We inspire citizens and leaders to make progress on issues through civil public discourse. We are a citizen-led nonprofit that inspires action on polarizing issues by bringing prominent leaders with opposing views together in public forums to find common ground. Free of political agenda and financial influence, our singular focus is bringing light, not heat, to public discourse.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Why a College Degree No Longer Guarantees a Good Job
Jul 06, 2025
A college education used to be considered, along with homeownership, one of the key pillars of the American Dream. Is that still the case? Recent experiences of college graduates seeking employment raise questions about whether a university diploma remains the best pathway to pursuing happiness, as it once was.
Consider the case of recent grad Lohanny Santo, whose TikTok video went viral with over 3.6 million “likes” as she broke down in tears and vented her frustration over her inability to find even a minimum wage job. That was despite her dual degrees from Pace University and her ability to speak three languages. John York, a 24-year-old with a master’s degree in math from New York University, writes that “it feels like I am screaming into the void with each application I am filling out.”
With many recent graduates hitting the pavement searching for work, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (FRED) says the unemployment rate for recent college grads with a bachelor’s degree hit a high of 6.1% in May, up from 4.4% in April. It’s even worse for young people with a master's degree, which FRED reports has an unemployment rate of 7.2%. The under-employment rate also rose sharply to 41.2%, according to the New York Federal Reserve. The payroll company ADP reported that hiring in May slowed to its lowest level in more than two years.
This trend of rising unemployment and underemployment among recent college graduates looks even more dire when compared to the rest of the US, where unemployment has held steady at 4.2%. According to a new report from Oxford Economics, people with a bachelor's degree or higher have a higher unemployment rate than the national average, which is “the first time this has happened in the last 45 years.” Matthew Martin, senior economist at Oxford Economics, told CBS MoneyWatch that this is especially noteworthy because “those with higher educational attainment usually have better prospects overall than their peers with less.”
Job market for graduates growing grimmer
At various times in the past, college graduates have often struggled to find their first post-graduation job. But now their prospects look even grimmer. And the experts are not so clear on the reasons why the college-to-job transmission belt is working so poorly. But they have some theories.
First, the number of available entry-level jobs may be declining. The campus recruiting company Handshake reports that the number of job postings on its platform for 2025 graduates has fallen 15 percent. Yet the number of applicants submitting their resumes for each available position has increased by 30 percent.
Second, ongoing economic uncertainty is playing a role. Going back to 2024, high prices and inflation led to shaky consumer demand and increased caution among employers, especially amid a rollercoaster presidential election, which contributed to hesitancy over hiring new workers.
Today, economic uncertainty is even greater, spurred largely by President Donald Trump’s aggressive and constantly evolving tariff agenda. That has led a number of businesses to hit ‘pause’ on investment and growth, which in turn affects their hiring decisions.
Brad Hersbein, senior economist at the Upjohn Institute, a labor-focused think tank, says, “Young people are bearing the brunt of a lot of economic uncertainty. The people that you often are most hesitant in hiring when economic conditions are uncertain are entry-level positions.”
A third factor is in play, let’s call it the “DOGE effect.” Under pressure from the Trump administration’s federal hiring freeze and budget cuts, several federal agencies have canceled intern programs for thousands of graduates, including those at USAID, the US Foreign Service, and the summer 2025 cycle of the Student Internship Program. Previous offers to participate in these internship programs have been rescinded, leaving these graduates stranded.
STEM jobs disappearing?
However, the most compelling factor that has attracted increasing attention and warrants continued monitoring into the future is the impact of technology, particularly artificial intelligence (AI), on job prospects. For years, young people seeking a lucrative career were urged to dive into computer science and so-called STEM jobs (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math). From 2005 to 2023, the number of comp-sci majors in the US quadrupled. But now a new wrinkle is being observed in the unemployment reports.
While the overall jobless rate has hit a high of 6.1%, the level among certain science-related occupations is even worse, including physics at 7.8% and computer engineering, 7.5%. The Oxford Economics report found that many entry-level positions in the tech sector are being displaced by recent advances in AI. Entry-level jobs in the STEM sector are particularly susceptible to automation and replacement. Says the report, “The rise in the recent graduate unemployment rate is largely part of a mismatch between an oversupply of recent graduates in fields where business demand has waned.”
Not all computer science workers are exposed to this risk. Those who graduated several years ago and have accumulated more than a few years of work experience are doing well. However, those who perform lower-level, rote work are now competing with AI bots for jobs.
With such a grim job outlook for entry-level coders, enrollment in computer science programs is starting to decline. This year enrollment in comp-sci majors grew by only 0.2% nationally, and at many programs it appears to be in decline. At Stanford, widely considered one of the country’s top programs, the number of comp-sci majors has stalled, and at Princeton, the cohort of graduating comp-sci majors is projected to decline by 25%.
The lead culprit for this dramatic shift, which will play out for years to come, is technology and AI. AI may well replace the very workers who built it.
New (or old?) career paths?
It’s too early to draw hard conclusions about these tech trends, but it seems clear that a college degree or even a STEM degree is no longer the guaranteed ticket to the American Dream it once was. Might new – or perhaps old – career paths present more opportunity?
Last year, the CEOs of Home Depot and Walmart wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal titled “Not Everyone Needs a College Degree.” Ted Decker and John Furner wrote, “Young people have been told for decades that achieving the American Dream requires a college degree…While a college degree is a worthwhile path to prosperity, it isn’t the only one.” The authors continued, “The American Dream isn’t dead, but the path to reach it might look different for job seekers today than it did for their parents. We owe it to younger generations to open our minds to the different opportunities workers have to learn new skills and achieve their dreams.”
So…plumber, electrician, carpenter, anyone? AI and robots won’t replace those occupations anytime soon, and their average salary is around $30 per hour for entry-level ($60,000 per year), and double that amount for skilled journeymen, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. As I discovered when I recently bought a home, it’s not so easy to hire skilled craftsmen because there aren’t enough of them, and they are in high demand. Might this become a more viable career path for more young job seekers?
It seems likely that today’s college graduates and younger entry-level applicants will have to be open to new career paths, as the old ones are starting to look more like dead ends.
Steven Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Report: One-third of the country has limited voting access since the 2020 election
krisanapong detraphiphat/Getty Images
Nonprofit VOTE Engaging With Communities Historically Excluded From Voting
Jul 06, 2025
For nearly 20 years, Nonprofit VOTE has engaged 60,000 workers at 120 nonprofit organizations nationwide to register to vote, including young people.
According to Nonprofit VOTE’s website and executive director, Brian Miller, the organization works to provide nonpartisan resources to nonprofits across the United States, helping them integrate voter engagement into their ongoing activities and services. Nonprofit VOTE's annual report states that seven out of ten voters believe nonprofits should offer voting services to constituents.
“[Nonprofits] have missions and values of community empowerment that transcend the politics of the day,” the annual report states. “This gives them an unmatched advantage at engaging voters typically overlooked by partisan groups and campaigns who have very-short term goals focused on a day in November.”
Nonprofit VOTE reaches nonprofits across the United States, engaging with communities. These organizations include direct-service nonprofits, such as food pantries and community health centers, as well as community-based organizations and grassroots groups. Miller said these nonprofits are the ones directly engaging with potential voters.
One example of an organization with which Nonprofit VOTE has engaged is The Human Service Chamber of Franklin County, Ohio. Miller said the group had only three staff members who joined their network. One of these members ran the Highland Youth Garden, which produces fresh food for a diverse neighborhood.
Miller added moments like this show how Nonprofit VOTE’s work “ripples outward” from regional partners to local sites.
“It’s a cascading, snowflake-like effect: small initiatives multiplying into widespread impact,” Miller said.
Nonprofit VOTE has several programs and initiatives to engage voters using resources from engaged nonprofits. One is their general resources and training, which they ensure are accessible by offering closed captioning, alternative image naming, and more.
Miller said their resources are designed to assist nonprofits at various stages in getting the communities they serve ready to vote. These materials include fact sheets, informative guides, and webinars, which Miller said reach over 3,000 nonprofit leaders each year.
Miller added that in recent years, these materials have transitioned to digital formats due to the “dramatic shift” in voter engagement spaces over the past few years. For example, Miller said that Nonprofit VOTE held a webinar before the 2024 general election to discuss disinformation and misinformation caused by artificial intelligence.
“Our partners consistently demonstrate that this tailored model of civic engagement goes beyond participation to foster dignity and empowerment,” Miller said.
Miller also said non-profits were 1.3 times more likely to engage with young voters aged 18 to 24. The Pew Research Center has referred to Generation Z as “digital natives” because they are the first generation with little or no memory of a time before smartphones.
Beginning in 2025, Nonprofit VOTE also added a new program called “Getting Started.” Miller said that, unlike their virtual webinars, which typically include over 100 participants, Getting Started is a monthly, smaller meeting with fewer than 30 attendees for organizations new to voter engagement, teaching them those skills.
However, in terms of the biggest challenges Nonprofit VOTE faces, Miller said there is “distrust” and “disillusionment” among communities that have been historically excluded from voting. But Miller said nonprofit organizations engaging with communities and providing voting resources help increase voter turnout for these groups.
Looking ahead to next year, Miller said Nonprofit VOTE is focusing on the 2026 midterms, where they want to build a field program with state-based organizations and expand the work of their national staff.
Miller added that the organization stays motivated by “centering community voices” and “maintaining strong relationships” with organizations.
“In the long term, we aim to close participation gaps and ensure inclusive democracy, where all voices are represented and included,” Miller said.
Maggie Rhoads is a student journalist attending George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs. At The Fulcrum, she covers how legislation and policy are impacting communities.
Maggie was a cohort member in Common Ground USA's Journalism program, where Hugo Balta served as an instructor. Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum, and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. Learn more by clicking HERE.
editsharetrending_upKeep ReadingShow less
a group of windmills in the sky above the clouds
Photo by Sander Weeteling on Unsplash
We Can Save Our Earth: Environment Opportunities 2025
Jul 06, 2025
On May 8th, 2025, the Network for Responsible Public Policy (NFRPP) convened a session to discuss the future of the transition to clean energy in the face of some stiff headwinds caused by the new US administration led by Donald Trump. The panel included Dale Bryk, Director of State and Regional Policy at the Harvard Environmental and Energy Law Program and a Senior Fellow at the Regional Plan Association, and Dan Sosland, President of the Acadia Center. The discussion was moderated by Richard Eidlin, National Policy Director for Business for America.
The actions of the Trump administration are somewhat surprising, given the campaign rhetoric at face value. While the administration promised an end to burdensome Federal regulation and an era of new Federalism, the current policy regarding clean energy and the environment has been anything but. The president’s executive order “Unleashing American Energy”, issued on January 20th, 2025, is, in fact, a heavy-handed intrusion by the Federal government into state and local energy policies, and reads, according to Bryk, like a “mindless assault on anything that sounds clean.”
While the acts of the current administration will make a transition to clean energy more difficult, the message from Bryk was that “the arc of history bends towards clean energy.” The transition will happen because, politics aside, the science is now clear and not in dispute. So what can be done in the face of an administration that is antagonistic to this transition? As described by the panel, US states in fact have a tremendous amount of jurisdiction over not only energy policies, but over the industries that primarily contribute to climate change, such as transportation and housing. And the advice from Bryk to those state and local governments is “not to chase the chaos.” Most states and communities have affirmative agendas for their energy policies, and those need to be defended, including in the courts.
There is a long history of Federal and state collaboration on various programs, and many states also cooperate among themselves to agree on, for example, emission limits from power plants operating within those states. Historically, these efforts have broad bipartisan support. One of the points repeatedly mentioned during this presentation was that there is more agreement on the need for an energy transition than might be apparent based on the highly polarized talking points visible at the national level. But how is this possible?
Part of the reason is that the discussion at the state and local levels is not necessarily about “climate change.” In fact, how we discuss the transition to clean energy is a complicated issue itself, and what we say can also obscure what is happening in many states. Bryk emphasized that in many states, “climate is not the driver. Job creation is the driver.” Or, reducing energy costs is the driver, or just trying to keep energy dollars local is the driver. It can be surprising for people steeped in climate change discussions to learn that the US states that generate the most wind power (Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas) or have the most widespread use of heat pumps (South Carolina) do not have the most aggressive climate policies. They have other priorities that align with the desire to make a transition to clean energy, and the climate impact may be just a side benefit, for now. On the topic of the transition to clean energy, the American electorate has more in common than it has differences. Even conservatives argue that the Trump energy policy is interfering in the market, and is not allowing renewable energy sources to move to the forefront. However, it is often economically advantageous for them to do so.
So, how we talk about this issue matters. As Sosland emphasized, we are all paying for the costs of the energy choices we are currently making. We pay not just in terms of dollars, but also in terms of the impact on the climate and our own health. “We need to do a better job in the climate community of framing a message that works. We talk so much about cost, so much about utility and other kinds of economics…we are really talking about human beings in flood zones, coughing, getting sick. We are talking about humans here. The human impact of this issue is not even being addressed. That has to change. It has to turn around.” As Bryk put it, “The underlying values that we have are not controversial, and that’s a place where we can start and have conversations about these things with our families and our friends.”
If the transition is going to happen, however, it’s not the case that unleashed market forces by themselves will get us to where we want to be. As Bryk recognized, we know that there are “communities across the country that have been overburdened by pollution and underserved by the clean energy solutions.” There is a disconnect, and it’s important to think about what, as she says, a “just and orderly transition looks like, economic sector by economic sector. To make that transition orderly, we will need policies to be put into place that avoid the failures that often occur in the market. “That’s part of what we have to think about when we are thinking about equitable transition … all of those opportunities to intervene and help it work better and prevent the bad things from happening that can happen in a transition.”
The approach of the current administration will pose the greatest challenges to our ability to create just policies. Although states and communities have power, states cannot do everything when plans involve, for example, Federal leases, and the government may renege on those contracts. This makes it extremely difficult to conduct business. “What can you rely on if you can’t rely on the signature of the US government on a signed contract?” Bryk asked. The opposition of the Federal government to enabling a clean energy transition is especially surprising, given that data shows economic forces are already pushing in that direction. Sosland reminded us that in the Northeast region of the country, energy production was 21% based on coal just 10-15 years ago. It is now less than 1% coal. Market pressures are driving the shift away from fossil fuels. This is why the panel believes that the transition is inevitable, but the opposition of the Federal government will delay the transition timeframe, and that may or may not be the time that we have. International agreements aim to achieve goals by 2030, 2035, and 2050. If we are not on track to meet the first targets, we will either not meet or it will be much more expensive to meet the 2050 target. So, while the technology and ingenuity is in place, the policies of the current administration are incredibly damaging. “This isn’t a blip, necessarily, that is affordable. Losing four or more years is really going to be damaging to meeting the 2030, 2035 targets as we head to 2050,” Sosland reminded us. “There is an enormous amount to worry about,” Bryk said. We are currently in a very precarious position. I have confidence in the states, cities, communities, and some businesses. But, we are not meeting many targets that many states and companies have set. And now we are being hamstrung in a way … that’s out of our power. But there are always other places where we can make a lot of progress,” said Bryk.
And this last comment highlighted the areas of optimism that the panel wanted to emphasize. While the stance of the current US administration can be disheartening, the panel believes that considerable good can be achieved at the state and local levels.
For example, small communities are doing quite a bit. Putting solar farms on landfills. Creating bike paths as alternatives to cars. Massachusetts has incentives to adopt very stringent energy codes, so new buildings are being constructed to very high standards. Many states with climate policies are demonstrably improving the quality of life in their communities. Almost all states (44) participate in the Climate Pollution Reduction Grant Program, a policy initiated under the IRA. Whether or not these states have explicit climate policies doesn’t matter as much as the fact that they see good reasons to pursue a migration to a clean energy infrastructure. They have recognized that we are always spending money on energy infrastructure, so we can choose to allocate it to options that will yield greater benefits and longer lifespans.
If there is so much agreement on the underlying principles, why does it still seem so difficult to talk about it? The answer to that seems to be that, at the current level of polarization in our society, it is challenging to discuss anything that has become a political litmus test. How to talk about this issue was branded by Bryk as the “question of our time.” The advice given by this panel was to adopt the old aphorism, “think globally, and act locally.” It is hard to have these conversations at the national level, but easier at the state level, and even easier at the community level. And there is something happening in almost every community that is part of a clean energy transition. So, getting involved at the local level, for example, with local faith organizations, was described as one of the best ways to engage in this issue while avoiding much of the damaging political rhetoric.
Leigh Chinitz is a Board Member of the Network for Responsible Public Policy (NFRPP).
Keep ReadingShow less
Primary voting, Michigan
Elaine Cromie/Getty Images
The Responsibility of the First Vote
Jul 06, 2025
The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. To learn about the many NextGen initiatives we are leading, click HERE.
We asked Nathaly Suquinagua, a bilingual multimedia journalist with a B.A. in Journalism and a minor in Dance from Temple University, and a cohort member with the Fulcrum Fellowship, to share her thoughts on what democracy means to her and her perspective on its current health.
Here’s her insight on the topic.
Democracy can mean many things, especially given the state of the world over the last few months. That word is unraveled into multiple categories, and what it also means to the people closest to you. To me, democracy means equality, representation, and the chance to build a better world together. Having the opportunity to vote and elect people who share the same values as the individual allows for a genuine decision about who has the best intentions for what matters most and what is crucial in civic engagement.
Being a first-generation American with my immigrant parents from Colombia and Ecuador to me also means voting is more than a personal choice; it is a way to represent my family that doesn't have a voice at the ballot box. This perspective brings the meaning of democracy into focus and raises an important question: What does democracy truly mean for those who can’t vote but still call this country home, like my parents?
Speaking with Lauren Cristella, president and CEO of the Committee of 70, a 121-year non-partisan, nonprofit based in Philadelphia serving the commonwealth, focusing on making sure that the elections are free, fair, safe, and secure, mentioned that our system of government among the people is at a historic low.
“I think all the polling that we've been seeing recently, especially among people like 35 and younger, is really troubling that they don't have faith in our system of government. They don't believe that democracy is necessarily the best form of government.” Cristella said.
According to the Committee of 70, approximately 17% of registered voters in Philadelphia participated in the primary election on May 20, 2025. This makes us question why this is occurring, and now, I believe, it is more crucial than ever to vote and make a difference.
If Philadelphia continues to lose its share of the turnout, it can diminish the state's influence in national politics. More importantly, it reflects a troubling reality: I believe many people who once thought that their voices mattered by voting have given up. These people have given up on democracy, feeling unheard and powerless.
This just shows how much people have lost their faith in the system. As a voter myself who continues to vote and stay involved as an activist, I’ve felt that the power of democracy has diminished, and issues that I care about and vote for have felt overlooked and reversed. One of the most prominent issues is the immigration status in the US and deporting hard-working immigrant families, and the gutting of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Act (DEI), just to name a few of the prime examples. Representation and equality are what I truly believe in, and it is what drew me to journalism. Being the voice of the voiceless and seeing others like myself in the media is what I strive to be.
Having the responsibility of thinking of my loved ones when voting has been frustrating, and it makes me wonder if the cause is not that people don’t care, but rather that they feel unheard and stuck. With so many executive orders getting cut back and gutted, it can feel like no one is listening to you. I often feel overwhelmed by the amount of information available, whether it’s on my phone or during a conversation with someone. Revisiting the core of democracy, it’s clear that meaningful conversations are key to driving change and motivating people to take action.
It's about ensuring that people have access and are informed about what's happening in their local politics. Providing translations in multiple languages can help create a sense of unity and inclusion in the political process. When people are informed, regardless of their voting status, they can still engage in meaningful discussions and even encourage others who can vote to take action.
According to Pew Research, “Naturalized citizens–immigrants who hold U.S. citizenship-who – who voted in the election split their votes about evenly, which shows that naturalized citizens are a politically diverse group and can make a difference when voting to make their home a better place to live in.
As challenges intensify both in the U.S and around the world, it's crucial to stick together and ensure that we are the ones holding people accountable for what we see is wrong. Whether sharing your story, voting, or even reporting issues online, having that sense of community is essential for you and for the people who may not have the luxury of voting and having their say in the place they call home.
I believe that there's some hope in all this; it's the people who care that give me hope about democracy and organizations like the League of Women Voters and the Committee of 70. Doing little things is a huge help in promoting democracy and ensuring unity in all this. Being able to discuss government and democracy, even among grade school-age children, is important to ensure that people who can, can have a say in it by voting and making a difference in local politics. I believe that this is what America is all about: being able to express your concerns and being united, regardless of one's political stance.Nathaly Suquinagua has reported for Billy Penn/WHYY, NJ Urban News, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and Slice of Culture, covering community, culture, social issues, and public interest stories. As a first-generation Hispanic journalist, she’s dedicated to telling underrepresented stories with depth and cultural nuance.
Please help the Fulcrum in its mission of nurturing the next generation of journalists by donating HERE!
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More