Worklessness

It was the word of choice back when I was working in social policy and the support services sector back in the early 2000s, because unemployed was considered to have negative connotations. In the same way as “homeless” is increasingly being replaced by “unhoused”, words of choice fall in and out of favour.

Unemployed implies that someone is available to work and does not have an independent income. Benefit sanctions, training opportunities and jobs stimulus might get some unemployed people into work. None of these measures will work for a student, SAHP (where partner is high earner) or adult with independent income, so worklessness is a different issue to unemployment.

It just means the same as "economically inactive". People who for a myriad of reasons are not employed or self-employed. Or under-employed - people who only work a couple of hours a week.

I agree with you, OP: it's a very loaded term. It reminds me of 'childless', whether used for people who want but can't have children (still unpleasant) or those who are quite happily child-free or have no strong desires either way.

What's wrong with just saying 'not in paid employment' - or is that far too neutral for politicians with a clear agenda?

The headlines on this lately are really wearing, as it's blatant propaganda to fuel hate being directed at 'lazy out of work people sat around in benefits' and make them a scapegoat, instead of the ludicrously wealthy people in charge who have decimated out country. The figures I often see are related to 'economically inactive', which covers - as per the gov website:

'The number of economically inactive people in the UK is measured by the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and consists of people aged 16 and over without a job who have not sought work in the last four weeks and/or are not available to start work in the next two weeks. The main economically inactive groups are students, people looking after family and home, long-term sick and disabled, temporarily sick and disabled, retired people and discouraged workers.'

The article is a bit odd. It complains that there are 3 million 16-25 not in work and says there are 2.6 million saying the reason is studies which is a record high. Well for a start the 16 year old cohort is a bit of a baby boom and lots of sixth form colleges are full for the first time in years. The nature of part time work, the changing expectations of college and driving costs will all impact the liklihood of work in the younger end.

But on your workless point. It probably helps statitocians. But wonder about reframing it as workfree - especially for those over 50s.

Travel costs isn't stopping DS getting work as he has a Young Scot card for free bus travel which does help a lot especially if it's local work.

DS almost 17yo applied for McDonald's recently after seeing the job advert. He got a response saying that they aren't looking for anyone at the moment. Why advertise the job then?! What chance do young people have if they are getting turned down for jobs?

I suppose if they want to get more people into work then they need to look at the barriers of those who are choosing not to.

When I was at college the kids who worked were the ones who were able to drive to those entry level jobs that would happily mop up the inexperienced workers at awkward times of their choosing.

There aren't many teens who can stomach the car insurance costs now and those who can probably don't have a pressing need to top up their pocket money.

You're the one reading it as similar to worthlessness. It's you making that connection.

I think it's supposed to cover the unemployed, who are seeking work and available for it, and the economically inactive, who aren't (eg SAHPs). The reasons for people not being in work matter.

But what of it? Some economically inactive are doing so for various personal reasons. I choose not to so that I can study and raise a family at this particular time in my life.

Working is not a priority at the moment but I want to return to the workforce once the DC are all independent.

You sound hacked off that not everyone is exactly the same and working to pay tax. Not all economically inactive individuals are worthless and have fulfilling activities they do daily for the family or studying/caring for elderly relatives. All valuable.

@Marmalade71

A generation ago it was normal for the pretty much all 6th formers to have pt work, university students worked when I went, either pt in term time or during the holidays (I packed in an automotive parts factory 5-11pm twice a week). My kids were both "too busy, or needed to protect their mental health" to work none of their friends worked either, not even babysitting. Their dad gave them extra money when I told them to work!

Agree it's ludicrous that the figures start from age 16. Aside from 2 8-week summer jobs my 19 year old has been "workless" for 3.5 years and would no doubt be included in the figures. There needs to be some different analysis for full time students, particularly sixth formers.

In particular, I think they are pissed off with everyone who retired early during COVID

i think so, but they have changed tack today by blaming the younger group,
not even a mention of long covid in the article

I am in this statistic. SAHM but studying part time with the OU. I can't do my degree full time for several different reasons so it will take minimum six years to complete.

There's no rush.

Because worklessness includes those who have no intention, desire or need to work but who are still capable of adding to tax revenue. In particular, I think they are pissed off with everyone who retired early during COVID

It describes the lazy gits who do not want to work, rather than those unable to find work or do work

why are they including students?

There are now almost 2.6 million people who say their studies are the reason they are not seeking a job – a record high.

Unless you earn an increasingly higher salary work no longer pays the cost of living. You can't just go and work hard full time and have a decent life outside it. You are still on the poverty line and many youngsters can't even move out or have a family on the rates they earn.

I can't afford to but I would retire in a heartbeat if I could. I'm approaching 50.

They have to find a way of aligning wages and work so you feel its worth the graft.

This is not a new word, its been used often in the past. Where they are talking about attracting early retirees back to the work place, someone needs to start talking about why people are looking to get out of work as soon as they can. I am leaving my career after more than 30 years, I'm really sad about it but I can't continue feeling like a husk at the end of the day. The impact on my well being is too much. I will not go back unless it is to a niche , bespoke protected arrangement and that doesnt exist. Its fine for work to be hard and a challenge but for it to be all consuming and physically and mentally impossible is not ok .

Jobs have become insecure now.

I know someone who was dismissed from a few jobs due to high sickness rate.

He has Autism and ADHD and is looking for another job. I think he will struggle to secure employment.

i am not sure their statistics are correct and anyway it is a bad choice of word imo

It isn't new to me, is say it has been around quite a few years in the sector