not 12-year-olds hungry to earn spending money. Cars are cleaned by ‘detailers,’ not enterprising teens. And newspapers, to the extent they’re delivered at all anymore, are distributed by adults in cars, not kids on bikes.

Old practices die; new ones emerge—I’m not advocating a return to some idealized past. But the story of kids picking blueberries gives me pause. The “investigation” unfolded in the summer, when children were out of school. They were with their parents, apparently not working alone in the fields. They were supervised and contributing to the needs of the family.  What should they have been doing? Watching TV? Playing video games?

Exploitation of children is wrong and where there is evidence of abuse and danger, intervention is required. But kids who get a chance to work may not be the most abused kids. I know a lot of young people who’d be a whole lot better off if they had a chance to channel their energy in blueberry fields and who might benefit from time spent with adults teaching them something about work. And there are a lot of young people who would be less depressed if they had a chance to make a real contribution to the family.

I don’t know all the facts. But there are real scandals and there are manufactured scandals that make great TV. And manufactured horror that “protects” kids from work may have the unintended consequence of developing kids less prepared for life.

In last month’s edition of MoneyWise, Joline discussed the dire state of unemployment for the young and what parents can do to keep their adult children on track even if the jobs are not yet back. This issue is important, so it’s frustrating when people play fast and loose with the numbers, as an article last month in the the New York Post recently did.

“The number of young Americans without a job has exploded to 53.4 percent — a post-World War II high,” the article screamed.

True, but not exactly. As the article admits in the following paragraph, the number is arrived at by subtracting the the percentage of young Americans with a job (46.6 percent) from 100. But this isn’t the unemployment rate, as the lede implied. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the actual unemployment rate, defined as the percentage those who are looking for, but are unable to find, full-time employment, in September was 18.2 percent. Whether because they are enrolled in school, or because the situation is so dire young people aren’t inspired to bother, or because their unemployment benefits have already run out, or for any host of reasons, many young people aren’t looking for work. Therefore, they are not unable to find it.

This should not undermine the dangers in front of us. The youth unemployment and underemployment rate is historic. As the article rightfully points out, unemployment at this critical development stage can have prolonged effects across a career. We need to address the needs of those whose starts have been delayed or handicapped by the recession. But we gain little by outright, headline-grabbing obfuscation.