Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Economically inactive people……

235 replies

Watermelonnice · 02/08/2025 18:23

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?

OP posts:
blackbird77 · 02/08/2025 22:51

RaininSummer · 02/08/2025 19:06

I think they are initially thinking of all the Neets and the underemployed. Then perhaps the disabled people who could maybe do some work. Not students or carers. They can think what like about those who retired early but they will be self funding so none of their business.

Edited

Same. I agree. They’re mainly thinking about Neets and individuals who have fallen into that whole lifestyle/subculture. They’re not talking about people who are carers, physically disabled or ill enough that they cannot work. It’s mainly about the Neets.

OutandAboutMum1821 · 02/08/2025 22:51

ItIsFoggy · 02/08/2025 22:41

I guess I'm economically inactive. I could go earn money in a good job where people are desperately needed, but I'm caring for a disabled child. I get nothing for that. If I go earn money in a job, state supports will need to do what I currently do for free. That will cost the state tens of thousands of pounds that I currently save them by doing it for love. So I guess I'm actually economically active since I'm saving the state a lot of money by caring for someone with a disability myself. I think it comes under, they should be careful what they wish for.

Well said. Your child is very lucky to have you. I feel sad on your behalf when you are making such a loving contribution that you have to read such awful spiel from the government. So lacking in true understanding and compassion. Sending you both my best wishes.

bindin · 02/08/2025 22:50

How many are in the same position and can’t get diagnosis and treatment or surgery?

This is definitely one reason why ill health is higher.

Original poster
Watermelonnice · 02/08/2025 22:50

bindin · 02/08/2025 22:47

So if economically inactive does not include unemployed people, then which group of economically inactive people are the government wanting to get back to work?

Unemployed are looking for work, economically inactive are not

Yes but they want to reduce the number of economically inactive people, and I was wondering which ones they meant?

eg early retirees, carers, sahm’s, ill people, disabled people, students

OP posts:
bindin · 02/08/2025 22:49

And why not focus on the unemployed first rather than economically inactive?

unemployment isn't unusually high

Any why not focus on the reasons why people who want to work may not be able to, for example public transport, childcare etc

Governments don't tend to do this

Doitrightnow · 02/08/2025 22:49

I'm in that group because I'm a sahm to a preschooler. Nothing could persuade me to go back to work and miss this precious time as long as we can afford it.

I also resent the implication that economically inactive people are idle - most I know work very hard looking after children (or grandchildren), the elderly, the disabled, volunteering etc. It's valuable work, just unpaid. If I went back to work I'd be paying virtually my entire salary for childcare. Why would I do that instead of doing the childcare myself? It's not like my job before was super useful to society, like teacher or doctor. It was a boring and often pointless desk job.

If I had enough money to retire I'd certainly retire early too! I can't imagine many people wouldn't?!

Havanananana · 02/08/2025 22:48

Purpleberet · 02/08/2025 22:38

Until the government stop frittering away £££s and enabling big business and the richest in society to get away without paying their way, I don’t want to know about who they perceive to be “economically inactive”
honestly it makes me sick

I am (was?) fairly politically engaged but now I’m really starting to lost hope

The last government spent 14 years frittering away £££ and allowing vital utilities and infrastructure - much of which was previously publicly owned before being privatised - to fall into the hands of asset strippers and vulture capitalists. There is nothing better for a capitalist than being handed a natural monopoly, loading it with debt and being allowed to milk it for every penny. Many people believe that the last government was the worst in modern history - but as far as the wealthy and those who can use their money to buy influence, the Conservatives were the best, most successful government ever, transferring everything profitable into private ownership, boosting short-term profits by cutting investment to the bone and hollowing out the public sector while driving those who can afford to pay into the arms of the private healthcare providers, the private schools, the private housing developers etc. and leaving those who cannot pay as second class citizens with second class services.

bindin · 02/08/2025 22:47

So if economically inactive does not include unemployed people, then which group of economically inactive people are the government wanting to get back to work?

Unemployed are looking for work, economically inactive are not

Original poster
Watermelonnice · 02/08/2025 22:46

Octavia64 · 02/08/2025 22:21

Many early retired people are in fact out of the labour market due to ill health of one sort or another.

i am on of this group.

medical retirement is tricky to get and fucks with your pension so if you have savings it’s easier to use those and then get full pension.

lots of 50pluses should are simply not well enough to work full time or at all.

Not helped by the state of the nhs at the moment either.

I have been on a waiting list to see a consultant since October and haven’t heard anything yet.

How many are in the same position and can’t get diagnosis and treatment or surgery?

OP posts:
fizzypop100 · 02/08/2025 22:45

I am an unpaid carer. I consider myself to be economically active because paid care is £30 or more an hour.
I receive £83 a week. Which saves the local authority thousands

EasternStandard · 02/08/2025 22:45

ByQuaintAzureWasp · 02/08/2025 22:02

Economically inactive means anyone not working under normal state retirement age.

TBH I'm one of them, early retired, not claiming anything and still paying income tax.

Yes. I thought it was a way to distinguish from unemployment figures as for that you need to be actively looking for work.

ItIsFoggy · 02/08/2025 22:41

I guess I'm economically inactive. I could go earn money in a good job where people are desperately needed, but I'm caring for a disabled child. I get nothing for that. If I go earn money in a job, state supports will need to do what I currently do for free. That will cost the state tens of thousands of pounds that I currently save them by doing it for love. So I guess I'm actually economically active since I'm saving the state a lot of money by caring for someone with a disability myself. I think it comes under, they should be careful what they wish for.

Original poster
Watermelonnice · 02/08/2025 22:41

And I agree it is a derogatory judgmental term, aiming to cause division

OP posts:
Original poster
Watermelonnice · 02/08/2025 22:39

Mrsplants · 02/08/2025 20:55

It outlines it in the government white paper
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/get-britain-working-white-paper/get-britain-working-white-paper

Box 3: What do we mean by economic inactivity?According to internationally agreed definitions, people in the labour market fall into one of 3 groups: employed, unemployed and economically inactive. Economically inactive people are those without a job who have not sought work in the last 4 weeks and/or are not available to start work in the next 2 weeks. This differs from the definition of unemployment, where people are without a job but are seeking work and available to start. Many economically inactive people contribute to the economy in ways other than work, for example, by caring or studying to build their skills. However, the UK’s current high economic inactivity rate is unsustainable, leaving many people excluded from the labour market and holding back economic growth.

So if economically inactive does not include unemployed people, then which group of economically inactive people are the government wanting to get back to work?

Or does it just sound good on paper but is completely unrealistic in practice.

And why not focus on the unemployed first rather than economically inactive?

Any why not focus on the reasons why people who want to work may not be able to, for example public transport, childcare etc

OP posts:
Purpleberet · 02/08/2025 22:38

Until the government stop frittering away £££s and enabling big business and the richest in society to get away without paying their way, I don’t want to know about who they perceive to be “economically inactive”
honestly it makes me sick

I am (was?) fairly politically engaged but now I’m really starting to lost hope

NaicePeachJoker · 02/08/2025 22:37

echt · 02/08/2025 22:34

Why have you given them money? For this to be a serious analogy, the money would have to come from the buyer's funds; savings, pensions or benefits.

Which one is it?

Show quote history

Benefits.

echt · 02/08/2025 22:34

NaicePeachJoker · 02/08/2025 22:18

If I give you £10 and then you buy a sandwich from me for £10, what have you contributed? and what have I contributed?

Show quote history

Why have you given them money? For this to be a serious analogy, the money would have to come from the buyer's funds; savings, pensions or benefits.

Which one is it?

WeylandYutani · 02/08/2025 22:33

bindin · 02/08/2025 22:31

"being sick, injured or disabled continues to be the main reason why people aged 50 to 64 years are economically inactive in the labour market, with 44.9% of individuals giving this as the main reason"

Age that menopause can cause issues and if you have a physical job then that will be the ages you are struggling to carry on with it.
People say retrain but who is going to take on brand new career starters in their 50s and 60s?

bindin · 02/08/2025 22:31

"being sick, injured or disabled continues to be the main reason why people aged 50 to 64 years are economically inactive in the labour market, with 44.9% of individuals giving this as the main reason"

bindin · 02/08/2025 22:29

Not necessarily. Some friends of ours have retired before reaching 60, they were high earners, company directors, drs etc.

Many of the over 50s who have retired are not from high incomes. Some will be of course but not the majority

Original poster
Watermelonnice · 02/08/2025 22:26

OutandAboutMum1821 · 02/08/2025 22:13

OP I can only speak for ex-teachers I know, but they are economically inactive either because they are happy SAHMs or took early retirement in their 50s. I even know one who recently left with nothing lined up and is relieved to be ‘unemployed’.

For these people, it’s irrelevant who the government is talking about or how they try to sweet talk or badger them back- they won’t be returning, and there is realistically nothing they can do about it.

Edited

Yes I agree, many of my friends are the same and I can’t imagine any scenario where they would go back to work.

They are all self funded

OP posts:
Sub2Mumma · 02/08/2025 22:25

Facts v good story always wins. Parents on parental leave (mat / pat leave etc) are also classed as Econ Inactive

Octavia64 · 02/08/2025 22:21

Many early retired people are in fact out of the labour market due to ill health of one sort or another.

i am on of this group.

medical retirement is tricky to get and fucks with your pension so if you have savings it’s easier to use those and then get full pension.

lots of 50pluses should are simply not well enough to work full time or at all.

NaicePeachJoker · 02/08/2025 22:18

Dymaxion · 02/08/2025 22:07

I’m really not judging as I’m sure you’re doing your best to get back on your feet, but spending benefit money is not contributing to the economy.

VAT is 6% of national income. It makes complete sense to encourage people not to spend their money on stuff that incurs VAT ?

If I give you £10 and then you buy a sandwich from me for £10, what have you contributed? and what have I contributed?

OutandAboutMum1821 · 02/08/2025 22:13

OP I can only speak for ex-teachers I know, but they are economically inactive either because they are happy SAHMs or took early retirement in their 50s. I even know one who recently left with nothing lined up and is relieved to be ‘unemployed’.

For these people, it’s irrelevant who the government is talking about or how they try to sweet talk or badger them back- they won’t be returning, and there is realistically nothing they can do about it.