Economically inactive people……

[Watermelonnice]

AIBU to think that the government needs to clarify who they mean when they say that they want to reduce the number of people who are economically inactive?

And to think they need to differentiate between the reasons for economic inactivity, including providing numbers who fall into each category.

It’s lazy to make this a headline without taking into account the different reasons and specifying who they mean.

Presumably they mean people who are unemployed, but economically inactive could include students, carers, disabled people, stay at home parents and those who have retired early.

Some will be reliant on the state for support but many will be completely self reliant and not claiming a thing from the government.

Why aren’t the government clearer on who they mean? Do they think they’ll persuade people who have retired early and others who have enough income without claiming any benefits to restart work?

I am an unpaid carer. I consider myself to be economically active because paid care is £30 or more an hour.
I receive £83 a week. Which saves the local authority thousands

Not helped by the state of the nhs at the moment either.

I have been on a waiting list to see a consultant since October and haven’t heard anything yet.

How many are in the same position and can’t get diagnosis and treatment or surgery?

So if economically inactive does not include unemployed people, then which group of economically inactive people are the government wanting to get back to work?

Unemployed are looking for work, economically inactive are not

The last government spent 14 years frittering away £££ and allowing vital utilities and infrastructure - much of which was previously publicly owned before being privatised - to fall into the hands of asset strippers and vulture capitalists. There is nothing better for a capitalist than being handed a natural monopoly, loading it with debt and being allowed to milk it for every penny. Many people believe that the last government was the worst in modern history - but as far as the wealthy and those who can use their money to buy influence, the Conservatives were the best, most successful government ever, transferring everything profitable into private ownership, boosting short-term profits by cutting investment to the bone and hollowing out the public sector while driving those who can afford to pay into the arms of the private healthcare providers, the private schools, the private housing developers etc. and leaving those who cannot pay as second class citizens with second class services.

I'm in that group because I'm a sahm to a preschooler. Nothing could persuade me to go back to work and miss this precious time as long as we can afford it.

I also resent the implication that economically inactive people are idle - most I know work very hard looking after children (or grandchildren), the elderly, the disabled, volunteering etc. It's valuable work, just unpaid. If I went back to work I'd be paying virtually my entire salary for childcare. Why would I do that instead of doing the childcare myself? It's not like my job before was super useful to society, like teacher or doctor. It was a boring and often pointless desk job.

If I had enough money to retire I'd certainly retire early too! I can't imagine many people wouldn't?!

And why not focus on the unemployed first rather than economically inactive?

unemployment isn't unusually high

Any why not focus on the reasons why people who want to work may not be able to, for example public transport, childcare etc

Governments don't tend to do this

Yes but they want to reduce the number of economically inactive people, and I was wondering which ones they meant?

eg early retirees, carers, sahm’s, ill people, disabled people, students

How many are in the same position and can’t get diagnosis and treatment or surgery?

This is definitely one reason why ill health is higher.

Well said. Your child is very lucky to have you. I feel sad on your behalf when you are making such a loving contribution that you have to read such awful spiel from the government. So lacking in true understanding and compassion. Sending you both my best wishes.

Same. I agree. They’re mainly thinking about Neets and individuals who have fallen into that whole lifestyle/subculture. They’re not talking about people who are carers, physically disabled or ill enough that they cannot work. It’s mainly about the Neets.

Yes I know someone who needing an operation for a hernia. They can not do their job in the meantime. They are lucky that they are on a list to get it done. Some peopel are just told it wont be fixed, ever.

@Watermelonnice when they talk in sound bites they want to reduce all of them.

However we have an ageing population, this means a shrinking working base (without immigration) & more strain on health & social care because an older population means a sicker one.

Well said 👏🏻

Personally I think the term "economically inactive" is just a tool for governments and media to rage bait people.

It's a term I only seem to see used in a negative way and is usually used in articles about benefits to give the impression there's far more claimants than there really is.

Laughing at the early retirees on this thread claiming they're economically active because they're spending their pensions and savings on nice dinners. Um nope, that's not what economically active means.

Caring responsibilities (e.g. for a disabled child) don't count towards GDP which is silly because if you were caring for someone else's child and getting paid for it then it definitely would.

Many people believe that the last government was the worst in modern history

The problem is we never recovered from the financial crash. Low interest rates masked a lot of that (& boosted assets). Companies & government didn't invest in people, services etc. The can was kicked down the road & now we have run out of road with huge gaps in public services. The government needs to raise the tax base hence why they want more economically inactive working.

I agree. It is a horrible term. If you spend money, you are not economically inactive.

I agree. It is a horrible term. If you spend money, you are not economically inactive.

Economically active is about generating wealth / contributing to the productivity of the country, not just spending money. If it were just about spending money then no one would be economically inactive.

Personally I think the term "economically inactive" is just a tool for governments and media to rage bait people.

The other term bandied about is net contributors but again an ageing population means a shrinking pool of net contributors.

Technically spending money does contribute to growth and the economy as well as the government through VAT.

As for net contributors, lots of people like to think they are but the truth is the majority of us take more out then we put in over our lives but it's also a great tool for driving division and keeping us all in check more concerned about the folk next door living the so called "high life" on benefits while share holders and politicians laugh at us all pocketing vast sums of money none of us can dream of.

The whole approach has been somewhat backward.

There's 800k job vacancies yet they are trying to get 11 million people into work by introducing policies that mean the private sector are having to cut back jobs and the civil service is yet again being asked to find savings in departments that have already been stripped to the bone.

Everywhere you look, despite technology supposedly making things easier, there's dar longer waiting lists to have anything done.

My 81 year old mum keeps being bounced from waiting list to waiting list because they can't work out what's wrong (it's not just old age).

I had to see my GP yesterday, I say my GP but have got a clue who he was, I filled the form in on Monday got a blind appointment, which would be OK if it was something routine. I've got a few autoimmune issues I've been managing for over 30 years but somethings gone wrong. I walked out with a fit note I didn't ask for, was asked several times if i wanted mental health support, there's nothing wrong with my mental health and a letter to my specialist. Oh fun so might be sometime 12th of never then.

Economically active is about generating wealth / contributing to the productivity of the country, not just spending money

The UK has a big productivity problem but what does help productivity is a healthy, educated workforce. So governments should invest in education, healthcare & transport to facilitate productivity. They haven't done that

I have been economically inactive for 20 years, couldn't be arsed to work any more, decided to be a trad wife. DH has now retired early, aged 60. We are extremely idle, pottering around going for walks and doing the garden. It's bliss.

Productivity of the country

what is that?

does that mean that not only “economic inactive” people but also doctors and nurses and teachers don’t really count because they don’t produce anything ?

Productivity of the country
what is that?
does that mean that not only “economic inactive” people but also doctors and nurses and teachers don’t really count because they don’t produce anything ?

No. They are providing a service. One measure of GDP is the total value of goods and services produced.