????從小到大，父母一直教導我們：如果你努力學習，獲得良好的教育，同時遵守游戲規(guī)則，你肯定會過上好日子。像我這樣的嬰兒潮一代能夠把這個公式轉(zhuǎn)化為美國夢。

????我們這一代人從高中、職校或大學畢業(yè)后，正處于上行趨勢的美國經(jīng)濟為我們提供了許多好機會，但我們現(xiàn)在無法給我們的子女和孫輩做出同樣的承諾。這個國家所面臨的不再是充滿希望的璀璨未來，而是日益擴大的經(jīng)濟鴻溝；根據(jù)蓋洛普公司(Gallup)和其他機構的調(diào)查，大多數(shù)美國人認為美國至少已經(jīng)朝著錯誤的方向前行了10年之久，而且預計下一代人的生活標準將低于我們這一代。

????這個令人沮喪的前景是不是已經(jīng)不可避免？全球化經(jīng)濟、日新月異的技術和其他力量是否已經(jīng)讓我們無法控制后代的命運？要是我們選擇袖手旁觀，就會出現(xiàn)上面這樣的后果。扭轉(zhuǎn)航向是可能的，但這需要嬰兒潮一代和下一代領導者攜手努力，尤其是需要協(xié)商出我所說的“新社會契約”，一種適合未來經(jīng)濟和勞動力特征，并行之有效的社會契約。

????我在以后的專欄中將詳細論述這項全面戰(zhàn)略的內(nèi)涵，它要求對企業(yè)、勞工、政府和教育機構及它們之間的關系進行徹底改革。但要想獲得可行的解決方案，我們首先需要更清楚地了解年輕人（特別是18歲到33歲之間的千禧一代）進入今天的勞動力市場時所面臨的種種問題。

????這個問題的實質(zhì)是，提供給年輕人的就業(yè)機會嚴重不足。2007-2009年的“大衰退”理論上結束之后，美國經(jīng)濟歷時近5年，才終于恢復了流失的工作數(shù)量。但這并沒有考慮從那時以來的勞動力增幅。

????要想讓就業(yè)率恢復至經(jīng)濟衰退前的水平，美國經(jīng)濟就需要在這個十年結束時創(chuàng)造1,350萬至1,500萬個新崗位，也就是說每月至少需要新增20萬個就業(yè)機會，這個數(shù)字要比2009年以來的月平均工作崗位增幅多出5萬個。

????這種情況將對進入就業(yè)市場的年輕人產(chǎn)生什么影響？根據(jù)東北大學(Northeastern University)勞動力市場分析中心(Center for Labor Market Analysis)提供的數(shù)據(jù)，近40%的應屆大學畢業(yè)生“就業(yè)不足”，也就是說，他們從事的是零售、餐飲或其他工資低下的服務性工作。這類工作不需要大學學歷，不能發(fā)揮他們的技能，無法提供進一步學習和發(fā)展的機會。這類工作支付的薪酬幾乎不夠償還大學債務，更不用說靠它們來成家立業(yè)了。證據(jù)顯而易見：以這種方式開啟職業(yè)生涯會對他們的收入和事業(yè)造成顯著、甚至是永久性的損害。

????這個現(xiàn)狀迥異于我們這代人的經(jīng)歷。二戰(zhàn)后的30年里，工資與生產(chǎn)率同步增長——這是舊“社會契約”的本質(zhì)。但在上世紀80年代之后的30年里，工人的收益基本上趨于平緩：雖然美國工人的生產(chǎn)率飆漲了80%，但家庭收入僅增長了大約10%，每小時平均工資的增速更是低得可憐，僅僅只有6%左右。

????本世紀頭十年（有時也被稱為“失去的十年”）的形勢繼續(xù)惡化。高中或大學畢業(yè)生的實際工資（剔除生活費用上漲因素后的工資水平）要么下降，要么沒有增長。只有那些擁有高學歷，位居職業(yè)階梯頂層的人群的工資出現(xiàn)了溫和增長?！罢碱I”運動的確看清了事實：收入增幅基本上落入了收入最高的1%或更小比例人口的口袋。美國目前的收入不平等程度正處于20世紀20年代以來的最高水平。

????We've all heard the message from our parents: If you work hard, get a good education, and play by the rules, you will do well in life. Baby boomers like me were able to turn that formula into the American Dream.

????But while we were able to graduate from high school, vocational school programs, or college into an economy that was growing and providing us with great opportunities, we cannot make the same promise to our children and grandchildren today. Instead of hope, the nation faces a widening economic divide; according to Gallup and other surveys, a majority of Americans agree that the U.S. has been going in the wrong direction for at least a decade, and they expect the next generation will have a lower standard of living than ours.

????Is this gloomy outlook inevitable? Have the global economy, ever-advancing technology, and other forces left us with no control over the destiny of future generations? Only if we choose to do nothing. Reversing course is possible, but it will take a cross-generational effort by baby boomers and next-generation leaders to negotiate what I call a New Social Contract that fits and works with the features of the future economy and workforce.

????In future columns, I'll lay out the pieces of that comprehensive strategy, which calls for major overhauls of business, labor, government, and educational institutions as well as the relationships among them. But before we can get to possible solutions, we need to more clearly understand the problems young people -- especially millennials between 18 and 33 years of age -- face in entering the labor market today.

????The essence of the problem is that young people face a severe shortage of good jobs. It has taken almost five years after the supposed end of the Great Recession of 2007-2009 to finally get back the number of jobs lost. But that does not take into account the growth in the labor force since then.

????To get back to the same employment levels as before the recession, between 13.5 and 15 million new jobs would need to be created by the end of this decade. That's a minimum of 200,000 jobs per month, which is 50,000 more jobs a month than the average since 2009.

????How does this affect young people entering the job market? Nearly 40% of recent college graduates are "underemployed," i.e., working in low-wage retail, restaurant, or other service jobs that don't require a college degree, don't put their skills to work, or provide opportunities for further learning and development, according to Northeastern University's Center for Labor Market Analysis. Such jobs pay wages that are hardly sufficient to meet their college debt payments, much less start a career or a family. And the evidence is clear: Starting off this way results in significant, even permanent damage to their incomes and careers.

????This current reality clashes with our own recent past. For three decades following World War II, wages rose in tandem with increases in productivity -- that was the essence of the old "Social Contract." But in the 30 years since 1980, earnings have essentially flatlined: While the productivity of American workers grew by a healthy 80%, family income grew by only about 10%, and average hourly wages inched up by about 6%.

????The first decade of this century -- sometimes called "the lost decade" -- has been even worse. Real wages (wages adjusted for increases in the cost of living) either declined or did not increase for high school or college graduates. Only those at the top of the occupational ladder with advanced degrees experienced modest wage growth. The "Occupy" movement had its facts right: Most of the income growth went to the top 1% or less of the population. America is now suffering from the highest level of income inequality of any time since the 1920s.