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'm still waiting for evidence of this idea that someone working in a NMW job is 5 times better off than on benefits!

I read an article last night about a woman on UC who will lose 78p per pound of her UC if she goes back to work under the new tax rules once the reduction in council tax benefit is taken into account. By the time you factor in loss of free prescriptions and costs of travel to and from work, she is worse off working than on benefits.

I can't find the article now. It popped up in a suggested news feed on my phone. I think it might have been in The Mirror.

While in work you have the opportunity to progress and increase your wage, so there is that benefit however I don't think expecting to be better off in work is expecting "instant gratification".

We also need to consider that not everyone can progress past NMW. Even if everyone was capable of high-paying careers society would break down. We need street cleaners, care assistants, child care workers, service staff, cleaners, and other essential staff for society to continue functioning and those people deserve a decent standard of living.

Has he looked at the public sector? Local authorities, civil service? Just a thought.

@TempestTost My oldest GD works part time, like many of her friends, whilst studying for their A levels. That should help her to find work once she’s at uni.

Sitting behind a desk staring at a screen doesn't do you much good either. A sedentary lifestyle can be a killer.

And also terrible for mental health. Particularly if you are working for an employer who manages staff by making them feel nothing they do is good enough or sets goals that are impossible to reach.

I know that in general working is better for mental health than not working but I wonder how true it is in those circumstances. Particularly when long hours and commute make it hard to do all the other things that are good for mental health like exercise, healthy diet, social interaction.

Yes, I totally agree with this, it's not the kids fault at all. It's regulation, and also parental fear. Plus the whole "any risk is too much risk" mindset.

I read an article last night about a woman on UC who will lose 78p per pound of her UC if she goes back to work under the new tax rules once the reduction in council tax benefit is taken into account. By the time you factor in loss of free prescriptions and costs of travel to and from work, she is worse off working than on benefits
So, she stays on benefits because she is slightly better off and let's face it, it's much nicer to be at home all day with no one telling you what to do. Until her kids all leave school and her income that was better off than working is halved. Then she is better working so she gets a job. Except age can only get unrewarding nmw ones. And she has to contemplate that she's got no pension saved at all, so she'll have to do that same sort of job for another 20 years or so before she can get just about enough to survive from the state pension because her chances to increase her income through promotions are much reduced after 50 years old. She might rely on her kids to help her financially.

Or she can take the job now. Start to save towards her pension. She is gaining knowledge of systems, she is still mentally dynamic and enthusiastic. She can go for promotions. When her kids leave school, she is fine because her income is enough to support her and she's got some savings. She retires at 67 and has got some pensions to enjoy a decent life and even maybe to help her kids. She is secure.

But indeed, too many can't see further the benefits for the next month rather than the much longer term, even when the overall benefits are obvious, and THAT is the problem with our current society. Unable or unwilling to make an small temporary sacrifice for long term ben dits.

@vivainsomnia or option 3: we do something about our utterly dysfunctional benefits system and stop being sanctimonious about people depending on it. Working should always pay better than not working and I don't understand people who think it's fine to have it otherwise.

What's wrong withe scenario of going to work and accepting that maybe for a year, the person is only slightly worse off but with a pension contribution, with a higher chance of being better after a year or so and then all the additional benefits each year onwards?

Everything if someone is already struggling to pay rent, buy food and have a bit of heating in winter. Are you one of those people who thinks poverty doesn't exist in the UK, and if it does, it's purely because the poor are feckless?

How can you think it's alright for someone to be worse off in work than on benefits? That's immoral.

Totally agree with this They were the ones who kept this country going throughout the lockdowns and are also likely to live in social housing due to being on a low income yet it was back to the default setting about SH tenants soon enough.

Everything if someone is already struggling to pay rent, buy food and have a bit of heating in winter
Firstly, UC was based on the drive that people at work were always better off, so how many are indeed genuinely worse off working? I don't think it's the young people 20-25 we are most concerned about who get less than £70 a week.

It is also a mindset because if I thought I had a good chance to be better off after a year and much better off after 10, I indeed wouldn't think twice even if it means even more sacrifices, absolutely. I find the idea of being 50 plus with nothing more than £70 a week AND little prospect to ever earn much for the rest of my life a much worse prospect than really struggling for one year but with hope.

@vivainsomnia I'm a volunteer in a charity shop, sometimes we have women trying to get some work experience after living for years on benefits.

As you say, once their children are a certain age their benefits plummet.

UC may have been invented with that concept in mind, but it doesn't deliver that. The 5 week waiting period puts people straight into debt, and if you are living on the edge, debt tends to spiral. The systems don't understand that some people may get paid twice in a month because they are paid 4 weekly - this is bad programming. And the taper doesn't take into account the indirect financial costs of working as opposed to nit working. It needs major redesign.

The 5 week wait so people have to take out a loan was/is deliberate. People in debt are more pliant, more malleable, much more likely to do as they are told.

You’re assuming that the work she take now will lead to better paid and more enjoyable work in the future. That’s one of the aspect of the employment world that is really broken.

It’s also an assumption even to think that she would manage to stay in the same job or same level of work. That her role won’t be downsized, outsourced,
automated or just eliminated.

You’re also assuming that her working conditions and environment won’t be actively detrimental to her physical and mental health.

And a lot of people are pushed out as they get older anyway.

Working hard and working consistently is no guarantee of future employment either.

Yep. Started full-time customer service in 2007. DH was a writer on a magazine. Combined wage - £27k.

@SecondHandFurniture yep.

I’ve been looking for school jobs that aren’t so draining as full time teaching. Saw one for an Inclusion Manager £28-K30k in a mainstream school.. Only they have pro rata’d it to 25 hours a week down to …..£16.5k to £17.5K.
Even worse the 25 hours doesn’t include the 30min break time or 30 minute lunch which is unpaid, even though that’s not actually enough time to leave the site .So what’s the betting you’d end up working through one or other of those. I suppose after working 8.30 -3pm you could get a cleaning job for a couple of hours until 7pm though to make ends meet.

I’m sure the school won’t be surprised when there’s a rotation of Uni leavers using it as a first job to get school experience. Hardly great for the kids though.

You’re assuming that the work she take now will lead to better paid and more enjoyable work in the future. That’s one of the aspect of the employment world that is really broken
If you are wrong, it is indeed the most common expected pathway.

Ultimately, some people will always choose to focus on the negative, what isn't achievable even it is goes against the odds. They will stick to what is safe in the short term and then blame everyone else but themselves when they don't get what others who have opted to focus on the positives and take chances earn in the end.

Assuming everyone stops focusing on the negatives and goes off and gets a better job to enable them to live to a basic standard, who is looking after all their children and elderly relatives? Or cleaning the hospital wards?

How can the office run if no one is maintaining the roads so the workers can get to the office and no one is manning the factory that makes the stationary the office uses?

There will always be people at the bottom. There has to be people at the bottom. Society would not function without NMW workers (who are the majority of the workforce). They deserve a decent standard of living.

I think it's a terrible sign of the times that some people on here think it is acceptable for someone to be working full time and still not be able to afford the essentials like a house, food, transport and heating. That mindset is deeply immoral. I have no objection to people being rich, but no-one should be on the bones of their arse and worrying about where the next rent payment is coming from. Not even for a month, never mind 'just' a year.

I'm only up to page 7 on the thread, but I've seen several posters advising "claim carers allowance, it's extra money"
This isn't true. On UC, claiming carers relieves the obligation to job search, but the actual money (£75 a week atm) is deducted from the UC payment.
Because carers pays weekly and UC monthly, this can sometimes mean a bit more is deducted than comes that month too, depending on the persons payment date.
It's not extra.
Then there's things like technically, travel expenses to hospital can be reclaimed, but if you can't provide public transport tickets, claiming mileage costs for a car journey is such a fuck on as to be almost impossible, and just not worth the stress of trying to jump through the required hoops - e.g. a petrol receipt for the exact amount used in the trip...
Caring for someone with a lifelong, debilitating condition is not a choice. There's no-one else to do it. You just have to get on with it.

Agreed. And there’s a greater need in 2024 to be able to afford things. When no one had a washing machine or toothbrushes or fresh clothes everyday or easy access to food it was normal to be smelly and malnourished . You’d not find decent employment like that now. You can’t even work for Tescos unless you have a mobile/ pc to log on and find your payslip or work schedule.
It’s not about the poor having holidays and wide screen TV’s. It’s about the having the basics so you can function in modern life.

I think it’s v difficult to think long term when you are trying to pay bills and food.
it’s an unstable way to live which isn’t compatible with a long term view.

Absolutely. I’m comfortable now but have lived through a few years of working my way up where I was worried regularly about managing to pay my bills and it was so stressful. That was in a situation where I knew I would have better earning potential and I could have asked for help. I can’t imagine living with that stress day in day out and not seeing anyway out. So bad for mental and physical health. Like you say, if people are working full time (often to make someone else rich) they should have a decent quality of life and stability.