SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
jobs
The US Fails Young People by Mobilizing for War, Not Jobs
A country is not secure simply because it can strike targets, protect bases, or surge forces across oceans. It is secure when its people can see a future worth defending.
May 22, 2026
Washington usually measures American decline in external terms: China’s rise, Russia’s revisionism, strained alliances, and military crises in the Middle East. But one of the clearest warnings is coming from inside the United States. In 2025, only 43% of Americans ages 15 to 34 said it was a good time to find a job where they lived, 21 points below Americans 55 and older. In no other surveyed country was the generational gap this wide.
That finding should unsettle a country that is still speaking the language of primacy. Young Americans are not turning gloomy because they have forgotten how to be optimistic. They are reading the economy in front of them. Youth unemployment stood at 9.5% in April. Renter cost burdens hit a record 22.7 million households in 2024. The share of first-time home buyers fell to a record-low 21%, while the median first-time buyer’s age rose to 40. For a generation told that education, discipline, and work would translate into stability, the bargain looks broken.
This is not only a domestic story. It is also a foreign policy failure, because budgets reveal what a government treats as urgent. The Defense Department’s 2026 request totaled $961 billion, among the largest inflation-adjusted requests of the past half century. Additional military-related funding has pushed “national defense” spending beyond $1 trillion. The point is not that every dollar spent on the Pentagon could be mechanically converted into a job, an apartment, or a mortgage. The point is that Washington still knows how to mobilize at scale—but most reliably when the beneficiaries are weapons programs, contractors, and permanent military infrastructure.
The war with Iran has made that imbalance harder to ignore. By May, the US campaign had cost an estimated $29 billion, including operations and equipment repair or replacement. The conflict has also disrupted energy flows through one of the world’s most important corridors, raising the risk that households already squeezed by rent, debt, insurance, and food costs will face still more pressure. For young workers, “foreign policy” is not abstract when it comes back as higher prices, lower confidence, and another delay in leaving home.
If Washington continues to protect an empire more energetically than it protects the next generation’s prospects, the damage will not remain hidden in surveys.
Washington often treats these costs as unfortunate side effects of leadership. They are better understood as evidence of an outdated model of security. A country is not secure simply because it can strike targets, protect bases, or surge forces across oceans. It is secure when its people can see a future worth defending. A state that can finance escalation faster than housing, debt relief, or public investment teaches its younger citizens a bleak lesson: Their insecurity is manageable, but imperial credibility is an emergency.
A serious foreign policy would start from that recognition. It would pursue diplomacy with Iran rather than convert each crisis into a test of dominance. It would restore the congressional role in decisions of war and peace. It would subject military spending to the same moral and fiscal scrutiny imposed on social programs. And it would treat economic security at home as part of national security, not as an afterthought to be discussed after the next supplemental defense bill.
This is not a call for withdrawal from the world. It is a call to abandon the habit of confusing militarization with responsibility. The United States can cooperate, mediate, trade, provide humanitarian assistance, and support climate resilience without treating armed escalation as the default proof of seriousness. In fact, a foreign policy built around restraint would be more credible abroad precisely because it would be more defensible at home.
The warning from young Americans is not just that the job market feels weak. It is that the future feels rationed. If Washington continues to protect an empire more energetically than it protects the next generation’s prospects, the damage will not remain hidden in surveys. It will appear in politics, institutions, and the country’s declining ability to persuade anyone—including its own citizens—that American power still serves a public purpose. The real measure of decline is not only what rivals do to the United States. It is what the United States keeps choosing to do to itself.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Landmark Study Finds Trump’s Mass Deportation Agenda Is Costing Americans Jobs
"We see no evidence that employers increase wages to attract US-born workers to fill these jobs in the face of immigration enforcement."
May 19, 2026
A landmark study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research has found that President Donald Trump's mass deportation operations are actually costing Americans jobs, contrary to the White House's frequent claims that its anti-immigration agenda is helping US workers.
The NBER study, which was published last month and reported on by The New York Times Tuesday, claims to provide "the first national, causal empirical evidence on the labor market impacts of immigration enforcement in the second Trump administration," and finds that mass deportations have not resulted in more job offers for native-born Americans.
In fact, the study identifies "a negative and significant impact on employment of US-born male workers with at most a high-school education" who are working in industries that employ the most undocumented immigrants, including construction, agriculture, and manufacturing.
The study finds that instead of hiring more US-born workers in the absence of available undocumented workers—who may have been deported, left the country to avoid deportation, or have stayed home out of fear of immigration raids—employers are more likely to simply slow down economic activity altogether, which has a cascading impact on related industries.
"We see no evidence that employers increase wages to attract US-born workers to fill these jobs in the face of immigration enforcement," the researchers explain. "Instead, our results are consistent with employers reducing labor demand overall, including for jobs more often taken by US-born workers."
The NBER researchers also say that undocumented workers are more often than not complements to US workers, as they "are more likely than US-born individuals to work in jobs that are less desirable due to lower pay, on the job hazards, and irregular schedules."
University of Colorado, Boulder economist Chloe East, who co-authored the NBER study, told the New York Times on Tuesday that construction firms "view it as easier to reduce production, reduce the construction of new homes and new buildings in general, rather than try to increase wages for US-born workers."
East said that this would likely hurt efforts to build more housing in the US, telling the Times that "I assume we're going to see... a long-term shock to the construction sector" due to Trump's mass deportations.
Anirban Basu, chief economist at the Associated Builders and Contractors national trade organization, told the Times that he wasn't surprised by the finding that aggressive immigration raids shut down projects rather than open up new work for native-born Americans.
"Given high interest rates, given rising material prices and fewer people available to provide roofing, tiling, carpeting, and other flooring services," Basu said, "it renders fewer projects financially viable."
NPER's study echoes an analysis released last month by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), which found that unemployment for US-born workers has increased since the start of Trump's second term, as the federal government has carried out its draconian deportation operations.
"Claims that mass deportations have helped US-born workers are simply inconsistent with the data," EPI wrote. "This is no surprise, given that economic research has repeatedly shown that increased immigration enforcement harms everyone in the labor market, including US-born workers."
Keep ReadingShow Less
California's Tom Steyer Proposes Jobs Guarantee for Workers Displaced by AI
"Most politicians still fail to recognize or downplay the threat of AI to workers, at the behest of Silicon Valley," said one veteran labor organizer.
May 08, 2026
In a first for a statewide candidate, California gubernatorial contender Tom Steyer on Friday proposed the creation of a wealth fund that would be paid into by artificial intelligence companies, with the money being used to fund jobs in key sectors of the economy.
The billionaire hedge fund founder-turned-environmental advocate, who has come out in support of a proposed tax on billioionaires' wealth and a single-payer healthcare system for the state and has described himself as a "class traitor," told Wired about his proposal to use a "token tax" to fund what he called the Golden State Sovereign Wealth Fund.
Big Tech companies would be taxed “a fraction of a cent for every unit of data processed” for AI uses, and some of the money directed to the fund through the taxation plan would be earmarked for jobs for people who lost employment due to the expansion of AI.
Jobs in healthcare, housing construction, and modernizing the state's energy infrastructure would be prioritized in the fund.
Steyer told Wired the plan would make California "the first major economy in the world" to guarantee jobs to people who have been displaced by AI.
“People all over this state are terrified that AI is going to hollow out this whole economy and they’re going to lose their jobs. Young people are worried they’ll never get a job,” Steyer told Wired. “We believe this can be an amazing transformational technology in many ways, but we’re not in the business of leaving people in California behind.”
The outplacement firm Challenger, Gray, and Christmas released a report Thursday showing that for the second straight month, AI was the leading reason companies cited for laying off workers. AI-related job cuts accounted for 26% of the 88,387 layoffs the firm recorded, with 21,490 people losing their jobs due to AI.
“Technology companies continue to announce large-scale cuts and are leading all industries in layoff announcements. They are also often citing AI spend and innovation. Regardless of whether individual jobs are being replaced by AI, the money for those roles is,” said Andy Challenger, chief revenue officer for Challenger, Gray, and Christmas.
Last October, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) released an analysis showing that AI and automation could eliminate nearly 100 million jobs in a decade—yet President Donald Trump and the Republican Party are aggressively pushing to stop states from regulating the industry.
Trump signed an executive order late last year calling on the Department of Justice to create an AI Litigation Task Force, which would target laws and proposals to require studies on the impact of AI on jobs, protect people from AI companion chatbots, and regulate the technology in other ways.
“Not regulating AI doesn’t seem remotely reasonable,” Steyer said Friday.
At a debate earlier this week, Steyer said AI cannot be allowed to "create 12 trillionaires and millions of people who lose their jobs."
"The number-one thing that we have to do is make sure AI is a tool for workers and not a replacement of workers," he said. "And we absolutely need to own part of it."
We can't let AI create 12 trillionaires and millions of people who lose their jobs. The people of California need to share in the wealth AI creates. pic.twitter.com/ts2Ru1J5IX
— Tom Steyer (@TomSteyer) May 6, 2026
Charles Idelson, former communications director for National Nurses United, applauded Steyer for "addressing a growing danger for California's working class."
"Most politicians still fail to recognize or downplay the threat of AI to workers, at the behest of Silicon Valley," said Idelson.
Steyer said in a memo that in addition to protecting Californians from job loss, the fund created by the token tax would "strengthen the foundation of the state’s economy, invest in our communities, and create beautiful, vibrant public spaces."
“To support these efforts," said the campaign, "Tom will also invest heavily in training and apprenticeship programs across the state.”
Steyer's plan for AI also includes an expansion of unemployment insurance and the creation of the AI Worker Protection Administration that would adopt new rules to protect workers' rights as AI continues to develop.
Devin Murphy, director for digital mobilization for Steyer's campaign, said the state faces a "defining question" after its tech industry helped build the AI economy: "Who benefits from it?"
"Tom Steyer is putting forward one of the first serious plans to ensure AI strengthens the middle class," said Murphy, "instead of hollowing it out."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular