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.

Ah so perhaps Liz Truss was a genius after all 😂

I wonder if some of the answers here are because people who are working are less likely to be able to post during the day? I'm 57 and work full time (I have a day off today) as do all of my friends of a similar age. It wouldn't occur to any of us to stop work even if we could afford to. I probably could manage if I took my pension early but I'd rather work while I can and have more money later. I haven't even thought about when I might retire.

Some were subsidised, some were profitable. Depends on the course etc.

The accounting course I teached was definitely paid for in full and profit making for the college. Each pupil paid several hundred pounds per module (most paid for by their employer, but some were self funded). The pupils who got it free were subsidised because they were unemployed and the course was on the "approved" list of what they could do to retrain. I've no idea whether it was central govt, local govt, or the college itself who "subsidised" their course costs.

My mother did typing courses by evening classes for adults. Prices are meaningless because it was back in the 70s and 80s, but I remember her saying she needed 20 pupils per class or it would be stopped after the first couple of weeks, the 20 number being the college's "break even" figure to cover the costs. She used to put her own private advert in the local paper to get pupils for her classes - a few pounds for a private ad was an "investment" for her as it meant she'd get paid for the term whereas otherwise if numbers weren't high enough, she'd only get paid for the first two weeks! Some years she had 3,or even 4 nights working when her newspaper ad worked "too well" and she had to get the college to put on extra classes for the overflow! Me and OH did skiing lessons at the same college for a few years, and the skiing teacher said the same - he didn't put ads in the local paper, but he put flyers in a local ski shop to drum up new pupils so he'd keep his numbers up to secure the course for the full term!

In my group of school mum friends I am the only one who works full time (NHS but not frontline) and only two others work at all. In one family both parents have dropped out of the workplace as they can afford not to work.

I'm finding it really demotivating to keep going tbh. I'm off sick today and fretting about what that single, rare, day off means in terms of workload and workplace reputation but everyone around me is swanning about going for coffee all day (it feels like).

Housing needs to be addressed. Young people need to be able to leave home. Being forced at best into HMO and no prospect of getting anything better if they take low paid jobs will impact MH in any age! Inagile benefits systems don't help, weeks to adjust claims, sanctions, it should be feasible these days to take short term jobs, low contracts, download wage slip and benefits adjust in a day not weeks/ months.
Low wages, no prospect of decent housing, add in any other problems and you have people without any reason to become part of working society.

Well that's what they are saying, whether they mean it or not is another kettle of fish. Baroness Helena Morrissey (a tory party peer) was on the radio this morning saying exactly that. Jeremy Hunt also mentioned around this time last year when they were first talking about older people dropping out of the workforce.

Only around £27k of the average £50k debt is the tuition fees though, the rest is for living costs.

As I said, my living costs were paid for too.

I left University with money in the bank, thanks to working for a year in the middle of my course.

(I also totally avoided getting scammed by endowment mortgages. But apparently that's not possible, so best left unsaid)

Exactly!

Oh, they talk a good game. But I have this nasty habit of actually looking at what they are doing.

Once again, it seems I'm not doing life right. Sigh.

I work with young NEETs. The government Kickstart scheme was great. Meant employers could take a chance on a young person as the jobs were ringfenced for them. It was so much easier for us to get them into work through Kickstart. Lots of them have never returned as it gave them a start. They should definitely bring that back.

The other major issue is mental heath and lack of provision for it. There is very little help out there for anyone nevermind just young people.

I have a LOT of young people who won't even speak on the phone. They don't leave their bedrooms and are spending their lives gaming in different time zones.

They want to be careful what they wish for. IME it is the retired who more or less keep society running in the suburbs and semi rural areas where I have lived. They are the people doing hospital transport, running the dementia memory cafe, organising and working in the hedgerow cleaning sessions, running craft courses for adults and children, working in the charity shops and food banks,,libraries and Citizens Advice, running the local societies and shindigs etc etc all UNPAID. The middle aged are busy working and looking after families, the younger adults don’t want to know (on the whole).

Get them back to work and they won’t have any time or energy to do these support functions.

This quite probably needs saying again.

a. Fruit picking veg picking etc a lot of which is LIVE IN work. If you rent social housing you have to actually fucking well live there. You are not allowed to live away from home for the length of time these employers want you to. If you want that you will need to give SH tenants more rights! But that would also mean giving them more rights to leave their home for other reasons

b. Gas safety checks fire door checks electric checks Surveys My tenancy agreement says i have to be home for these and no i cant get a friend or neighbour to do it for me.

c. the hatred there is for SH tenants ensures that some busybody would probably report the flat as abandoned if a tenant were to risk their tenancy by taking this job.

d. i have mentioned SH tenants because they will be the most likely group expected to take these jobs yet their hands are tied and they cant And even if they wont perhaps they want a life after the working day (just like home owners have (You know the ones who arent expected to do these jobs) instead of sharing a berth with a stranger.

I think the govt are on a hiding to nothing trying to get older people who can afford to retire to get back to work. If people can fund the lifestyle they want without relying on handouts then that's their choice. I've worked full time for decades paying thousands of pounds a year into pensions - if I choose to retire early at 60 then that's my choice.

The younger age group who clearly aren't able to fund themselves not to work are the group to target. I know mental health issues, social anxiety etc have shot up massively but those don't automatically mean a person can't work. There are lots of jobs that can be done remotely or part remotely now. Not everything is people facing or requires inflexible hours.

Ultimately, there are loads of job vacancies and unless a person is too disabled to do any hours of work at all it's crazy that not working is even an option.

Where did people say they were looking to others to fund their lifestyle? I don't, and I'm not 'idle', I'm probably busier than when I was working.

I heard that guy and felt for him

Companies could do with incentives to get over fifty back in, there’s too much ageism

At least whilst there’s a shortage anyway, it won’t displace young people it’s needed

The idea of "older people " dropping out of the workforce has 2 sides- only a few years ago most women retired at 60 (and in a lot of cases had a reduced married woman's pension). So retirement at 58 or so is not slacking- it's just that the goalposts have been moved.
The other side of this is that even the most skilled and professional women over 50 suffer horrendous discrimination and are widely seen as useless, flaky "Karens". Why on earth would anyone want to stay and put up with that if they could leave?

My family lost a business during covid as it was within a sector which received no financial help and the directors, including myself, were not allowed to claim furlough. Our retirement funds has ensured the mortgage was paid to ensure our home wasn't lost - during what was, and still is a stressful time, those who no longer have jobs, including myself and husband, have applied for well over 100 jobs to no avail. We are over 50.

Companies want the experience but are not prepared to pay for it. Many of the middle and upper management do not want more experienced over 50 staff members on their teams as they may not look quite as important as they seem!

Many over 50's are not fluent, or many are not prepared to speak the current "corporate speak" so are brushed aside.

On the other end of the spectre, over 50's are not always welcomed in the minimum wage jobs either because they have no experience (HR you really need to open your eyes when you write the never ending job specs for something that pays £10ph), or an aging working does "not fit the company profile"!

It is soul destroying to have worked all your life, built up a successful business, not only to lose it through no fault of your own, but then to be cast aside in the job market. No matter what the government does, if companies do not want to employ older staff they will find a reason not to.

The same can be said of the 18-24 age bracket.

To be honest, @schloss I don't think companies actually want the experience. They just want to throw everything out and pretend the past few years didn't happen and don't want anyone working for them who might call attention to that- experienced senior people, vulnerable young adults, no thank you, millennials only, please.

Indeed.
In my community it’s the younger retired doing low level caring (running errands, giving lifts, doing DIY, helping with difficult life admin particularly things that have to be done online) for the less mobile elderly and thus saving the state a great deal.
Of course this unpaid work is completely invisible as with so much work traditionally done by women.

My youngest DD21 has had a severe mental illness and been housebound for most of the last 6 years. Initially for 3 years doctors/CAMHS/school did everything they could to prevent her receiving specialist treatment. I had to pay for a private diagnosis and then they finally agreed that she needed the treatment.

When she did finally get on that waiting list, it was nearly a year long. She had a year's treatment that didn't work, and now she is back on another waiting list which has been nearly a year already for a different hospital.

6 years gone. She's desperate to work. But the specialist treatment she needs has these long waiting lists, and getting a place on the list is not even guaranteed. And even if you get a place on the list, your treatment then has to be agreed and funded. I'm part of support groups in 3 charities that help children and young people with these illnesses, and her case is by no means unusual. That's what you need to consider, it's not unusual. It's not a rare one off. So multiply that by all other mental and physical illnesses that won't be cured by 6 weeks of talk therapies or a trip to the GP.

So how do these people get back to work?

I'm in my 60s and still work FT when there is well paid contract work available in my field. Generally that means mostly working FT with the odd 6 month gap when the contract market is poor. At my age, I wouldn't get a FT job in my industry. I could retire (have DB pensions not yet claimed) but enjoy what I do. I won't however do work I don't enjoy or that does not pay well because I don't need to. DH (10 years older than me) tends to work 3-4 days a week. He tried retiring, but went back as he likes what he does.

The national company I worked for weren't interested in re-employing me after I relocated, despite encouraging me to apply for roles with them in my new area.
I was a Care Worker on minimum wage. I really enjoyed my work and received excellent feedback from managers.
After my adult children left home I decided to downsize and moved area at the age of 61, to live closer to my DC.
The company weren't interested in employing me in the new area despite an excellent reference from my previous manager. I am confident that was due to my age.
As I had funds in the form of equity from my house sale which were sufficient to top up a small private pension until I receive my state pension; I decided to unofficially retire. I suspect others who are in a similar position do the same and are also lost to the workforce.

Yes I think that is also part of the problem, for some they do not want or cannot see the need for experience.

Without getting into the political thoughts on IR35 but it has destroyed any opportunity for companies to use the experienced over 50's as consultants but without having to employ them, on the other side it has curtailed over 50's being able to work as contractors. IR35 has caused the law of unintended consequences to kick in leading to many over 50's not being able to return to the workplace or if they are financially able to do so deciding not to return.

My husband was offered a job only for it to be pulled before the contracts were delivered, it is in an industry where a lot of people know each other and the info finally reached him that a young graduate had been offered the job on a lower salary. Husband was peeved but sadly not surprised. 6 months later he was approached by a headhunter for a short term contract to work alongside a young, inexperienced manager on a project. The young manager could not fully deliver on the very important project so help was needed. Of course it was the company and the young graduate which required the help.

"6 months later he was approached by a headhunter for a short term contract to work alongside a young, inexperienced manager on a project. The young manager could not fully deliver on the very important project so help was needed"

Everyone loses out in this scenario @schloss - it's nice for your DH to get the call but in reality the company have had to pay twice for the post getting him as consultant and have lost all the experience they paid to train him in, he could have been mentoring staff and working at the same time 😢
I'm sure the young graduate feels undermined by the company too !

The crippling costs of car insurance now for youngsters doesn't help. I know you don't need a car to get to work but it helps open up options tremendously, particularly if you don't live in a city.