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.

My pension is not a "benefit" I have worked full time and paid NI contributions as well as paying into a private pension. I pay tax on both of these.

@Funkycats It wouldnt I had to post this on another thread.

Just a post to say those in social housing cant live away to work
They would lose their social flat as it would be classed as abandoned. And no doubt it would be the same Tory voters castigating them for not taking these jobs who would be the first to phone the HA to report said flat as empty

I looked at fruit picking jobs a few years ago because it was what I did when I was younger. It was a family “holiday” and I always remember how fun it was.
It might have changed with Brexit

Whilst the people were willing to employ people from overseas I got the impression that they are not willing to employ someone who is a native to this country if they don’t live in the vicinity.
Definitely no children

So unless you live in deepest Kent or a village in the Worcestershire countryside then you are not eligible

OldQueen, I recognise what you are saying. People who haven't been in that situation don't get the reality in many parts of the UK. As an aside I've never had a job through an agency yet.

My pension is not a "benefit" I have worked full time and paid NI contributions as well as paying into a private pension. I pay tax on both of these.

And ?

Nothing to stop this government from slapping a 25% tax (for example) on it "to save the planet". By all means feel free to protest. Write to the papers. Go on TV. Who knows. you might even get a million people to march on parliament ?

After all, the public (well, women mainly) have already been shafted by the rise in pension age, so the principle has already been set.

And there are plenty of ways to tax pensions without taxing pensions, if you see what I mean. In a way it already happened when VAT went up.

It's not that long ago that the idea of adding an extra tax on top of the existing stack in order to fund future pensions was floated. To which it seemed no one stood up and said "hang on, isn't that what we've been paying for years ?". (Although if they did, you probably wouldn't have heard them for the noise of people suggesting an extra tax for the NHS ....)

My pension is not a "benefit" I have worked full time and paid NI contributions as well as paying into a private pension. I pay tax on both of these.

Then I really hope you didn't vote Tory because guess what, they're going to spin it like that whether you like it or not. That's always been part of their plan. They are a party of the rich and anyone who couldn't see that has been a total fool.

@NuttyNutty - I would never consider people from Central and Eastern Europe illiterate peasants. But there's a huge difference between someone coming from let's say rural Romania, Poland or Slovakia and a very urbanised area such as Prague, Bratislava or Budapest in terms of education, skills, salary expectations. If you get someone from that area to work in a low-paid job, it's mostly young people who want to have some experience from abroad or older people with higher qualifications but lacking English skills. Most of the time they will catch up really fast.

When there are fewer candidates, it will be interesting to see if companies get more flexible about hours/holidays for working mums.

When I was 16-18, I worked in a factory for the six week summer holidays while the regular working mum workforce had the summer off to look after small children. It worked very well.
They didn’t need childcare or lose their jobs. We were able to save for a car or for university.

How did fruit get picked prior to 1997?

Strawberry season was a maximum of 6 weeks. Nice job for the summer, for travelling people and students, outside so lots of fresh air and sunshine. Now its 8 months or more, early in the morning till late at night, indoors, for min wage or less, in some cases.

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

No, it's not just you, but hell, the sheeple all bought his brand of fascism, too.

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

DH and I were discussing this yesterday, he started muttering about conscription. I have already decided I shall be a conscientious objector.

Mintjulia, students and parents are a complementary fit.

Yes, a complimentary fit, but I don’t know any companies who offer that arrangement now.

It would help so many struggling single parents. Let’s hope they do.

The only changes there will be is forcing people to work 'like the Chinese' from these companies. They don't plan to change their model of expecting human beings to work for them as and when they like, 24/7, 365 days a year, for whatever crap they choose to pay. And they will have the support of Tory government people voted in. That's what fascism is, folks! Government by big business. But hey, people keep voting for it so when they come for their pensions they have only themselves to blame.

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

No such word as "can't" with an 80-strong majority.

Let’s hope they do.

Probably better to hope yo find a chest of gold. That's more likely.

Serendipity, pensions are already fully taxable. My father paid 40% tax on his pensions, state and private!

Regrettably our years of cheap food and cheap goods need to stop.

This of course is precisely what will force a chunk of the people who are currently economically inactive into work.

For the sick and disabled it means worse health outcomes. For unpaid carers it means suffering for those they used to care for. For people with low income backgrounds and promising futures it means forcing them away from study and self-development and into dead-end jobs.

That's what fascism is, folks! Government by big business.

I'd humbly suggest it's more a system of government and ideology where the state is superior to all other institutions and individuals (so at some stage her madge, or Chuck are for the dustbin of history). That's why there's no room for human rights at the table. You can't have peoples rights getting in the way of the business of the state.

Same for courts and the justice system - they can't be allowed to get in the way of the state.
Same for the media - their only role is to support the state.
Police - ditto.
Armed forces - ditto.
And big business ... only point in having any business is to support the state.

Economically inactive includes the unemployed. The categories mentioned are a subset of economically inactive.
There will be a shortage of labour. It can be filled by various means.

It is not a fascist argument. It is not about the workhouse FFS - it is a question about how to solve a problem.
It is an economic problem. As a society how do we want to run our finances?

Serendipity, pensions are already fully taxable. My father paid 40% tax on his pensions, state and private!

So ? There's always room for more tax at the inn. Just pointing out facts like that isn't in any way an argument against it happening. It's more like sticking your head in the sand and saying "Can't happen here".

And as I have already noted, Can't is not a word that applies to a government with majority of 80.

It is not a fascist argument. It is not about the workhouse FFS - it is a question about how to solve a problem.

It is an economic problem. As a society how do we want to run our finances?

No, it's a political problem. In the same way the housing "crisis" is a political problem. Not an economic one. Not a demographic one. Not a geographic one. But a political one, caused by rampant cronyisim that has strangled the building of houses - quite openly - to maintain the prices. It's a political one that has allowed housing stock to be diverted into BTL enclaves thus keeping rents - and house prices - comfortably high.

Inthesummerhouse a problem that need not have arisen if so many people hadn't decided to be anti immigration without thinking of the ramifications.

There will be a shortage of labour. It can be filled by various means.

Like what? There aren't that many unemployed now. An ageing population who often go on to develop increasingly expensive to treat conditions like dementia that don't kill very fast.

I think there might be a bit of mileage here to make work more accessible to people who want to do it, but are prevented from doing so by location, mobility, health or caring responsibilities. To my mind, part-time and/or home based working might be really helpful to someone who couldn't work 7 hours plus a commute, but who might be able to work 3 hours with no commute.

The onus should be on the employer to offer the flexibility that 'economically inactive' (What a term, everyone spends money!) might need to enable work to be possible.