Interesting — if slightly familiar-sounding — article from The Guardian this past week: Generation Game. It’s all kind of a cliché at this point (”They are nicknamed the diva generation - high maintenance, out for themselves, lacking in loyalty, thinking only in the short-term and their own place in it.”) but they do touch on a theme I’ve been seeing a lot lately:

Some see the debate as pie in the sky. “The suggestion that Generation Y isn’t just different by degrees, but that this is a disruptive generation, is clearly constructed by someone who doesn’t remember the mods and rockers, the teddy boys, the hippies, the punks and the student revolutions in 1968 Paris,” says Valerie Garrow, associate direct of the Institute for Employment Studies.

I struggle with this idea, because there’s a ring of truth to it. I doubt any young generation in history has conformed easily. What makes Generation Y so different, when every other generation has essentially had to give-in and start playing the same game that’s been going on for years.

The boomers speak loudly about this, because they were quintessentially counter-culture. They were so loud and unwilling to conform that we still make movies about their exploits and adventures in the 60s. But look at them now: they’re Gen Y’s bosses, whining about our lack of ‘work ethic’ and our damned iPods.

Will history, in effect, repeat itself?

I can’t answer that definitively. My time machine is mostly useless. But my gut says it won’t. I think some sectors will see more change than others, but I think overall Gen Y will work as a change effect across the board. Primarily, it’s demographics. We’re in a climate where employees are given little alternative but to look closely at Generation Y when hiring for prime positions. (This goes a long way to explain why we’re so often described as cocky and brash, too.)

More than just demographics, though, I think one of our chief qualitative differences is that we, as a generation, find our nonconformist roots not in anything societal or political but rather (mostly) technological. It’s a little less noble, but more laden with potential.

With the 60s, business didn’t have any real need to change to accommodate younger workers. Because they didn’t really need them. And, well, the changes the then younger generation was asking for seemed so out-of-this-world. The boomers asked for change, but it was not specific — it wasn’t backed up with real, tangible solutions.

Technology is the game changer, because technology is change. For better or for worse, all of business is going through change as a result, and now, as a Generation, younger workers have the opportunity to drive that change.

That’s new. That’s different. That’s powerful.

I don’t know a whole lot about being a police officer, likely because I am badly out of shape and kind of a wuss when it comes to the idea of tackling criminals or what have you, but officer.com has an article on Gen Y and the Millennials coming on to the police force that’s very interesting. There are parts I agree with and parts I strenuously disagree with.

Let’s take this point-by-point.

On demographics

Generation Y and the new Millenials that will be crossing your doorway looking for a job. Yes I said job, not necessarily a career, but a job. They may not stay; in fact it is likely they won’t. In the 1980s when I graduated from high school there was one job for every four students. Going to some post secondary school was a better option to wait and see if more jobs opened up. Today, there are four jobs for every student and the new graduates of high school and post secondary institutions have their pick. You may or may not be one of them.

I see these “4 for 1″ stats a lot, but I’m not sure I’ve ever seen the source. It seems pretty accurate, though, at least in the sense of all that it implies: this is a generation of employees that isn’t going to bend over backwards for you just because they want to keep their job.

On stereotyping

In comes Generation Y (1978-1994). These are our junior constables or new recruits. They have a casual attitude towards superiors and are opinionated and challenge the rules. Their parents were older when they had them and were more babied by their parents. They lived at home late in life - and may still live at home while working for you. They belonged to schools where you were never failed, there was no winner or loser and everyone got a “participant ribbon” just for showing up.

Some good and some bad here. Yeah, Gen Y tends to live at home longer. Often because their parents suggest they do until they can buy a house — there’s a pervasive “renting is throwing your money away” myth at work here. But I think this “participant ribbon” article falls fully into the realm of fantasy myth: I do recall there being things like that at various events, but even as an 11-year-old I knew not to take them very seriously. And there were still ribbons for first/second/third place, too.

I think you’d find it really difficult to find a member of Generation Y who doesn’t, when you get right down to it, have a good sense of what competition means. I think the difference is that we’ve been conditioned to see ‘winning’ as something else entirely than what the Boomers/Gen X are used to.

Here’s a hint: it’s not all about money.

On Gen Y’s future in policing

So now what? Flexible Management Leadership. Demographics don’t lie. Birth rates are down, retirement is up. There is more demand for people in management roles and a dwindling pool of talent for policing. 3% of young people think of policing as a career. 63% never would consider policing as a career. That leaves 34% undecided. It’s time to wake up and reposition ourselves as the employer of choice. Change is not a sign of failure and the failure to change in this case is not an option.

I think by and large policing is going to see the same problem that the skilled trades do now: teachers don’t tell their students about it, so students don’t consider it. There’s also the pop culture stigma: chart the evolution of the cop TV show from the 70s to now. It’s a lot grittier, and I can’t really think of a television police officer who is actually, you know, happy with their jobs.

But the change part is so critical. If I’ve hammered home anything on this blog since I started writing it is that change is at the foundation of real intergenerational progress in the workplace. It’s a bit of give & take, sure, but fundamentally I think most of the change has to come at the management and organizational level.

Photo by nyc arthur. Licensed under Creative Commons

I don’t really know much about author Mark Bauerlein or his book The Dumbest Generation: How The Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future but my initial impression is not a good one.

Bauerlein recently contributed a Boston Globe piece on 8 reasons why this is the dumbest generation that achieves the rare double-feat of being both incredibly out-of-touch and remarkably ironic — it’s a piece that hopes to demonstrate how dumb, vacant and empty-headed Generation Y (and Gen Z, or Generation TBD, or whatever) is made up entirely of stock photos and three-sentence descriptors.

In any case, I think it’s supposed to be pithy and somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but even allowing for that it’s mostly stupid. So, in response, here are eight reasons why this is the smartest generation, presented without stock-photos and not split up across nine different pages.

They’re more politically & socially involved than ever before

Bauerlein writes that this generation is “encased in more immediate realities that shut out conditions beyond — friends, work, clothes, cars, pop music, sitcoms, Facebook.” This immediately brings to light the biggest problem with his arguments: while he claims to be criticizing this generation, he’s really just criticizing teenagers. Do teenagers tend to be egotistical and caught up in the goings-on of their own lives to the point of melodrama? They sure do. Is this a new phenomenon? Not at all.

Hell, the fact that Bauerlein thinks this generation is preoccupied by sitcoms shows how out-of-touch he is.

The big point is this, though: our generation is more politically involved and socially-conscious than ever before. Check out these stats from a USA Today article:

61% of 13- to 25-year-olds feel personally responsible for making a difference in the world, suggests a survey of 1,800 young people to be released today. It says 81% have volunteered in the past year; 69% consider a company’s social and environmental commitment when deciding where to shop, and 83% will trust a company more if it is socially/environmentally responsible. The online study — by two Boston-based companies, Cone Inc. and AMP Insights — suggests these millennials are “the most socially conscious consumers to date.”

They spend way less time watching TV and more time reading

Bauerlein trots out the old “Kids don’t READ any more!” argument, referring specifically to books. And, sure, books don’t sell great — they’re on the decline. But that doesn’t mean Gen Y doesn’t read. In fact, whereas the boomers and Gen X tended to employ television as their major source of media, Gen Y is turning to the internet. And even with advances in video & audio online, you know how the vast majority of the internet is experienced? By reading.

From an article in World News Australia:

The survey, commissioned by social networking website MySpace and conducted by UK-based analyst The Future Laboratory, found a quarter of 18 to 24-year-olds had reduced their television watching in favour of social networking on the web.

They have massive networks to call upon

Bauerlein brings up the abundance of typos, abbreviations and misspellings in IM and Texting communication as a point to prove this is a ‘dumb generation’. I don’t much like that kind of typing either, but it’s hardly a sign of ‘dumbness’. In fact, most of these short-forms emerge because Gen Y is trying to cultivate an absolutely astronomical number of friendships and relationships.

The networking we’re seeing with young people today is unprecedented and of incredible value to business. Whereas in the past people didn’t start building their networks until they were in their late teens or early twenties, this generation is establishing these connections at 12 years old.

They have a worldwide platform for expressing themselves creatively

Bauerlein makes the ridiculous argument that “On MySpace, if you write clearly and compose coherent paragraphs with informed observations on history and current events, ‘buddies’ will make fun of you.” I’m really not sure where he’s getting this, unless he’s hanging out in some really stupid corners of the internet.

One of the benefits to social networks, blogs and other online platforms is that young people can and do share their thoughts and ideas on everything from TV to video games to politics. The opportunity to make yourself visible at a young age leads to career and portfolio opportunities that were roadblocked before. Just look at the legion of bloggers who have found book deals.

They seek entertainment that’s active, not passive

Bauerlein points to the blockbuster sales of Grand Theft Auto 4 as a reason for this generation’s ‘dumbness’, but he doesn’t offer much in the way of argument. I’d make the argument that Gen Y’s appetite for video games as opposed to television or movies is a sign of intelligence, not anti-intellectualism.

Gen Y demands interactivity with their media. TV shows like Lost have derived popularity from the fact that fans love to come online and talk about them — develop theories and look for clues. Even American Idol, a show that takes a lot of crap for lacking substance, succeeds with youth because they feel like they can be a part of it.

Involvement, in a lot of respects, IS intelligence. There’s a lot more to be derived from playing Grand Theft Auto 4 than, say, watching an episode of Miami Vice.

They have quick access to an astounding amount of information

Bauerlein, again, makes a confusing argument: “Digital natives, however, go to the Internet not to store knowledge in their minds, but to retrieve material and pass it along. The Internet is just a delivery system.”

I don’t really know what he’s getting at, but that may be because I’m not storing enough knowledge in my mind. I just keep giving all my knowledge away to my online buddies!

One of my favourite archetypical Gen Y traits is their ability to quickly settle an argument. A group of people will be sitting around a table wondering, say, who Bob Dole’s Vice Presidential candidate was and suddenly, within seconds, someone will have pulled the answer from their laptop or cellphone. This tends to mystify the hell out of a lot of baby boomers.

If Gen Y memorizes less information, it’s because we know how to wield the enormous repository of information that is the internet.

They’re forcing huge changes in education

Education is a topic I’m passionate about, and there’s no doubt that a lot needs to change in the way teachers approach their Gen Y, and younger, students, but Bauerlein’s argument that we’re in an “era of child-centered classrooms and self-esteem grading” is just tired. Especially since nobody is really able to prove that today’s students are really lacking in the smarts department globally:

According to Reena Nadler, program director of LifeCourse Associates, a marketing and human resources consultancy in Great Falls, Virginia, founded by generational experts Neil Howe and William Strauss, the millennial generation is turning the clichés on their heads. “Student achievement is rising,” says Nadler, a millennial herself. Today’s youth dedicate more hours to their studies and extracurricular activities than previous generations did.

I think there’s very real issues that arise when the students are digital natives and the teachers barely know how to turn a computer on, and we’re seeing the fruits of that, but that doesn’t imply there’s anything inherently wrong with this generation. That they’re forcing change in the way education happens is actually a testament to their abilities.

Because we’re young

It looks like Bauerlein just plain runs out of arguments with his eighth point. He probably should have just gone with seven reasons. Seven is lucky. His eighth argument is simply “because they’re young.” And young people are… stupid.

He’s sort of right, actually. Young people lack experience and, indeed, tend to be egocentric and melodramatic and prone to screwing up (all part of learning). But youth also brings with it, by its very nature, an incredibly wellspring of potential, which is what a lot of companies are just starting to realize:

“We have the best qualified generation since history,” says Patricia Vendramin, a sociologist at the Work & Technology Research Centre of the Fondation Travail-Université in Namur, Belgium. Millennials get work experience early, they’re flexible, they’re willing to relocate, and they’re open-minded, she adds. Also, “they are very skilled at using technology” and they’re true team players, Redmond says.

So much left to say

It’s unfortunate that authors like Bauerlein are able to draw booksales by treading on the same old “kids are stupid” ground so many others have walked for decades. I bet when he was younger there were older people saying he was dumb, too. You would think that experience would have taught him better than trotting out this the-kids-aren’t-alright nonsense. But, then, maybe those calling him dumb back then just happened to be right.

Thanks to the Brazeen Careerist Forum for the link to this article.

I saw Richard Florida do a Q&A at the book launch event for his latest — Who’s Your City? — last week. Up until then, Florida was one of those guys I had read and heard a bunch about, but never seen in the flesh. He looks a lot like you would expect a guy from New Jersey to look like. Sure, he’s a respected academic but he honestly wouldn’t look too out of place as an extra on an episode of The Sopranos.

He’s also brilliant.

I’ve yet to read Who’s Your City? but in the one-hour Q&A session he shared a number of ideas and themes from the book that are of particular relevance to Generation Y. I thought I’d share them here.

Where you live = most important decision of your life

Florida takes a different tact than Thomas Friedman and his belief that the World is Flat. He agrees that there is globalization and that we are seeing a diffusion of the labour pool across the world, but he also points out that, as this is happening, we’ll still see pockets of talent intensify in certain areas — cities — ultimately creating a labour market that is more spiky than it is flat.

So where you choose to live is still critically important, not only because that’s where the money will be, but also because that’s where the people will be. Florida points out that increasingly people are making decisions on where to live based on a city’s “personality” — the creative scene, the number of single people, etc. It’s not as simple as just “going where jobs are” — the city has to fit.

A lot of cities are missing the boat

Florida’s aroused controversy in the U.S. (and praise in Canada) due to his stated belief that the U.S. is going in the wrong direction and does not have many true ‘creative’ cities. (A lot of this seems to be motivated by his political views, but I don’t necessarily think that’s an irrelevant basis at all.) He points out that a lot of the US is littered with cities that were built on the backs of one industry (ie. manufacturing) and are now empty shells. Further, he says that there are cities that are actively booming currently that are likely destined for a similar fate, especially in the developing world (China, India, Brazil, etc.)

Cities that are destined for real success are those that work to establish their own ‘personality’ and a lot of that, he maintains, has to do with supporting creative industries. If a city isn’t appealing to artists, writers, musicians, stage performers, and so on, it’s not on the right track.

Helping the Valleys

Florida cautioned several times that the overarching message to the book wasn’t a positive one. One of the side-effects of the ’spiky world’ will be that a lot of places will be stuck in metaphorical valleys — left without economic engines to power them, they’ll stagnate. (And the smart young Gen Y workers with talent will leave in droves for the cities at the peaks.)

He does point out, though, that sometimes it only takes one person or company to raise up a whole geographic area. The obvious examples are Silicon Valley in California and Waterloo in Canada, which were both turned into major economic hubs due to IT companies moving in, but there’s a little bit more to it than just a visionary or two coming to town: what really drives these people to establish their companies in these locations is the previous existence of talented people, ready to come work for them. To get those talented people to come, and stay, it’s important that municipal, provincial/state and federal governments put a strong emphasis in two areas: education and the arts.

Without them, you have no hook.

I’ve already written a bit about electronic books and the notion of a paperless world, but Todd Shultz got me thinking about the topic again in a different light.

If you haven’t noticed already, all mediums are starting to shift towards the internet. People are actually spending more time on the internet than watching TV. (I know I do) The internet is too great a location for advertisers to ignore. I am inclined to believe that print media will suffer a lot in the coming years. Who needs a newspaper when you can go on to CNN.com? Perezhilton.com has all of the tabloid lovers. Anything you can find on the newstands, you can probably find on a blog or a website.

This is pretty much impossible to dispute. Circulation on magazines is way down and book sales have been mostly flat. I guess it makes sense, then, that the question everyone is asking is this: is print dead?

The Difference Between Death and Irrelevance

Erin and I have had lots of conversation about this topic (we both tend to side with the “yes, dying or dead” camp, for what it’s worth) but lately I’ve been thinking about the idea of print as an industry in a whole new light. The battle lines have been drawn as print-versus-technology but that’s not really apt, when you get right down to it. Because consumers aren’t buying the material — the paper, the ink, the glass, the microchips, the whatever — they’re buying the stories.

Products should be defined based on why the user buys or needs them, not based on the physical materials that make up the product. An example: We don’t (or, more accurately, didn’t) buy audio CDs because we liked the shiny colourful back surface or the way it spun in the player. We bought audio CDs because we wanted to hear music.

Painting the battle as print-versus-technology is akin to vinyl-versus-CD or, hell, buying coke in a plastic bottle versus a glass bottle. In either case, the product is the same. Schultz points that out perfectly in his post: the stuff on the internet is the same product as the stuff on the newsstand (or on TV).

No funeral march for ink and paper

The technology isn’t there yet, so we’re still a ways away from the true shift from print to purely tech-based content. But it’s looming, and anyone who claims otherwise is probably burying their head in the sand. And this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Like with any shift, the only people who will be hurt or left behind by the shift are those who refuse to see it coming.

The market still wants the product — they want news and gossip, comedy and drama, fiction and non-fiction, art and pornography — but now it will be beamed to them, through devices that sit on a desk or fit in a hand (some of these devices might look just like paper). And, yes, this draws all sorts of questions about monetizing and content customization and the dynamics of publishing-as-business but the bottom line is simply this: people still want what publishers are selling. You’ll be okay.

What Gen Y should do

One of the most changed dynamics will be the ‘opening up’ of the content creation process. Whereas in the past writing went through a sort of ‘funnel’ through editors, publishers and printers before making it to the public, we’re at a place now where any business can make themselves visible instantly. For most organizations, then, a good, solid, web-savvy writer is going to be nothing short of a weapon. Remember that as you build your skills for your career.

Photo by oskay. Licensed under Creative Commons

Last week’s Entertainment Weekly has a big article on the ratings for this year’s Oscars ceremony, which were the lowest they’ve ever been. I can’t find the exact article on EW’s website, but here’s one that covers roughly the same ground.

There’s a lot of stupid conclusions people are making about why less people are watching the Oscars. For example:

Some of these movies are just too difficult for a mass audience, frankly. And if we have moved into an era where there’s this dichotomy between big popular studio movies and smaller pictures for more specialized audiences, we may just have to get used to smaller audiences [for the Oscar telecast.]

I don’t buy it. Most people have never tuned into the Oscars to watch their favourite movies win awards, rooting for the ones they feel close to like they would their favourite football team. Instead, they’ve traditionally tuned in because it’s a spectacle: a long, star-studded, gala event with jokes, dancing, montages, shadow puppets, etc.

And the reason the ratings are declining is, I’d argue, due to a very Gen Y shift from passive viewing to active on-demand acquisition of content.

The thing about this year’s Oscar’s ceremony is that, even if I missed the entire show, I can still easy view all the best moments. As early as the next morning, youtube was full of them. I can spend a half hour, see all the best stuff, and not feel like I wasted four hours of a Sunday night sitting through the award for Sound Editing.

It’s a smarter way of accessing entertainment, and the Y generation is doing it in incredible numbers. From downloading a show via iTunes to skip commercials, to using Tivo to record events and allow us to skip around, the motivation is to be entertained on our terms.

This is an attitude that will extend to your workplace, too. Your Gen Y employees will be likely to grumble about that all-day meeting you have planned: why can’t you just e-mail out some notes that they can view on their own time? Why sit in a room together and create that proposal document when it can be broken up and tackled in smaller, more valuable pieces?

Asking Generation Y to sit in one place for a long time will always be a challenge, and it doesn’t have (that much) to do with shorter attention spans and trumped up ADD diagnoses. Instead, it’s more a quest of defiance of tradition, always asking this question: why do it that way when we can do it this way, faster, and get the same result?

Photo by NMCIL ortiz domney. Licensed under Creative Commons

37signals, makers of great software, recently posted a series of experimental changes they’ve made within their office. As a small company, some would argue it’s far easier for them to implement such changes than it would be for companies of 100+ employees, but that argument seems more than a little defeatist. History is littered with broke companies who couldn’t implement change because of risk or difficulty.

37signals’ changes are below, accompanied by some comments from me.

Shorter Work Weeks

So recently we’ve instituted a four-day work week as standard. We take Fridays off. We’re around for emergencies, and we still do customer service/support on Fridays, but other than that work is not required on Fridays.

Three-day weekends mean people come back extra refreshed on Monday. Three-day weekends mean people come back happier on Monday. Three-day weekends mean people actually work harder and more efficiently during the four-day work week.

I will continue to hammer on this issue until more people start listening.

I’m a big proponent of ignoring tradition in favour of simple reasoning. People need to constantly question the things they do habitually, with an eye toward this question: why am I doing this? If the answer is “because that’s the way it is” or, worse, “because everyone else is” then something is fundamentally broken.

I’d very much argue that the 9-to-5, Monday to Friday work week is fundamentally broken.

Funding people’s passions

We decided that 37signals would help people pay for their passions, interests, or other curiosities. We want our people to experience new things, discover new hobbies, and generally be interesting people.

[...]

Part of the deal is that if 37signals helps you pay, you have to share what you’ve learned with everyone.

This is one of those things that seems to offer such an obvious, explosive benefit but, in my estimation, it’s something that is rarely, if ever, considered, especially at the “enterprise” (a word that doesn’t mean anything) level. I think the reason this is overlooked is because it requires a shift in thinking about your employees.

An employer who just regards his office as a collection of positions that need to be filled so work can be accomplished will never even consider a move like this. A more brazen man might call these ‘doomed employers’. What makes 37signals such a leader in this sphere is that they see their office as a collection of people — creative, motivated and talented — who generate ideas and products.

Thinking that way, it makes all kinds of sense for an employer to fund programs, courses, etc. that undoubtedly spark creative thinking. Asking them to share it back with the group is just the icing on the cake.

Discretionary spending accounts

We’re in the process of giving everyone at 37signals a credit card. If you want a book or some software or you want to go to a conference, it’s on us. We just ask people to be reasonable with their spending.

Of all of these, this is the one that I can see as problematic for larger employers. But then, maybe the optimal model for a larger employer is to break their employees up into small teams, a la 37signals? In either case, combatting the “but what about abuse?” argument is simple: if you can’t reasonably trust your established employees not to go crazy with a company credit card, why are you trusting them at all?

And if you’re not trusting them at all, what the hell they are doing all day?

And so

Simple changes make all the difference in these cases. An employer who implements these changes has instantly established three core values that are important to Generation Y: flexibility, growth and trust. (More on those in this post.)

If you’re an employer or manager and you’re shaking your head while reading this, then, sure, maybe these specific changes aren’t for your workplace. Regardless of that, however, the core values behind these changes need to be apparent in your office. Otherwise you’re sunk.

Photo by Larsz. Licensed under Creative Commons

This post at Impressions Through Media got me think about the common practice of typing major historical events to each of the generational groups. (I do it myself on the about page, even.)

In her post at Impressions Through Media, Kathy Greer mentions the death of JFK and his son as generational touchstones:

This was a basis for a discussion that took place in KGA, Inc.’s training program on Managing Generational Differences. Karen Shaw, Senior Training Consultant, asked participants to recall how and where Kennedy died. The Traditionalists and Baby Boomers say things like gunshots in Dallas, Texas; Generation Xers recall a plane crash near Martha’s Vineyard, Mass. and Generation Y participants say they really are not too sure.

It’s hard to argue with the JFK assassination and the Vietnam War as touchstone moments for the boomers, just as Nixon/Watergate and Reaganomics tend to typify Gen X. That these are all American touchstones is notable, but not really objectionable: American culture is so pervasive news coming out of it tends to have an encompassing global impact. Other countries still have their own national touchstone moments (For Canada, I’d point to Trudeaumania and the FLQ stuff as the obvious ones from the last 50 years) but American events tend to be at the core.

That said, Generation Y is hard to pin down. I hear 9/11 bandied about a lot, but that event, and the War on Terror after-effects, may find a stronger association with the generation coming after us. To really pin some history on Y, we have to look at the 1990s which, honestly, were a relatively quiet decade in terms of world-making events.

Some possibilities include:

• The Clinton impeachment
• Columbine
• Princess Diana Death
• O.J. Trial
• Rise of the internet
• Oklahoma City Bombing
• The quick rise and fall of ‘Grunge’ music
• 2000 Presidential Election Controversy

I think we have to look at the rise of the internet as our pivotal game-changing event, as it led to all the gadgets and connectivity that defines us at work now, but I may be biased by my nerdiness and love of all things digital. It’d be interesting to hear what others think.

I’m an outside voice on American politics, but the 2008 election definitely has my attention, largely due to the involvement of Barack Obama. Obama is the most interesting political candidate I’ve ever seen. He’s more exciting than the rest of the candidates in the running for the Democratic and Republican nominations, and he’s a great deal more inspiring than any major politician we’ve seen here in Canada in the last twenty years.

Recent polls show that I’m not alone in my support, as not only is Obama leading amongst 18-29 year-old eligible voters, he’s also inspiring young people to come out and vote in record numbers:

This time, they are proving their passion at the polls. Young voters have turned out in record numbers for the first two state contests, Iowa and New Hampshire, spurring some candidates to step up their outreach. Turnout of 18- to 29-year-olds in Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary climbed to 43 percent of eligible voters, compared with 18 percent in 2004 and 28 percent in 2000, according to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement at the University of Maryland. In Iowa, 22 percent of all caucusgoers were under 30, compared with only 9 percent in 2000.

Those are huge increases, especially considering the dubious and rather esoteric nature of the primary system. I think it’s likely you’ll see an even stronger showing from young voters in the general election in November. Especially if Obama gets the nomination.

Photo by Daniella Zaclman. Licensed under Creative Commons

The Toronto Star website is hosting a pdf document called “A Streetcar Toronto Desires” which offers opinions from TTC Chair Adam Giambrone, Transit Advocate Steve Munro and long-time rider Janet May on the City of Toronto’s currently-in-the-works Transit City plan.

Mass Transit is going to pop up fairly frequently as a topic on this blog, both in Toronto and around the world, as I think it’s a vital piece contributing to the success of Gen Y in the workforce. Our pattern has already proven to be different than previous generations, especially as the suburban dream home is generally no longer thought of as the be-all and end-all. Younger workers are choosing downtown condos over isolated cul-de-sacs in droves, which puts an increased emphasis on urban and regional rail transit.

And, of course, with a changing job market that looks to feature a shortage of talented workers, your Y employees are going to be less likely to tolerate (or even consider) a 2-hour highway commute.

Toronto has, at least a little bit, started to understand the critical importance mass transit has on business, and implemented the Transit City plan, amongst other improvements. Other cities will definitely need to keep up if they want to attract talented workers and drive economic success.

Photo by ~AJ. Licensed under Creative Commons