Monday, July 3, 2017

10 CEOs Reveal the Apps That Can Make You More Productive - TIME Business

Posted: 03 Jul 2017 03:00 AM PDT

For many, modern-day work life means 24/7 connectivity, a constant barrage of emails and meetings, and the feeling you’re drowning in information. Luckily, there are numerous apps out on the market that can help you reclaim your sanity and help you be more productive. Below, 10 CEOs share their favorite apps to manage their to do lists, make sure they get their workout in, meditate, and of course, achieve inbox zero.

For To Do Lists

Workflowy
“I block off two ‘open door’ blocks every day so my team can come in and strategize about our business. Workflowy is my go-to, and I can keep track of the specific things I want to cover with each person. Other note-taking apps are overcomplicated and have unnecessary in-app purchases and upgrades. With Workflowy, I can make whatever list I want – long or short — and it’s organizing my brain seamlessly across all my devices.” — Scott Sanborn, CEO LendingClub

Trello
“My most important app to organize my daily life is Trello. I have tried every kind of to-do list app and finally went back to just using a book that I would constantly carry around. Then I found Trello. It’s nothing more than a typical post-it wall in an app format. So it requires a bit of a set-up time. I organized mine along the days of the week, I have a “to do this week” list, a “to do next week” list and so forth. Since I have Trello I never forget deadlines anymore and I have less weight to carry around.” — Lea von Bidder, CEO Ava

For Email Management

Boomerang
“My all-time favorite for staying on top of correspondence is Boomerang. I don’t know where I would be with following up, closing deals and making sure our craziest ice cream dreams happen without it. With Boomerang, I feel like I will never miss anything: I can mark it to send me reminders if responses I’m waiting for don’t happen, I can schedule follow-ups in advance, and I can ping emails that are not urgent to come back to my inbox whenever desired. It’s also good to use for east coast correspondence where I want an email to be received at a more strategic time if I’m getting to it late in the day Pacific time.” — Natasha Case CEO Coolhaus Ice Cream

For Meetings Management

Go to Meeting
“As a CEO of a growing fintech company operating with multiple partners around the world, the app that transformed my day and productivity is GoToMeeting. It makes it easy to set up and conduct conference calls with global participants instantly over wifi or data, which is critical when trying to get teams and partners in different locations to meet at short notice. The ability to communicate across borders at short notice has also saved us significant costs by reducing the need for travel.” —Edwin Hagan-Emmin, CEO Aztec Exchange.

For Goal Tracking:

Productive
“The app I recommend is, fittingly enough, called Productive. It has a nice, simple user interface, and is elegantly designed. I can build out custom goals that are specific to my life, or I can choose from some preselects. One of the best things about Productive is that it allows me to mix personal and professional goals, and as any busy person knows, the two wind up overlapping quite a bit.” — Jeremy Goldman, CEO Firebrand Group

For Mindfulness

Headspace
“I use the Headspace app once or twice a day to help me operate at my best. Yoga and meditation create important moments to regroup even when working against the clock. Meditation yields perspective, humor, and focuses the mind so you can not only save time – but use the time well.” —Marcela Sapone, CEO Hello Alfred
Simply Noise
“Simply Noise is a white, pink, and brown noise app that I plug into whenever I’m traveling, or working in a busy café on the road, or sleeping somewhere that’s noisy in an unfamiliar way. The wash of steady noise blocks out all ambient sounds and creates a continuity of mental soundscapes so that wherever I am, I feel like I’m at home in my head so that I can get work done.” — Sam Bodkin, CEO Groupmuse

For Exercise

Sworkit
Sworekit is indispensable in helping me stay on top of my game while keeping tension levels down. As an entrepreneur, busy mom, and cancer survivor, incorporating exercise into my daily routine, eating unprocessed foods and drinking plenty of water keeps me energized and healthy. When my busy schedule does not allow for time at the gym, or even to think about it, Sworkit is my coach. It not only provides exercise ideas and instructions, it sends helpful reminders throughout the day to do stretching exercises at my desk or a round of tension relieving breathing techniques en route to my next appointment. Having exercise plans at my fingertips leaves little room for excuses to not workout. That alone helps me stay calm and focused.” — Dale Noelle, CEO TRUE Model Management

For Media

Flipboard
“With all the moving pieces in my business and personal life, I look for apps that simplify my day. Flipboard curates news based on my interests and delivers it in real-time. It saves a lot of time that I would have spent combing through the news and ensures I don’t miss crucial articles. But more importantly, it delivers what I need, when I need it. It’s one of the most efficient ways to read the news that matters most to you.” — Bob D’Loren, CEO Xcel Brands
Audible
“I love to listen to books on the go, so Audible is great for helping me process information during my commute. I find that listening to books helps me become a better leader. I’ve been listening to Tribe by Sebastian Junger most recently, which has been incredibly eye-opening.” — Chris O’Neill, CEO Evernote

Donald Trump’s Washington is paralysed - Economist

JULY 4th ought to bring Americans together. It is a day to celebrate how 13 young colonies united against British rule to begin their great experiment in popular government. But this July 4th Americans are riven by mutual incomprehension: between Republicans and Democrats, yes, but also between factory workers and university students, country folk and city-dwellers. And then there is President Donald Trump, not only a symptom of America’s divisions but a cause of them, too.
Mr Trump won power partly because he spoke for voters who feel that the system is working against them, as our special report this week sets out. He promised that, by dredging Washington of the elites and lobbyists too stupid or self-serving to act for the whole nation, he would fix America’s politics.
His approach is not working. Five months into his first term, Mr Trump presides over a political culture that is even more poisonous than when he took office. His core voters are remarkably loyal. Many businesspeople still believe that he will bring tax cuts and deregulation. But their optimism stands on ever-shakier ground. The Trump presidency has been plagued by poor judgment and missed opportunities. The federal government is already showing the strain. Sooner or later, the harm will spread beyond the beltway and into the economy.
From sea to shining sea
America’s loss of faith in politics did not start with Mr Trump. For decades, voters have complained about the gridlock in Washington and the growing influence of lobbyists, often those with the deepest pockets. Francis Fukuyama, a political theorist, blamed the decay on the “vetocracy”, a tangle of competing interests and responsibilities that can block almost any ambitious reform. When the world changes and the federal government cannot rise to the challenge, he argued, voters’ disillusion only grows.
Mr Trump has also fuelled the mistrust. He has correctly identified areas where America needs reform, but botched his response—partly because of his own incontinent ego. Take tax. No one doubts that America’s tax code is a mess, stuffed full of loopholes and complexity. But Mr Trump’s reform plans show every sign of turning into a cut for the rich that leaves the code as baffling as ever. So, too, health care. Instead of reforming Obamacare, Republicans are in knots over a bill that would leave millions of Mr Trump’s own voters sicker and poorer.
Institutions are vulnerable. The White House is right to complain about America’s overlapping and competing agencies, which spun too much red tape under President Barack Obama. Yet its attempt to reform this “administrative state” is wrecking the machinery the government needs to function. Mr Trump’s hostility has already undermined the courts, the intelligence services, the state department and America’s environmental watchdog. He wants deep budget cuts and has failed to fill presidential appointments. Of 562 key positions identified by the Washington Post, 390 remain without a nominee.
As harmful as what Mr Trump does is the way he does it. In the campaign he vowed to fight special interests. But his solution—to employ businesspeople too rich for lobbyists to buy—is no solution at all. Just look at Mr Trump himself: despite his half-hearted attempts to disentangle the presidency and the family business, nobody knows where one ends and the other begins. He promised to be a dealmaker, but his impulse to belittle his opponents and the miasma of scandal and leaks surrounding Russia’s role in the campaign have made the chances of cross-party co-operation even more remote. The lack of respect for expertise, such as the attacks on the Congressional Budget Office over its dismal scoring of health-care reform, only makes Washington more partisan. Most important, Mr Trump’s disregard for the truth cuts into what remains of the basis for cross-party agreement. If you cannot agree on the facts, all you have left is a benighted clash of rival tribes.
Til selfish gain no longer stain
Optimists say that America, with its immense diversity, wealth and reserves of human ingenuity and resilience can take all this in its stride. Mr Trump is hardly its first bad president. He may be around for only four years—if that. In a federal system, the states and big cities can be islands of competence amid the dysfunction. America’s economy is seemingly in rude health, with stockmarkets near their all-time highs. The country dominates global tech and finance, and its oil and gas producers have more clout than at any time since the 1970s.
Those are huge strengths. But they only mitigate the damage being done in Washington. Health-care reform affects a sixth of the economy. Suspicion and mistrust corrode all they touch. If the ablest Americans shun a career in public service, the bureaucracy will bear the scars. Besides, a bad president also imposes opportunity costs. The rising monopoly power of companies has gone unchallenged. Schools and training fall short even as automation and artificial intelligence are about to transform the nature of work. If Mr Trump serves a full eight years—which, despite attacks from his critics, is possible—the price of paralysis and incompetence could be huge.
The dangers are already clear in foreign policy. By pandering to the belief that Washington elites sell America short, Mr Trump is doing enduring harm to American leadership. The Trans-Pacific Partnership would have entrenched America’s concept of free markets in Asia and shored up its military alliances. He walked away from it. His rejection of the Paris climate accord showed that he sees the world not as a forum where countries work together to solve problems, but as an arena where they compete for advantage. His erratic decision-making and his chumminess with autocrats lead his allies to wonder if they can depend on him in a crisis.
July 4th is a time to remember that America has renewed itself in the past; think of Theodore Roosevelt’s creation of a modern, professional state, FDR’s New Deal, and the Reagan revolution. In principle it is not too late for Mr Trump to embrace bipartisanship and address the real issues. In practice, it is ever clearer that he is incapable of bringing about such a renaissance. That will fall to his successor.
This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline "A divided country"
Economist

Donald Trump’s Washington is paralysed
And the man in the Oval Office is making a bad situation worse




Sunday, July 2, 2017

Senate health care bill would mean big coverage losses in these states - CNN Money

Senate health care bill would mean big coverage losses in these states
By Tami Luhby June 29, 2017: 6:23 AM ET
States that saw major coverage gains under Obamacare would suffer the biggest losses under the Senate health care bill, a new report has found.
The states that did not expand Medicaid and didn't have many people enrolled in the individual market would feel less of an impact, according to the Urban Institute analysis.
The researchers from the left-leaning think tank estimated that a total of 24.7 million more people would be uninsured in 2022, compared to current law. About 57% of the uninsured would be whites, while more than half would have a high school education or less. Also, 72% would be in families with at least one full-time worker.
Urban researchers estimate more people would wind up uninsured than the Congressional Budget Office does. The CBO's score of the Senate's health care bill projects there would be 22 million more uninsured by 2026. The Urban Institute's conclusions are a little different than CBO's because Urban uses a different data set and projects the impact of the bill in each state, rather than looking nationally, as CBOdoes. Urban researchers also expect states to drop out of Medicaid expansion more quickly.)
Most of the losses would come from the Senate eliminating enhanced federal funding for Medicaidexpansion and curtailing federal support for the overall program. Also, the legislation would reduce the generosity of the federal premium tax credits, rending coverage unaffordable for millions.

California and Ohio would be among those with the biggest increases in uninsured rates under the Senate health plan. California officials are among the biggest supporters of Obamacare, creating a state exchange and expanding Medicaid. 

The nation's uninsured rate has fallen to a historic low of 10.4% for non-elderly adults under Obamacare, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Ohio Governor John Kasich, a Republican, is among the leading opponents of the effort to repeal Obamacare in Congress. He has repeatedly defended Medicaid expansion, noting it has extended coverage to 700,000 Ohioans and helped many deal with opioid addiction.
West Virginia and Alaska would also see big reversals, Urban projected. Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia have also said they would not support their chamber's bill because of the harm it would inflict on their residents.

Senate Republicans had hoped to vote on their bill, titled the Better Care Reconciliation Act, this week. But leadership shelved those plans after encountering resistance from multiple senators.

Saturday, July 1, 2017

communism: the ideology's history and the legacy left by Mikhail Gorbachev - Economist

The ash heap of history?
Two illuminating new books on communism: the ideology's history and the legacy left by Mikhail Gorbachev
May 10th 2007
IS THERE any reason left to care about Soviet communism? Economists have little time for Marxism-Leninism, finding it inadequate both in theory and in practice. Governments of what were once Soviet territories have eagerly signed up to the class enemy's alliances, NATO and the European Union. Russia itself has moved on. Even China, ostensibly still a major communist power, chose its own path to markets and modernity and is now beating capitalists at their own game.
But two new books will convince doubters that spending time on the Soviet experience is still worthwhile. The authors are both based at St Antony's College, Oxford. Robert Service is the current professor of Russian history, while Archie Brown, after 34 years of teaching, is now emeritus professor of politics.
Both are very much concerned with the Soviet legacy for the present day, although their approaches could hardly be more different. Mr Service has produced a wide-ranging history that traces communism's intellectual origins back through early modern Europe to ancient Greece as well as its modern spread to countries covering a third of the earth's surface. As he puts it: “Communist parties have existed in almost every area of the globe except the polar ice caps.” By contrast, Mr Brown uses a magnifying glass to look at the Gorbachev era and its effects.
Of the two, Mr Brown's book is more immediately timely, but also more problematic. “Seven Years that Changed the World” speaks directly to the heated debate about the end of the cold war. While American triumphalists promote it as a victory for the Reagan administration, Russian foreign-policy makers repudiate what they see as the unnecessary over-capitulation of the Gorbachev era. The consequences of this debate are not just academic. Working from a position of financial strength based on his government's control of oil profits, Vladimir Putin is fashioning policies aimed at undoing the perceived mistakes of recent decades and reasserting Russian influence abroad. 
Mr Brown steers between these two narratives, making a compelling case for Mikhail Gorbachev's leadership—a case that emerges despite a format that awkwardly combines some earlier essays with new analysis. In the 1980s the author was among the earliest to recognise that Mr Gorbachev was a serious reformer. Before getting properly under way, his book includes a selection of more or less unchanged reprints. These prove his prescience, but it would have been better just to have summarised them.
The bulk of the book is a necessary reminder of what Mr Gorbachev and perestroika achieved—even if inadvertently. For what, asks Mr Brown, did Mr Gorbachev sacrifice “the boundless authority, the unquestioning obedience, the orchestrated public adulation”? For freedom of speech, freedom of religion, competitive elections and a host of other accomplishments. The author rightly concludes that the “democratic shortcomings of post-Soviet Russia notwithstanding, the country that Gorbachev bequeathed to his successors was freer than at any time in Russian history.”
The promotion of such values seems all the more remarkable given their tortured transit through the 20th century, as brilliantly described in Mr Service's “Comrades!”. With this volume he has produced one of the best-ever studies of his subject, even if he is much stronger on Russia than on other countries. Eschewing the usual convoluted language of Marxist debates, he provides a gripping account of communism's intellectual origins, pedigree and impact. Concluding that Marx and his followers “were not the fundamental rethinkers of the contemporary world”—he accords that honour to Albert Einstein, Max Weber and others—Mr Service turns from ideas to their practical application. 
He argues that one can indeed trace a single unified history of communism, namely by following the rise and spread of the “truly innovative” Russian model. Through numerous country studies, the author concludes that all durable regimes had essential coercive characteristics in common. They centralised power, eliminated rival parties, attacked religion, established secret police forces and sent dissenters to labour camps. He compares communists both to fascists, with whom he sees ideological differences but practical similarities, and to early Christians. Like the latter, he says, communists enjoyed a feeling of certainty blessed by omniscience, with the deity in their case being “the march of history”.
As is to be expected, even a book as rich as this cannot cover all bases. Culture receives short shrift in favour of politics. Chapters on countries other than the Soviet Union are not as convincing. Why Chinese economic reform succeeded so spectacularly remains inadequately explained. And opponents of Mr Service's damning indictment may justifiably claim that he fails to explain why communism proved so appealing to anyone at all.
Nonetheless, the book remains a remarkable accomplishment, and worrying reading. Even though Soviet communism as an idea may have failed, its interaction with the Russian population contains a powerful warning. Mr Service makes a strong case that “poverty and oppression constituted the best soil for Marxism to grow in.” Russia in the late 19th century had no legal parties or trade unions, no parliament, limited schooling and no avenues out of poverty for the poor. 

As a result, Russia proved highly susceptible to the lure of what, in current parlance, would be called wingnuts (fanatics on the far left or right). A reader emerges from Mr Service's volume with the sobering conviction that the only enduring means of preventing political extremism is to establish and maintain healthy institutions of civil society: a tall order indeed.

A Yale historian has a chilling warning about what happens next with the Trump presidency - Independent

A Yale historian has a chilling warning about what happens next with the Trump presidency
by Joe Vesey-Byrne in news
A historian specialising in political tyranny has said it’s inevitable that President Trump will do away with democracy.

When President Donald Trump was elected on the back of a populist wave, there were two conclusions one could draw. His unconventional style, and disregard for the constitution meant he was either going to be president for the next two years, or the next twenty.

Timothy Snyder, a professor at Yale University, and author of ‘On Tyranny’ believes it will be something like the latter.

In an interview on the Chauncy DeVega Show podcast, Snyder remarked that it was ‘pretty much inevitable’ that President Trump would stage a coup and overthrow democracy.

In ‘On Tyranny’, Snyder predicts the President will have his own ‘Reichstag fire’, a terrorist attack, pinned on his enemies, after which he is legally given unprecedented powers, and democracy is suspended. He also made the case for this, in an article for the New York Review of Books on February 26.

The Reichstag fire shows how quickly a modern republic can be transformed into an authoritarian regime. There is nothing new, to be sure, in the politics of exception. The American Founding Fathers knew that the democracy they were creating was vulnerable to an aspiring tyrant who might seize upon some dramatic event as grounds for the suspension of our rights.

He continued:

In rhetoric and action, the Trump administration has aggrandized 'radical Islamic terror' thus making what [James] Madison called a 'favourable emergency' more likely.

In his interview with Salon, Synder said that he believed it is ‘pretty much inevitable that they will try’.

Snyder explained:

The reason I think that is that the conventional ways of being popular are not working out for them. The conventional way to be popular or to be legitimate in this country is to have some policies, to grow your popularity ratings and to win some elections. I don’t think 2018 is looking very good for the Republicans along those conventional lines — not just because the president is historically unpopular. It’s also because neither the White House nor Congress have any policies which the majority of the public like.

This means they could be seduced by the notion of getting into a new rhythm of politics, one that does not depend upon popular policies and electoral cycles.

When pressed on whether or not the right term for the President is ‘fascist’, Snyder said:

I don’t want to dodge your question about whether Trump is a fascist or not. As I see it, there are certainly elements of his approach which are fascistic. The straight-on confrontation with the truth is at the centre of the fascist worldview. The attempt to undo the Enlightenment as a way to undo institutions, that is fascism.

HT Salon, NYRB

Friday, June 30, 2017

A new Britain is stirring and it is the Tories who will reap the whirlwind - Independent

A new Britain is stirring and it is the Tories who will reap the whirlwind
Theresa May's vision for the UK as set out in the Queen's Speech is small, narrow and nasty but she will soon find the public mood is against her – and no wheat field to which she runs will provide an escape

James Moore So it begins.
A few days after discovering that although there's no magic money tree for nurses there’s one growing in Whitehall with £1bn on it for the Democratic Unionist Party, Theresa May has got her Queen’s Speech through Parliament.

Her small, narrow, and nasty vision for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will be made manifest over the coming months, at least so far as a threadbare legislative programme will allow.
The Prime Minister who said “Brexit means Brexit” because “the British people have made a decision” plainly has every intention of ignoring the decision they made about her and her policy programme on 8 June.

Explicitly asked by May to deliver a mandate for her hard Brexit and thus to legitimise a path that all but the most extreme Leave campaigners fought shy of during the EU referendum, the Great British public refused to give her one.

In fact, her divisive and morally bankrupt Government was rejected by a thumping majority of voters, denying her a majority in Parliament in the process.

Some of her supporters have taken to bleating that she still won because the Conservatives took the most seats.

But consider this. What the Prime Minister derided as a “coalition of chaos” – Labour, the SNP, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and Plaid Cymru – secured nearly 53 per cent of the vote.

Her own shabby little coalition with the DUP, constructed to get her spartan, Brexit-dominated, two-year agenda over its first fence, managed to win the support of little more than 43 per of the electorate. Even Ukip’s sorry little band of supporters would only get her to 45 per cent.
British voters rejected her request, and her party, more decisively than they rejected the EU during the referendum on membership. She won the most seats only by dint of an increasingly antiquated and undemocratic electoral system.

In response, May is proposing to pretend that it simply didn’t happen. The member for Murdoch Central, Michael Gove, even had the gall to claim that her Tories would govern “in the national interest”.

What their marriage of convenience with the DUP decisively proves, as if anyone really needed it to, is that they will govern now and always solely in the interests of the Conservative Party.

Unfortunately for that party, another Britain is stirring.

It is tolerant. It is open-minded. It rejects a Government whose stale core still harks back to the 1980s.

It has no truck with the carping and bitter Britain that belches forth daily from the Tory tabloids. It has no desire to live in Daily Mail leader-land.

It has no time for a party whose leaders would accuse a BBC interviewer of lacking patriotism just for asking questions, as the increasingly ridiculous Angela Leadsom recently did. It looks on such Trumpian tactics with disdain.

As for the shallow band of swivel-eyed ideologues, ambitious chancers and incompetent public school rakes that defines the Government, and guides its direction? It rejects such offal.

May’s current tactic in response to the rise of this alternative Britain is to run into the nearest wheat field to shield herself from it, surrounded by a protective phalanx of policemen and women while she does. But she will not be able to ignore it forever because it is growing in strength and numbers.

It has values, where she and her colleagues do not. It cares about the disadvantaged and the dispossessed and wants to do better by them. It doesn’t mind paying a bit more in tax to ensure that happens.

It is multiracial, and comfortable with it. It is young. That’s not to say there aren’t older people who are a part of it. But it is driven by youthful energy.

This other Britain will not be content to stay in its box if the May Government persists with its threats to wreck the economy by sailing off into the North Sea. It will not stand by as the Prime Minister attempts to appease the bug-eyed band of ideologues that has been tweaking the tail of the Tory party for the past three decades.

It will not sit back as high-rise buildings burn and people die due to the Government's failure to fund fire-resistant cladding. It will not allow Britain to turn in on itself.

Saner heads in the Conservative Party might care to reflect on this, because if they do not, they will reap the whirlwind.

That could happen sooner than anyone thinks. The last election was just the beginning.

I still have my doubts about Jeremy Corbyn as the leader of this new Britain. I still believe he has something to prove before he is worthy of the crowds that belt out “oh Jeremy Corbyn” with such gusto.

But if he’s the man to tear up the depressing programme that the May Government has taken its first step towards enacting, and if he is prepared to embrace a big tent while so doing, then let’s hope he gets into Downing Street sooner rather than later.

Where Did America’s Summer Jobs Go? - TIME


Posted: 29 Jun 2017 03:57 AM PDT

It’s not like the jobs aren’t there. The ice cream still needs scooping. A Tilt-a-Whirl doesn’t run itself. And that floppy, weirdly heavy rubber frog that somersaults toward the rotating lily pads? Hit or miss, someone’s got to bring it back to the catapult for the next lucky player. The work of an American summer remains, sticky and sweet as cotton candy, which doesn’t sell itself either.
But when Jenkinson’s Boardwalk went looking for seasonal employees last year, the response was not at all what the company expected. To fill some 1,200 summer vacancies, an Easter-time job fair drew just 400 people. Applications did bounce up this year, but not nearly enough to reverse a grave trend that summer employers have noticed well beyond the Jersey Shore.

“It is getting harder to find students that will work,” says Toby Wolf, director of marketing at the boardwalk. “Each year it’s getting harder and harder. None of us has been able to pinpoint why. Is it a change in society as a whole?”
This is a question to chew over on the long road trip from Glacier National Park–where concessions could be staffed by Bulgarians on work-study visas–to Maine, which each summer struggles to fill the lifeguard chairs above its beaches. The same story holds at the water attractions at Wisconsin Dells and on Cedar Point’s roller coasters in Sandusky, Ohio. As a nation, we have lately endured the demise of comity and the fracture of factual truth. Are we now witnessing the slow death of the summer job?
Read More: What These Celebrities and CEOs Learned From Their Summer Jobs
The numbers are not encouraging. Forty years ago, nearly 60% of U.S. teenagers were working or looking for work during the peak summer months. Last year, just 35% were. Note the element of declaration: what the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) tabulates are reports of actually desiring work during the months when most high schools and colleges are off. It is a statement of intent. Plotted on a chart, the decline is unmistakable and, since the turn of the new century, precipitous–plummeting 15 points in 15 years, to where we are now: only about every third youth working or looking for work this summer.
All this as the nation’s job outlook is what economists describe as “full employment” and as employers display a hale appetite for summer help. In a national online survey for CareerBuilder.com conducted in February and March, 41% of companies said they planned to hire seasonal workers–up sharply from 29% in 2016. The annual survey captures more than numerical truth. Asked who they planned to bring on for the summer, the responses revealed an intimacy not usually captured in top-line statistics: 34% said they planned to hire a friend, 30% a family member and 19% said they were putting their kid on the payroll.
Like other classic summer jobs, the Jersey Shore boardwalks still rely on students, who are harder to find Krista Schlueter for TIMELike other classic summer jobs, the Jersey Shore boardwalks still rely on students, who are harder to findIt’s a measurable economic activity that may not even be that much about money. On June 26, former Vice President Joe Biden climbed back into the lifeguard chair where he spent the summer of 1962, as a suburban kid watching over an inner-city pool in Wilmington, Del. “I learned so, so much,” he said at the ceremony where the pool was renamed for him. Summer jobs are like that, a rite of passage looked back upon over the course of the life those eight or 12 weeks might frame–or stand memorably apart from.
“I worked in a movie theater when I was 16,” says Judy Schram, now 64, as her 7-year-old grandson Max dangles a fishing pole with a magnet instead of a hook over a gurgling stream of plastic fish on the Point Pleasant boardwalk. “I sold Christmas cards door-to-door. Oh, and I had a paper route–took it over from my big brother when I was 10. My parents wanted us to work. And we had chores. Nowadays it’s completely different. Kids don’t work now.”
The payroll offers at least partial confirmation: more and more, jobs historically done by vacationing students are being taken by older Americans forced to extend their working lives, or foreigners looking for their chance. At the same time, for many young Americans in the second decade of the 21st century, the choice is not between a summer job and a summer idyll. (Of course for many teenagers whose families need the money, not working during the summer is not an option.) The preoccupations of the heavily scheduled school year–college preparation, organized sports, volunteer work–are also determining what one does on summer vacation.
But not for all. It’s 15-year-old Madison Andrews who lands the plastic fish for Max, flips it over and explains he can have two small prizes or one medium. On the cusp of her sophomore year in high school, she is delighted with her first job. As a minor she’s paid only $6.50 an hour, but points out that she can go on the beach for free before her shift (in many parts of New Jersey, you have to pay).
“I love kids, and I also need money,” Andrews says. “I want to save up for a car.”
What’s changing in America? Not observations on kids these days. Polls confirm what the heart already knows: every generation thinks the one coming up behind it is at least a little bit spoiled. The sentiment is expressed first as aspiration–the desire to see your kids live better than you were able to–and then, if prosperity indeed arrives, as complaint. “Kids don’t work anymore,” says the manager of a company that struggles to recruit teen counselors for sleepaway camps, speaking privately to vent. “Mine are 12 and 14, and they want everything to be done for them.”
But what has most assuredly changed is how much more some of us are prospering compared with others. The rich are indeed getting richer–average income for the top 5% of households has reached $350,000 a year, with the upper middle class, defined as the top 20%, averaging $200,000. Everyone else in America more or less treads water.
On the Jersey Shore, the differences are visible not only at the boardwalks, but in the neighborhoods that butt up against them. The rows of one-story working-class rentals that novelist Richard Ford described as “little desperate houses” are being replaced, after the floods of Superstorm Sandy, by multistory palaces measuring 6,000 sq. ft. These lavish second homes are intended not just for changing clothes or naps between trips to the beach, but for an altogether more expansive vision of the good life, with floor-to-ceiling glass and Calphalon cookware hanging over the range.
This sorting of the U.S. population at least begins to account for the change in how teens are spending their summers. The BLS reports that, in a societal shift as slow (and as relentless) as the movement of tectonic plates, less affluent older workers are indeed delaying retirement and taking part-time jobs in fields, like food preparation, where teens are now working less. But the same market forces that require some to keep thinking about work later in life compels their grandchildren to begin thinking about it earlier and earlier.
The calculus begins with a question: What makes the biggest difference in a lifetime’s income? The answer has been shown to be higher education. A bachelor’s degree or higher pays a premium of more than 85%. Kids have been told this forever, and for the last couple of generations–the members of X and Y–preparation for success began in kindergarten. And those plans do not encourage passing July afternoons painting houses.
Some frame the choice as having a summer job or building a résumé Krista Schlueter for TIMESome frame the choice as having a summer job or building a résumé“It’s too competitive. There’s too much pressure,” says Dan Schawbel, author of a book titled Promote Yourself. “Getting into college is much harder than it was for boomers. Getting a job is really hard. So you’ve got to get started as early as possible.” Schawbel offers his own career track as an example. He got his own internship in high school (making cold calls), and followed that up the next summer with one designing brochures for a travel agency. Today he translates the workplace’s generation gaps through a company called Millennial Branding, which produces surveys like the one showing 77% of high school students are interested in volunteering to gain work experience. That is, working to put a line on a résumé, or college application, but no actual pay.
At the Jersey Shore, Wolf has noticed the trend on the boardwalk, when she tells the unpaid interns–kids with an eye toward a career in marketing–that their schedule can be fit around their other obligations. “They say, ‘No, I want to make these a priority,'” Wolf says.
The competitive college process, which has put a premium on students’ extracurricular and volunteering work, incentivizes this behavior. The National Honor Society, for example, has quotas for volunteer work.
Then there’s school. American kids are packing much more into their K-12 years than baby boomers ever did. Summer school, once seen as a punishment for laggards, now functions as an academic accelerator; 40% of 16-to-19-year-olds were enrolled in school last July, according to the BLS. It’s work that may not produce wages, but certainly counts as an investment–and, from the perspective of long-term returns, quite possibly the most efficient use of their time. As the BLS says: “Teen earnings are low and pay little toward the costs of college.”
All of which sketches a portrait of the modern student as a diligent careerist. Is it coincidental that, over the past decade or two, high school students left the summer-job market in exactly the same numbers as they swelled the ranks of colleges? Depends who you ask. On the Jersey Shore boardwalk, the U.S. students who are working for an hourly wage acknowledge the new exigencies with a nod. Then they offer a personal observation about teens who don’t work. These are their friends, after all.
“I think it’s the way you’ve been raised. They’re given things instead of working for them,” says Alana Masino, 20, working her sixth summer at Kohr’s Frozen Custard. She is studying education at nearby Georgian Court University. “I mean, I’ve taken summer classes and worked at the same time. So I think it’s a luxury.”
Out in the parking lot, wreathed in the citrusy odor of the sunscreen four young men are slathering on their torsos before heading across Ocean Avenue, some of those who’ve opted out explain why.
“I have my PCAT,” says Jim Fattal, 19, on why he hasn’t taken a paying job to fill the time between his first year and second year at Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences. The Pharmacy College Admission Test is what the LSAT is to law schools and the MCAT is to medical schools, and taking time off to study for it makes sense, Fattal says.
“For me,” says Maxx Oberti, also 19, “it’s because I’m actually going to be a flight instructor in Daytona Beach. Also, I’m always doing sports and stuff, so I never had time.” The expansion of youth sports into an all-consuming, year-round activity has thinned the ranks of prospective summer workers too. “I have sports during the summer,” says Jeffrey Bennett, 16, who points out he works at the Boys & Girls Club during the school year.
Of the four friends down for the day from Wayne Township, only Benjamin Coghlan, 19, took a summer job, working in sales at Bed Bath and Beyond; last year it was Babies “R” Us. “I’m doing it because I want to be a mechanical engineer,” Coghlan says. “They want experience everywhere, to show you can talk to people.”
None of the beach gang come from notably wealthy homes. Their parents are a cop and a nurse, a civil engineer and a homemaker, a pager technician. “I mean, my parents will pay for some stuff,” says Coghlan, “but they won’t let me just blow money.” With a glance toward the midway, he adds: “I would love a job like working at a boardwalk. But where we live, it’s working in a mall.”
It’s really not the same, is it? The galleria has contributed meaningful moments to the myth of American adolescence, but in warm weather, it’s the outdoors that beckon. The summer job, like the season and its velvety nights, is temporary if not fleeting. By tradition it is more about summer than about job, and more about living than about building a résumé, which may be why even miserable jobs can prove, in retrospect, of gemlike value. In a country with fewer and fewer social levelers–the draft ended in 1973–a college kid might learn more from a dozen weeks on a road crew than haunting any corporate suite, paid or not.
And if, in fact, the summer job is in decline, its essential value to the country is not. The proof of this is the sheer number of foreigners arriving to do it.
“I love this place. It feels like a movie,” says Karla Medina, taking a break from her job shucking oysters and shaping crab cakes above the Point Pleasant Beach boardwalk. She arrived in May from the Dominican Republic, where she is studying industrial engineering. Her bill of passage was a J-1 visa, one of about 300,000 work-study permissions the State Department issues in a year, after the usual vetting, to allow in foreign students for exchange programs–and also to fill the jobs American college kids don’t do. The Jenkinson’s Boardwalk has 113 guest workers this year, nearly twice as many as last year, working everywhere from arcades to garbage duty.
“The elimination of the J-1 program would devastate the overall tourist economy of the United States. It would have an absolutely brutal effect,” says Tom Diehl, president of the Tommy Bartlett Show, the marquee attraction of Wisconsin Dells, which relies on foreign workers for about half of its 10,000 employees.
Almost every tourist destination goes abroad to recruit each winter. Concessions from Yellowstone to Great America send agents through Bulgaria, Taiwan, the Philippines, Ecuador. U.S. ski resorts hire students from southern-hemisphere nations like Australia and Argentina, where summer breaks line up with the Christmas rush. About 15 years ago, Tommy Bartlett set up its own pipeline direct from Finland. “If anyone says these people are taking jobs away from Americans, they don’t know what they’re talking about,” Diehl says.
It’s a bargain all around. “The cost of studying abroad in somewhere like the U.S. is prohibitive,” says Phil Simon, a vice president at CIEE, a Portland, Maine, firm that lines up employers with foreign students. “But if you have the opportunity to hone your skills, work on your English and make a friend network, it’s very attractive.”
The downsides for the workers are fees to an agency and the cost of airfare. The upside? Earning at least minimum wage, which is better than back home, discounted housing and board, and the opportunity to experience the nation that looms large in TV and film almost everywhere in the world. The most enduring U.S. export after all remains popular culture. Last year, a boardwalk guest worker who grew up idolizing LeBron James drove from Point Pleasant Beach to Cleveland, scored an NBA Finals nosebleed seat and made it back in time for his shift.
In a nation of immigrants, they are hard to pick out by sight. But Chris Stewart, who handles HR for Jenkinson’s, points them out on a Thursday in June: a pair of newly arrived Romanian workers, still dazzled by the New York City skyline; three wide-eyed Taiwanese, just picked up from the airport. Stewart himself grew up in New Jersey, and thought he wanted to make it big on Wall Street. But after spending time there he realized there was more to life. As if to underscore the perspective one can glean over a summer, he heads over to a stand and comes back with Petar Zuzic, a handsome 25-year-old from Croatia, back for his second summer serving food to sunburned Americans. “Half the things people asked for, I’d never heard of,” he recalls of his first season. “‘Cheese steak,’ what’s that?”
He’s got his feet under him now, but still has a fresh eye for the telling cultural difference. He used to work summers in the local tourist industry of his hometown, on the Adriatic Sea, but the pace wasn’t nearly as fast. School was different too. He’s studying law, which in Croatia you can do for free if your keep up your grades. “Here it’s quite a difference experience, of course. It’s entirely out of my field,” Zuzic says of his seasonal employment in America. “You get other points of view. It’s valuable.”
And after all, who ever took a summer job just for the money?
–With reporting by MERRILL FABRY/NEW YORK

This appears in the July 10, 2017 issue of TIME.