To think the current Government is either stupid or delusional in its expectations re "economically inactive" people?

[Juliette20]

news.sky.com/story/priti-patel-attacked-over-clueless-claim-that-inactive-britons-will-fill-job-vacancies-11937918

Apparently "economically inactive" people are the answer to the massive hole in the labour market being created by leaving the EU and Government immigration policies.

There are 8 million people who fall into this category. Ok. But:

• 26% of this group are disabled/long term sick.

• 22% are full time students

• 13% have taken early retirement

• 11% are people who have just left a job and are awaiting the results of job applications, or don't need to work

• Not sure how many people are carers for relatives- but other data suggests about 7 million people - some of these will be working as well, of course.

It leaves very few people, and people don't necessarily want short term work like fruit picking.

The unemployment rate is current 3 - 4%

Priti Patel, get real, your figures do not stack up.

Also, students have limits on the number of hours they are allowed to work before they lose their status as full time students (and associated benefits such as council tax exemption).

"I think it's only fair people should earn their pension" will be a soundbite I can see sneaking into our consciousness in the coming years. People have already demonstrated they are happy with the idea by voting Tory. It's just a question of presentation.

I expect we'll see some of those whizzy-happy BBC "stories" that appear alongside the news about pensioners that set up their own business selling cress to China.

Or something.

Not dissimilar to the puff pieces they've previously run about how super it is to have a disability, and how special that makes you.

@restawhile77 - the thing is, the oncoming point system will not guarantee him a higher salary.
I would assume his employer is British. So, once the good quality but cheaper plumbers are gone, they will either have to increase his salary and then their prices or they will do exactly what Ms. Patel wants to do: lower their criteria and expectations. And if all employers do it, I really want to see the mess it's going to create.

I don't understand the problem.

It's good in the medium to long-term for business to have very low-paid jobs go empty, either they have to pay more for their labour force or they're incentivised to invest in technology/infrastructure which increases productivity.

If there's more work going for people on benefits, that's also a good thing.

Perhaps they need to get to the nub of why British workers are lazy and presumptuous compared to other nations, as detailed up thread. Then fix it.

I would probably be classed as economically inactive. As a PP said, how are they going to make me work without leverage? Assumably I won’t be able to do my voluntary job any more or something?

Planning to be self employed again, the Government can do one. In the event of a national crisis I will be the first to step up but not a Brexit related one as am absolutely not in it together with that lot.

@Aposterhasnoname - you only see a part of these workers. Yep, some of them are exploited.
There's a very big group of those though, who come to those countries willingly, are ready to make sacrifices in terms of accommodation and food to send as much money as possible home, to their families. Not all of them are victims of exploitation.

And right on cue from the BBC:

www.bbc.co.uk/ideas/videos/is-your-pension-contributing-to-climate-change/p083sc66

Is your pension contributing to climate change?

Imagine ... all of a sudden your pension is worth 25% less because the government has had to impose a "climate levy".

Still, there's fruit to pick.

Hey, if we can bury people where they drop working, we could probably save a fortune in fertilizer. More money for shareholders the environment.

I would probably be classed as economically inactive. As a PP said, how are they going to make me work without leverage?

The only leverage is in the case of where someone is on benefits. You can't force an 'economically inactive' person who's financially independent into work - you can only lure them with higher wages.

@restawhile77 - the thing is, the oncoming point system will not guarantee him a higher salary.
I would assume his employer is British. So, once the good quality but cheaper plumbers are gone, they will either have to increase his salary and then their prices or they will do exactly what Ms. Patel wants to do: lower their criteria and expectations. And if all employers do it, I really want to see the mess it's going to create.

I assume you're referring to major homebuilders?

You imply that they're currently paying over the odds for plumbers and/or that they have some kind of wiggle room in plumber qualifications or building control, which is untrue.

Or are you referring to self-employed plumbers, or ones that are called out on one-offs e.g. Pimlico Plumbers?

Students don't want to pick fruit in the holidays because a) they need to earn decent money to afford the cost of living where rents often exceed their student loans and b) they need to gain experience in relevant industries that want entry level graduates to already have experience, and who are competing with those who are able to afford unpaid internships at daddy's bank every summer.

You can't force an 'economically inactive' person who's financially independent into work

Someone, somewhere is taking that as a challenge. Already I can think of 3.

A lot of discussion on this thread is rooted in how things used to be. There is no reason whatsoever when you have just elected a government with a solid majority on a mandate of "massive change" to assume that is actually going to be the case. I'd suggest people stop thinking "oh, they wouldn't do " and start to think "I wonder what they could do ?".

Pukkatea has it absolutely spot on.

As does Jane

eeriesilence

I agree, not all are exploited, but the point is, there’s an attitude of “oh it’s fine to underpay Eastern European’s and have them doing the shit work cos they are all building big houses” which is fucking outrageous.

.

@Aposterhasnoname - I don't think most posters here actually exhibited this attitude. They only said that many Eastern Europeans could afford accepting lower paid jobs because their own countries or areas where they live are so much cheaper.
You wouldn't really get anyone from let's say Prague, Budapest or Bratislava working here in a low-paid job for a long time, it would be a student looking for a summer job combined with a chance of speaking English or a person with a lower qualification. But those cities are already almost on par with the rest of Europe when it comes to the cost of living so a low paid job wouldn't be attractive for someone with good education, working skills and English and they wouldn't be motivated to move over anymore.

eeriesilence

I actually agree with at least some of what you said. But one person did roll out the big house argument while @ ing me and saying how dare I bring slavery into it. Given what I’ve seen, that makes my blood boil.

Is it just me or does economically inactive sound a bit like Hitler's "useless eaters"

I would love to know why it is assumed that the types of jobs being discussed here are considered as so easy to get?

I'm educated to O level and have college qualifications. I have slot of retail experience plus a bunch of tranferrable skills and other experience and I am now 51. In my 30s I tried to get a part time cleaning job in a local pub / club when my son was ababy - this was to fit around my DPs hours and allow child care - I was refused because "over-qualified" but offered behind the bar work - not compatible with my lifestyle at the time.

After a 14 year marriage failed spectacularly, leading to a sectioned stay in a local mental hospital, I was out on my own - my CV included some part-time work (plus pre children management roles etc.) I had been able to do while caring for my disabled DH, our assorted children and a bunch of relatives with various infirmities and support requirements. This was nearly ten years ago - benefits sanctions were a thing then too. I signed up with agencies, was told to take off anything on my CV that might intimidate a prospective employer, told I was a bit long in the tooth for any sort of work other than minimum wage but that employers would want younger candidates who would cost them less. I applied for a cleaning job again and was told I was too high a retention risk when I was quite willing to work in that role, simple, get the money and pay the bills etc. I was just trying to survive. Eventually job recommendations had to come through friends - call centres and finally admin before I had to give that up to become my new MILs carer when she developed dementia. Now I have a retail outlet and am trying to build the business online while watching my Mum die of cancer. I have always been willing to work AT ANYTHING. But if an employer has a specific model of candidtae in mind for even the most basic roles then what hope do have the "economically inactive" have - unless they are forced under some scheme that benefits both government and employer?

In addition, having tried to apply for shel stacking roles etc the online application process including things like "how do you see your career progressing at Tescos" is a bit baffling - I just want to turn up and earn enough money to keep a roof over my head and eat seems to be the wrong answer and not motivated enough.

And you wonder why people are getting into hopeless situations - but for the grace of my current partner whose mother I cared for, and my Mum my situation would be a damn sight worse than it is. Not everyone has these support systems and re-training or being career focused at my age in a town like mine is pretty damn impossible.

serendipityjane

Surely the entire point of this thread is that economically inactive and unemployed are completely different things?

I agree the whole plan sounds ridiculous. We need immigration and I can't believe that the Government doesn't know this. Interesting that Priti Patel has had a run in with senior officials at the Home Office. I bet it is because the officials are pointing out that her crazy points based system will not work in the UK and she doesn't like the advise.
Incidentally I fit into one of those categories and I have absolutely no intention of taking up the slack!

Everyone is forgetting that not all EU people here are illiterate peasants. A lot of them are actually highly educated and speak at least one foreign language by definition. The companies that require language skills (which are many including hotel chains, tourism industry, finance and any other businesses that have anything to do with foreign partners)rely on such workers. The salaries are not high enough to attract the handful of Brits who speak foreign languages on good enough level and also have other necessary qualifications. There wouldn't be enough of them anyway to fill all the positions.
You would think that competition would make the salaries go up but this is not happening. Instead, the larger companies are opening offices elsewhere in Europe and around the world (with modern technology it often does not matter where the worker is physically, most work is done over the phone and Internet). So, the jobs are still done by EU people, just not the ones that pay taxes in UK. This has been going on for several years now, Bucharest for example is full of UK companies' offices already.
My point is that this "only the best and brightest" policy is not that attractive for the best and brightest in question. Instead it is causing employers to move the jobs to where the workers are. Who would relocate if the same job is available at home?
But there will be less foreigners in UK, so result achieved?

Surely the entire point of this thread is that economically inactive and unemployed are completely different things?

To you maybe. It's really what the government think "economically inactive" means that matters. So far all I've noticed is they've been less than clear about it, which is somewhat unsurprising since the phrase was coined by someone who also invented the new crime of "counter terrorism".

It's a well honed tool of oppressive regimes to mould language until it's simultaneously ambiguous and meaningless while being bland and unthreatening.

flower1994 things won't revert to how they were before EU freedom of movement because the world has moved on and we are not living in those times now.