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?

There are no health reasons preventing me from going back to work, but I’m afraid I have no intention of doing so.

We are constantly told how rewarding work is, yet most people can't wait to retire.

That's a great idea. So can you pay me back what you owe me for all the "free money" spent on you from birth until the date you started paying your own taxes? Plus any periods of further and higher education I funded, and any other benefits you have received. That money didn't grow on trees and I want it back. All 47 years worth. And please ensure that you don't claim anything at all, including any public services, unless what you pay in tax more than covers the bill. Because I don't want the tax that I still pay on my pension wasted on people who can't afford the full cost of public services, and I have decided to start with you.

But actually no one is "economically inactive". Even if not working and on benefits, or a pensioner, everyone purchases items which literally keeps the economy turning, and will incur VAT (a 20%tax on most 'non-essential' items purchased).

We appear to have reached a point where the state was in the past there to meet the needs of the population
Yet the government now thinks the population are there to meet the needs of the state.

Given the squandering, inefficiency ,piss poor services and general pathetic performance of successive governments, is it any wonder that those who can afford to not work, simply don’t feel any moral compulsion to do so?

Is there anything that would persuade you back to work?

It’s an understandable situation that people prioritise their free time, health and well being after years of working rather than increasing their income

I agree.
I favour a version of the Chinese 'lying flat' & I live very frugally on the proceeds of my savings & investments.

oo! It's got a name.

Me too.

They want to stigmatise swathes of people

the unemployment are only a tiny group.

leave students, carers, Mums, retirees etc out of it.

@Locutus2000 @Watermelonnice

I did find my job rewarding. Unfortunately I also found it utterly exhausting. I was working long hours (at least 10 hours a day) but even so I never felt that I had things under control and was constantly fire-fighting. In addition, I had a 3 hour commute on a good day. In practice it was often 3.5 or even 4 hours. I did work at home one day a week, which helped, and had I known that Covid was just round the corner and I would have been able to work at home every day, I would probably have stayed on, but I didn’t.

I could find work locally no doubt, if I tried, and if I could find something with part time flexible hours perhaps I would, but I enjoy the freedom of retirement too much, and we don’t need the money as our pensions are sufficient for our needs. If we found we could no longer manage on our income, I would go back to work (we do not receive any benefits unless you count my 74 year old husband’s state pension). As it is, the only “work” I envisage doing in the next few years is childcare for grandchildren, but I don’t have any yet!

I get that the technical definition of economic activity does not include spending money, but it seems bizarre to me as goods and services provided also only count if someone is buying them.

I’m also interested in what the government will do about it. A statistic I once read that shocked me, is that 80% of mothers of children with disabilities and SN are not in paid employment. Imagine if appropriate full-time school places and suitable wrap around care was available to all these families, along with the respite care necessary so that both parents had the physical and mental energy to work outside the home. Wouldn’t that be amazing!

And there are even more with genuine mental health conditions who cannot work

I plan on being economically inactive from age 60 when I will retire and live off my savings, and I can't wait.
My son is economically inactive due to severe mental health conditions, although he does spend his benefits, I mean he needs to eat, so I guess that helps.
Two very different scenarios, so yes they should really define exactly what they mean.

Do you always rant like this? Or is this an exception. Anyway, you have no idea about me or any other poster here. So rant away.

I was not the one saying that economically inactive people - like the disabled, sick and elderly - have no right to expect to use public services or get "free money". I presume you are happy for those people to starve?

And you can’t read either. Okay then.

I can read perfectly well thanks. Perhaps you should write better?

My BiL retired at 53.5 - he was offered early retirement and grabbed it with both hands. Obv. his pension was reduced, but he and Dsis seem to have done fine anyway.

Try reading again. Or perhaps not, it won’t make any difference.

I wonder how accurate the numbers are. So, they know who is claiming benefits, but some of those will be working, does HMRC and the DSS have joined up systems??

DD and thousands of others have just finished their studies, if you don't claim, how do they know they are NEETS? DD and many of her friends are all travelling at the moment.

DH and I are retired early and living off savings. How do they know what we are doing??

The Chinese term is Tang ping · 躺平. 🙂

He also said ignorance had to end. Maybe you can focus on that one.

I think you could make an argument that at least in some cases, the SAHP is effectivly a contributor to the other parent's job.

For example, people I know that are in high end law jobs, or some doctors, have such time demanding jobs that they are not able to contribute to a lot of the day to day work of having kids. In my experience if the spouse also works they have a nanny, but often the other parent stays home with the kids instead. They aren't getting paid in the normal way, but they are providing the flexibility needed for the working parent to manage that kind of job.

It's a bit silly in a way that the nanny counts as economically active, while the spouse doesn't, fulfilling the same role.

Increasing productivity is important, but I do think that we have to be careful about failing to recognise that some people are filling important and necessary roles that allow others to be productive. It's not better for kids to be home all day with a nanny rather than mum or dad, and it's not a good thing if the economy pushes for that in the name of productivity.

It's not better for kids to be home all day with a nanny rather than mum or dad

How is it any different to childcare outside the home? This nonsense about facilitating someone else’s career makes me see red. It’s complete bollocks.

When you stop working, you'll pay less tax as your earnings will be lower. That's a downside for Govt

I'm about to become economically inactive.

I agree with OP. Not enough is being done to identify who can get into work, what will help them. We are not being told who they are referring to when they bang on about it.

There's no real plan in place.

I'm having to quit work, my health is terrible. I work from home already but thr nature of the job is not sustainable for me with my health conditions (lots of client contact, no routine, no real time for breaks, vague directions).

Plan was originally to go to Uni (distance learning) , get a better education to hopefully open a wider range of WFH roles for myself, then re-enter the workforce.

I was told, in no uncertain terms, by a large proportion of mumsnet that I couldn't be able to handle uni due to my health, wouldn't be able to get any other jobs working from home even with my chosen degree. (many people were encouraging, but the ones who weren't are sadly perhaps sharing their views with the people I'd hope would be hiring me - having disabilities and needing to WFH means you're a useless loser) .

So I'm too sick to work and not wanted. I'm trying so hard to participate, but I am not wanted. So I'm still having to quit my job now, cus I can't bloody do it, but with no forward path. I will be economically inactive, willing to change that, but not given any realistic or sustainable way of doing so... Unless I miraculously stop being autistic and my other health conditions miraculously reverse.

It really seems like the government - and those in mumsnet - think I can just stop having health conditons. Like, I can just choose to stop it.