to think the government are on a hiding to nothing with their drive to get people back to work?

[molokoco]

On the Today Programme in Radio 4 this morning they had a segment where they were talking about "worklessness" in the UK and the number of unfilled vacancies and how the government wanted to push two large groups back into the work force the 18-24 year olds who are not working due to mental health issues and the over 50's who have dropped out of work in the past four years for a variety of reasons and who perhaps have the funds not to have to to work anymore.

They had a man on in his early 60's who was made redundant from what sounded like a highly paid business / finance type career in the city 4 years ago, he had initially applied for 100's of jobs over the next few years and was rejected he seemed to suspect due to his age. He work as a postman for a spell before he finally mentally came round to the idea of retirement. Obviously this man had the funds but so do a lot of the people retiring in their 50's either have that or their health is so poor they can no longer work while they wait endlessly for hospital appointments and treatment.

When I try to look at the kind of jobs that have the most vacancies in the UK the information I am seeing is things like hospitality, construction, manufacturing, agriculture workers and so on. It doesn't seem likely to me that someone who was previously in a high flying career but now feels pushed out due to ageism or someone with health issues is likely to want to take a job in any of those areas which likely involve some mix of heavy work, anti-social hours, low pay and a degree of precarity and perhaps not much in the way of long term prospects.

The man on the radio had applied for 100's of jobs within his field of experience and he would have kept working if he had landed one but it seems like well paid, jobs with good career prospects are still over subscribed with lots of people applying for that kind of work so employers will have their pick and ageism in recruitment is a known issue.

They had a Doctor on to discuss the mental health crisis in the young but he wasn't very coherent, he did mention about improving nutrition, exercise and prescribing gardening to people with mental health issues and suggested that when people go on the sick with poor mental health and spend a few weeks at home watching daytime TV then they will feel worse. I am sure he had a point but gardening isn't a substitute to getting proper mental heath treatment, it is part of that sure but I think young people need more than that and that the things that seem to be behind the rise in depression, anxiety and hopelessness need to be addressed more widely. I also think that while younger people in good health may be more able to do the kind of work in hospitality or construction where the vacancies actually are the problems with these jobs still remain that they are often hard, heavy jobs, they can be low paid, antisocial hours and with fewer prospects in the long term.

It is sad to see people, especially young people drop out of the workforce right at the time their lives should be starting or for older people to feel pushed out due to their age or poor health but a few tax breaks isn't going to make an ex-executive or ex-teacher suddenly want to take a job on a building site or as a chambre maid and a few gardening sessions isn't going to make up for the utter lack of mental health care and magically cure young people of their anxiety or despair in a world where a home and a family seem so far out of reach.

I totally agree OP. Getting people into good jobs is a complex question that involves building an economy that provides the right kind of jobs (satisfying, well-paid, productive) AND an education system that can prepare them for it and channel them into it. Eg Germany has a generally very successful industrial economy and a very good technical education system (it is not a perfect education system by any means, but it is much better thought through and coherent).

Where is the govt's plan for this country? If we want to have eg a service economy what sort of education, training and apprenticeships are needed? If we want a tech-focused economy, well, Silicon Valley arose from a combination of massive investment in military technology and amazing schools like Berkeley all aligning.

I think this is more true in corporate jobs though tbf. I go to a hospital build a few times a week and there's a builder paid £25 an hour to open the gate and tell contractors/trucks where to park. He's making about £65k for sitting on his iPad most of the day!

I also know some arctic drivers that do very well with relatively low stress. They work 4on/4off and don't have much stress. They drive a few hours to the depot, sit there chilling for 2-4 hours waiting to be offloaded and then drive back. After doing this for four days they have four days off.

They earn over £50k and some that work 5on/3off are getting paid double time (£54 p/h) for working that extra Sunday and make over £60k. I think most office jobs would expect a fair bit of blood sweat and tears for that money. My mate is a marketing manager and gets run ragged for just shy of £40k.

The main issue is the gradual shift from working to invest to working for immediate gratification.

After the war, boomers were happy to take anything if doing so have them an opportunity to grow so that in the future, they could insure some firm of stability and safety.

That involved giving to their children things that didn't have and inadvertently created children used to the pleasures of immediate gratification.

Sadly, the most stable and secure families remain most commonly those who were prepared to start of with little as a mean to hopefully get more a bit later.

It's become a societal vicious circle and has created this great divide between those who invest and pick up the rewards later and those who compare and only choose what gives a better return immediately, and sadly miss out on better opportunities later.

We need to go back to teaching all our children the notion that what we put in in the present is not always for the benefit that follows right away.

@vivainsomnia that's easy to say - but we live in an era when it's clear that for a lot of people, there is NO better no matter how far into the future they look. Entrenched inequality and reduced social mobility have seen to that.

agree this is definitely true. I’m in a professional role and we take on graduate trainees each year and there’s definitely been a change over the last 10 to 15 years or so. When i was lower down in the firm we used to grab every bit of overtime as we were all saving for our first cars. Now a lot of the trainees already have cars that have been provided by parents and have had them throughout uni, when I was at uni in the 90s I only knew one person who had a car. It’s really difficult to get people to do overtime now. We’ve also had people leave as they’ve got friends making more money selling things on the internet and having lots of free time. There’s very little recognition that the training time is just a means to an end and will progress you in life.

but we live in an era when it's clear that for a lot of people, there is NO better no matter how far into the future they look
I totally disagree. More than ever society is offering means for all to access future opportunities. Most Uni will have lower grades requirements for lower social backgrounds as do access to Medicine and more and more candidates get in that way. Schools offer the same for all. Apprentices for those not as academic.

none of this was available previously. I know a never of boomers who would have love to go to Uni and have the intelligence to have done so but this was never even option for them at the time as it would be now.

Better is there, but requires a lot of compromises, and of course a lot more for some than others. That's inevitable but that's always been the case yet we've never seen such low employability levels in young people, so it can't just be because of lack of opportunities.

@vivainsomnia I'm not talking about people who get to go to university.I'm talking about the ones who in the past would have worked their way up in a company, would have seen wage rises, would have known that at some point, buying a house would be a reality for them. If you can't see that the reduction in social mobility has impacted a lot of people, you haven't been paying attention.

When i was lower down in the firm we used to grab every bit of overtime as we were all saving for our first cars
Absolutely. I was over the moon when I got my first very old problematic car. It never ever cross my mind that I could get a new one. It always was something to aim for, some day, when I'll be earning well.

It was actually exciting to aim for better and dream of what would come with it. I'm glad that both my children seem to have acquire that same notion of progression and investing for rewards, but quite a number of their friends, with first entry jobs pay around £500 a month just to lease a new car. It cripples them financially and takes away looking forward to much better. It also come with stress that they can't save much at all even living at home.

Agreed. I'm in my 40s and was never able to get on the housing ladder. A few years back I was being evicted by my landlord as they were selling and after a period of sickness and then part-time work due to that, I didn't at the time have the money for moving costs and the new insane market rents.

I posted asking for advice and enquiring if it would be unreasonable for me to ask LL to wait a couple of months till I was working full time again and could afford it and had lots of wonderful responses but also several people gleefully telling me to get out and I'd have to get a room in a shared house without explaining what the hell I was supposed to do with all my furniture.

If someone in their 40s who has worked all their lives, trained in a professional job and earning a decent wage has to live in a shared house like a student and people seem to think that's just how it is and suck it up then there's something very wrong in the country.

I'm already worried about my old age and where the hell I'll live. If I was in my 20s now and facing a lifetime of it, I'd be depressed.

If you can't see that the reduction in social mobility has impacted a lot of people, you haven't been paying attention
I see it but I see that much more than ever, that reduction is due to choices people make, again valuing immediate benefits over longer term investments and that's a big reason why some people stay where they are and struggle to progress as well as others do.

It start with those kids who wouldn't consider a PT weekend job during college or Uni that hardly pays anything for a lot of aggro but then moan that they didn't get selected for graduate jobs compared to those who did manage to gain work experience and are more attractive to employers.

What sort of profession are you in where everyone is so well heeled that people have parents who could afford to buy them cars?!

If someone in their 40s who has worked all their lives, trained in a professional job and earning a decent wage has to live in a shared house like a student and people seem to think that's just how it is and suck it up then there's something very wrong in the country
Why? What's so wrong about that. I did exactly that. A bit younger but still taking a massive step back as before then, I was living in my own beautiful flat all furnished, with a old but reliable car, two cats. Circumstances changed and I had to give it all up and move the other part of the country. I end up rehoming my cats, selling my car and furniture and rented a room fir two years.

Of course it wasn't a nice place to be but I didn't blame anyone. I set up my aims and took one step at a time to get there. I did, slowly, with indeed many sacrifices in the way, but took the risk for future benefits and it paid off.

Of course it doesn't always pay off and good/bad luck gets in the way too. But it can b blamed for everyone struggling Vs those who have done ok.

Constantly blaming the government for all our misfortunes when for any, it's because immediate gratification was more important is not helping our society overall.

Accountancy

Because a middle-aged (any aged) professional earning a decent wage absolutely should be able afford to rent a one bed flat. In fact, they should have been able to get on the housing ladder.

It is not a race to the bottom. Just because you had to do it does not mean it is the way things should be.

Someone working full-time, even at NMW, should be able to afford secure, comfortable housing with a little money left over for luxuries and the possibility of one day being able to buy their own home. The fact that they don't means something has gone very, very wrong.

We are not moving forwards, we are going backwards and that is not OK.

@vivainsomnia I don't know any young people whose parents bought them a car. I don't know any young people who insist on using a PCP instead of buying a banger. Your narrative just oozes 'the young people of today' without acknowledging that their circumstances are very, very different from those we grew up with. When I joined the labour market, houses were still affordable on a reasonable wage. My late husband and I started off in a rental house that cost £700 a month - for a spacious 3 bedroom. My DD by contrast pays £350 for a single room in a shared house (not that she complains; she's perfectly happy with her life). Wages have stagnated, costs have risen. Pay differentials within companies are ridiculous. You can't compare the good old days with where we are now. Well, you can, but it shows a lack of understanding.

My thoughts exactly. One of those who thinks the reason people couldn't/can't get on the housing ladder is because they were spending on frivolity.

Cause of course not having an occasional Starbucks or avocado toast wlll quickly add up to tens of thousands of pounds for a deposit.

Your narrative just oozes 'the young people of today' without acknowledging that their circumstances are very, very different from those we grew up with
It's not my narrative but the narrative of my own children who are young adults and just making their way in the self reliant world. Living at home until who knows when is not on the cards. Nor getting much help from either of their parents. They won't get deposits for a new home. They'll have to do it on their own. They know it and they don't feel hard done by because they want to do it on their own.

They are the ones who are telling me about their school friends behaviours. They went to an average, actually below national average school with kids from all walk of life.

This is exactly my point. Going on about how much harder it is for them then us is a waste of energy. Harder or not, some will make it better than others and no, it certainly is not all down to what they get from mum and dad. They is a distinctive difference in the choices and priorities these young people take and that is the biggest influence it will have on their future.

Cause of course not having an occasional Starbucks or avocado toast wlll quickly add up to tens of thousands of pounds for a deposit
It's so much more than that. It's the going out most Fridays and Saturdays, the weekends away, the holidays in Spain and elsewhere, the expensive clothing, the regular take aways, taxis etc...

I don't think it can be denied that young people of this generation spend much more on non essentials than previous generations did. It's not wrong per se, it's the choice new generation make, because they want to enjoy life, but they struggle to cope with the concept that this immediate gratification means they have less to invest towards the future, even when acknowledging that they have it harder than their parents did.

By the way, at 25, I earned £600 a month in an internship. I paid £50 a week for a tiny freezing cold room. It left me with £400 to pay to warm my room, transport, food and anything else. A car was unimaginable. So we're take aways, weekends away etc... it wasn't a great life then and would have depressed if I'd believed that's all I'd ever get, but it didn't cross my mind that it would and I was determined that it was just a mean to doing better and I did.

Are you still banging on about this despite the fact i ve shown how little young people get from the state - £67 per week.

If parents are subsiding their kids, they'll do that regardless of no state help, would you leglislate against supporting your kids???

Absolutely. Much needed work, valued I’m sure by the recipients, even though society doesn’t reward it.

Again, I find it odd that so many people seem to think they do the government a 'favour' by caring for their loved ones.

I see it that it's individual people who have this responsibility before it becomes the government and that it is the government that do individuals a 'favour' by helping to support carers.

It's without a doubt a need and I'm relieved that that support is in place but I don't consider it a due and that if I come to care for my parents, I will be contributing to the economy by doing so.

So what do you think should happen to the people whose families won't/can't care for them once they run out of funds?

You appear to believe the UK should be run like a third-world country or China. We are the 6th biggest economy in the world. We can and should do better.

Read my post again. I didn't say support shouldn't be available. It should be. But we should be pleased it is and not turn things around and make it that the government should be grateful that we do their job.

I totally agree with hay we should so better and for that we need to get young people in work and accept that they might have to work for little before they get to the point when they can really start to get the rewards.