Page 2 | Economically inactive people……

Watermelonnice · 2025-08-02T17:23:03+00:00

AIBU to think that the government needs to clarify who they mean when they say that they want to reduce the number of people who are economically inactive? And to think they need to differentiate between the reasons for economic inactivity, including providing numbers who fall into each category. It’s lazy to make this a headline without taking into account the different reasons and specifying who they mean. Presumably they mean people who are unemployed, but economically inactive could include students, carers, disabled people, stay at home parents and those who have retired early. Some will be reliant on the state for support but many will be completely self reliant and not claiming a thing from the government. Why aren’t the government clearer on who they mean? Do they think they’ll persuade people who have retired early and others who have enough income without claiming any benefits to restart work?

MrsFrumble · 03/08/2025 15:25

I get that the technical definition of economic activity does not include spending money, but it seems bizarre to me as goods and services provided also only count if someone is buying them.

I’m also interested in what the government will do about it. A statistic I once read that shocked me, is that 80% of mothers of children with disabilities and SN are not in paid employment. Imagine if appropriate full-time school places and suitable wrap around care was available to all these families, along with the respite care necessary so that both parents had the physical and mental energy to work outside the home. Wouldn’t that be amazing!

Fifthtimelucky · 03/08/2025 15:15

@Locutus2000 @Watermelonnice

I did find my job rewarding. Unfortunately I also found it utterly exhausting. I was working long hours (at least 10 hours a day) but even so I never felt that I had things under control and was constantly fire-fighting. In addition, I had a 3 hour commute on a good day. In practice it was often 3.5 or even 4 hours. I did work at home one day a week, which helped, and had I known that Covid was just round the corner and I would have been able to work at home every day, I would probably have stayed on, but I didn’t.

I could find work locally no doubt, if I tried, and if I could find something with part time flexible hours perhaps I would, but I enjoy the freedom of retirement too much, and we don’t need the money as our pensions are sufficient for our needs. If we found we could no longer manage on our income, I would go back to work (we do not receive any benefits unless you count my 74 year old husband’s state pension). As it is, the only “work” I envisage doing in the next few years is childcare for grandchildren, but I don’t have any yet!

naomisno1fan · 03/08/2025 14:49

They want to stigmatise swathes of people

the unemployment are only a tiny group.

leave students, carers, Mums, retirees etc out of it.

mumda · 03/08/2025 14:37

Mrsbloggz · 03/08/2025 14:33

I agree.
I favour a version of the Chinese 'lying flat' & I live very frugally on the proceeds of my savings & investments.

Show quote history

oo! It's got a name.

Me too.

Mrsbloggz · 03/08/2025 14:33

Dunnocantthinkofone · 03/08/2025 14:15

We appear to have reached a point where the state was in the past there to meet the needs of the population
Yet the government now thinks the population are there to meet the needs of the state.

Given the squandering, inefficiency ,piss poor services and general pathetic performance of successive governments, is it any wonder that those who can afford to not work, simply don’t feel any moral compulsion to do so?

I agree.
I favour a version of the Chinese 'lying flat' & I live very frugally on the proceeds of my savings & investments.

Original poster

Watermelonnice · 03/08/2025 14:30

Fifthtimelucky · 03/08/2025 07:47

I retired early. I am now 64 and I have a reasonable occupational pension. My husband, who is 10 years older, has a better occupational pension and a state pension. We both pay income tax and I am also making voluntary NI contributions to make up for the years I lost by retiring early.

There are no health reasons preventing me from going back to work, but I’m afraid I have no intention of doing so.

Show quote history

Is there anything that would persuade you back to work?

It’s an understandable situation that people prioritise their free time, health and well being after years of working rather than increasing their income

OP posts:

Dunnocantthinkofone · 03/08/2025 14:15

We appear to have reached a point where the state was in the past there to meet the needs of the population
Yet the government now thinks the population are there to meet the needs of the state.

Given the squandering, inefficiency ,piss poor services and general pathetic performance of successive governments, is it any wonder that those who can afford to not work, simply don’t feel any moral compulsion to do so?

JellyRollBlues · 03/08/2025 14:14

But actually no one is "economically inactive". Even if not working and on benefits, or a pensioner, everyone purchases items which literally keeps the economy turning, and will incur VAT (a 20%tax on most 'non-essential' items purchased).

PhilippaGeorgiou · 03/08/2025 14:11

Jennps · 02/08/2025 21:15

Except for the very few exceptions where people really have no choice, you can be as economically inactive as you like, as long as you are not receiving free money from those who are active, and that free money includes use of public services because the money to most for those does not grow on trees.

One thing is for sure. The number of people living off the taxpayer is simply unsustainable and most of them could be working or working full time if they are not.

That's a great idea. So can you pay me back what you owe me for all the "free money" spent on you from birth until the date you started paying your own taxes? Plus any periods of further and higher education I funded, and any other benefits you have received. That money didn't grow on trees and I want it back. All 47 years worth. And please ensure that you don't claim anything at all, including any public services, unless what you pay in tax more than covers the bill. Because I don't want the tax that I still pay on my pension wasted on people who can't afford the full cost of public services, and I have decided to start with you.

Locutus2000 · 03/08/2025 14:06

Fifthtimelucky · 03/08/2025 07:47

I retired early. I am now 64 and I have a reasonable occupational pension. My husband, who is 10 years older, has a better occupational pension and a state pension. We both pay income tax and I am also making voluntary NI contributions to make up for the years I lost by retiring early.

There are no health reasons preventing me from going back to work, but I’m afraid I have no intention of doing so.

Show quote history

There are no health reasons preventing me from going back to work, but I’m afraid I have no intention of doing so.

We are constantly told how rewarding work is, yet most people can't wait to retire.

Oasisagiger · 03/08/2025 13:53

There is a huge difference between someone who can’t work due to disability and someone who doesn’t work because they don’t want to. Let’s get that straight.

WeylandYutani · 03/08/2025 13:53

Almostwelsh · 03/08/2025 13:36

It's all very well saying people need to be working, but you've got to find someone who will employ you. Illness, disability, lack of experience, being seen as too old, not having a personality type that is good with interviews and / or poor interpersonal skills, not being able to access the workplace at a time when you're required to be there due to transport issues. All of these are blockers that will disqualify you in the eyes of employers. It's really difficult to get work at the moment in some areas even if you don't have blockers.

Pretty much of that applies to me. I am never going to be the number one candidate for any job.

Mrsbloggz · 03/08/2025 13:50

Aprilrainagainagain · 03/08/2025 07:40

I have a friend who has three children none of which work as in pay any kind of tax. Two make things to sell on Etsy but she says it’s very little. They contribute nothing to the household and she has to maintain them. Her third child is an artist although he doesn’t produce any income. They range from 22 to 29. Her husband works freelance in the film industry. He hasn’t had any income for 18 months and makes no effort to get work. She is working full time and occasionally works another job to bring in money.

If I was her I’d leave and let them all be creative and homeless. Utter wastes of space.

I agree, please encourage her to leave and start a thread so that we may vicariously enjoy her liberation 💃🏼

Original poster

Watermelonnice · 03/08/2025 13:42

Almostwelsh · 03/08/2025 13:36

It's all very well saying people need to be working, but you've got to find someone who will employ you. Illness, disability, lack of experience, being seen as too old, not having a personality type that is good with interviews and / or poor interpersonal skills, not being able to access the workplace at a time when you're required to be there due to transport issues. All of these are blockers that will disqualify you in the eyes of employers. It's really difficult to get work at the moment in some areas even if you don't have blockers.

Yes that’s what i meant by the government needing to look more into the reasons why people don’t or can’t work, and ways to improve that….

transport costs, transport availability (very unreliable where we are, regularly cancelled), childcare costs, cost and times of summer clubs, work experience opportunities etc

OP posts:

Almostwelsh · 03/08/2025 13:36

It's all very well saying people need to be working, but you've got to find someone who will employ you. Illness, disability, lack of experience, being seen as too old, not having a personality type that is good with interviews and / or poor interpersonal skills, not being able to access the workplace at a time when you're required to be there due to transport issues. All of these are blockers that will disqualify you in the eyes of employers. It's really difficult to get work at the moment in some areas even if you don't have blockers.

lljkk · 03/08/2025 12:42

BoredZelda · 02/08/2025 20:18

I posted about this the other day. The numbers are quite easy to find, but your average daily Mail reader wouldn’t bother. Much easier to brand all these people lazy.

Of the around 11 million of working age economically inactive people, 1.6 million are unemployed and seeking work, a further 1.8 would like to work but are unable to for various reasons (caring responsibilities, illness, disability etc)
That leaves around 7.6 million people.
2 million are students
1.2 million have taken early retirement on a private pension and/or savings
1.3 million have caring responsibilities (largely women caring for children or parents)
2.1 million are unable to work through disability (largely between 50 and 64)
Around a million people are not working because they don’t need to work, they are financially independent.
Of the 11 million economically inactive people, who are not looking for work, the number of people the taxpayer is supporting is not “millions”. The government and the tabloids want you to believe there are millions sponging off the state, but the statistics do not bear that out. If everyone who is able and claiming out of work benefits and returned to work, there would still be about 9 million working age people who are economically inactive.

I'm not following the numbers. PP said of the economically inactive, 2 million are students. But elsewhere, I read that there are 2.9 million students in UK and about 75% of students work at least part time. Those numbers don't agree.

Also PP said that 1.6 million are seeking work (so mostly on universal credit?), 2.1 million have disability (so many are claiming benefits I imagine...) seems like at least 2 million ppl are being supported by taxpayer = "millions". I didn't include the "1.8 million not looking for work but would like to but can't due to disability etc." : might be some claims for benefits among them, too

Vivienne1000 · 03/08/2025 12:37

echt · 03/08/2025 07:11

Do you have any evidence that older people have this view about not being able to find a job?
What kind of work do you have in mind for the physically and mentally impaired in their 60s? You state it as if it were universal and undisputed that this happens to them?
Who would want such people looking after their grandchildren?

Show quote history

Yes we have had personal experience of this. My husband lost his well paid job at 58, having worked since the age of 17. He thought he would be snapped up. He got loads of interviews, but no job offer. He is now in a job, same pay as in the 90s. He is more experienced than most in his company, but only has 3 years left until retirement. So he just gets on with it.

Vivienne1000 · 03/08/2025 12:14

rwalker · 03/08/2025 06:17

Because no doubt she’s paid into a pension for years that’s why she’s in that position
nobody has given her anything

Show quote history

You are misunderstanding this. Most of us in employment will have a workplace pension. The boomer generation are still able to access final salary pensions. As Gen X retire these were switched to define contribution. Same money put in, but no where near as good. So why should the young privileged retirees not pay NI on their monthly pension, until their official retirement age? More people will have to work longer, so subsidising those who were just lucky. NI contributions until retirement age would bring in billions.

its5oclocksomewheresurely · 03/08/2025 11:48

Well, DH will be retiring at 55 and living off his private pension, and I'll be doing similar a few years later. We won't be claiming any benefits. Who does it harm?

Mischance · 03/08/2025 11:38

There needs to be more support available for those who have been out of work for a long time and those who have disabilities (mental or physical) that disadvantage them in the job market.

It is too simple to say that everyone who on the surface can work should work.

As an employer I would want people who are motivated and reliable and certainly not "pressed men" who will not do a good job, either because they cannot do so or do not care.

Many people with disabilities, even minor ones, are used to being discriminated against in the workplace and throw in the towel in the end, even though they are capable of working.

I used to work for the Shaw Trust (https://shawtrust.org.uk/) who provide support for people in the workplace, but they need funds in order to do their job. Nothing is cost free.

Home

Shaw Trust charity transforms lives through education, employment, and care services. Discover how we support people.

https://shawtrust.org.uk/

Jennps · 03/08/2025 11:17

echt · 03/08/2025 04:10

If you don’t work and let’s say your neighbour has to cut back and give you money every month, that’s not adding anything to the economy

What on earth do you mean? Why would a neighbour give you money?

Who is to say the neighbour would have spent their money, they might save it.

A person who has retired early, is not working and is living on their private pensions and savings is spending what they've earned.

Show quote history

Who is talking about pensioners?

Original poster

Watermelonnice · 03/08/2025 10:37

Swiftie1878 · 03/08/2025 10:05

They don’t need to do that. The government’s ambition is to REDUCE the numbers of economically inactives, not eliminate them.
For some, they will be able to join the workforce; some won’t.

Why are you concerned about this?

Show quote history

I’m not concerned about it, I’m interested in it.

I am not a fan of this government and I would prefer them to be honest and transparent with the electorate and not talk in sound bites, saying things that when you stop and think about it in more detail, or relate it to your personal experience and that of those around you is totally unrealistic or makes zero sense.

I would prefer them to spell out exactly what they think the problem is and have a sensible plan to fix it.

some posters on here talk more sense than the government.

I agree with those who say addressing the Neets would be the best way to start. My dd is at uni but wanted a summer job. She applied for loads and heard nothing back, most wanted experience, which is hard to get if you can’t find work. She got a job in the end but is only getting 2 shifts a week. She could do a lot more, but the opportunity isn’t there. At least with 2 shifts a week she is gaining valuable experience and earning a bit of money. She is really enjoying it and has gained a lot of confidence since joining. I really worry about the young adults who aren’t in education, training or work at all and think it can’t be good for them socially, physically or mentally to be at home all the time.

I can’t imagine any scenario which would entice the early retired, financially independent back to work. I aspire to be this in the next 5-10 years, it’s what keeps me going.

Re the sick and disabled, many I’m sure would love to be able to access faster treatment and access to work. Many I’m sure would prefer to work if they’re able. More flexibility with working eg from home with flexible hours would really help here but there seems a push against this which is short sighted.

Re carers, I agree those caring for people with severe needs are saving the government a large amount of money, but it depends on the level of care required and if this could be provided in a group setting or in smaller periods of the day rather than 1-1. Parents giving up work to home educate seems to be happening a lot and again this is unsustainable if multiple numbers choose to do this. Maybe the government need to investigate the reasons for this and address the core issue.

re students, I agree these are the workers of the future, but many seem to study for years now, doing degree then masters etc,then travelling, almost putting off work. It also seems many are struggling to find work after their degree. Again this needs looking at. Why are many staff being recruited from overseas (eg junior drs) when our own can’t find work.

OP posts:

Swiftie1878 · 03/08/2025 10:05

Watermelonnice · 02/08/2025 19:12

Exactly, so they should clarify who they mean and not lump people in totally different situations in together

Show quote history

They don’t need to do that. The government’s ambition is to REDUCE the numbers of economically inactives, not eliminate them.
For some, they will be able to join the workforce; some won’t.

Why are you concerned about this?

MickGeorge22 · 03/08/2025 10:04

AlertEagle · 03/08/2025 10:00

But thats bs, I wrote this because I have seen it with my own eyes. I personally know 2 people who have no mental health issues but claim uc and do not work but they are perfectly fine, they just dont want to work. One of them has never worked a day in their life.

Show quote history

I see it all the time in my job. truly baffling how these people get awarded the Limited capability for work and work related activity element of UC. Apparently over two thirds of people who go through the assessment get awarded it( deemed unfit for any kind of work or work related activity ) hence why the changes to Uc from next April are being brought in with that element halved for new claimants. It's unsustainable. Many people have just been continuing to claim the LCWRA for years with no re-assessments because the system is so far behind with re-assessing people especially since covid. The whole system is a mess.

becausetrampslikeus · 03/08/2025 10:02

I think economic inactive isn’t a good term because it’s factually incorrect and they should be clear what they mean - is it income tax they are solely interested in, is it bringing money into the country rather than shovelling it around / exporting it by buying from abroad , is it reducing the burden on the taxation system by getting people off benefits of whatever type ( why only those with no jobs - why not better jobs for those on benefits with work?)