Nearly 1m young people out of work

[Starfeesh]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62gzl2yl24o

AIBU to be concerned that a life on benefits seems to be a viable option, and glad Labour are bringing in compulsory work placements?

Think I must have misread too,

Until work stops being exploitative and further education free/affordable, I can't see why anything will change.

Why would you give a job to someone straight from school when you can get someone who has been doing the job for 10 years on minimum wage (because companies don't want to pay what people are actually worth)?

Maybe it would help if work trials were more of a thing? Not everyone has the skills to interview well, but may shine in the actual work environment.

You haven’t misread it. And yes , it is awful. If it helps, we do have a larger number of children like these compared to other schools, because we have a reputation of being able to handle such needs , and the resources to do so (for now). But honestly, what do you think happens to all the kids that have severe learning difficulties or profound multiple learning difficulties that are in mainstream or SEN schools at the moment? That’s around 40k children. It doesn’t have to be that severe though to impact a child academically, mentally and emotionally.There are all kinds of disabilities and combinations.Children in care are up to 10 times more likely to become NEETs . Teens that have been in trouble with the law, similar. And so on.

Can we really complain about the number of NEETs when we have thread after thread with hundreds of posters demanding kids (sometimes as young as 6) to be excluded , kicked out, home educated etc. ? Where do they go? What becomes of them? Well… nothing much.

Feckless teens/kids is a cop out.

Apologies, went on a bit of a rant/side issue there. It’s just so much more complicated than glib soundbites.

So, if Julen7 and I have both misread the stats on an average primary class, please please tell us how society's few remaining tax payers are expected to fund the bottomless pit?

I've been on MN many years @EatYourDamnPie and your post has shocked me rigid, to be frank.

That’s the way of eugenics and an extremely slippery slope. I can see your point, however life isn’t cold , clean cut and logical. It’s messy and emotional. People want to live, they want their children to live. They love them. They still have hopes and dreams. They find joy. And even if they don’t, the love is still there , the child is there.

but then on the flip side the way society is run in general for profits etc then at somepoint $ vs society or a new system is needed thats not based on profits

I did say in the whole school, not in one class. These are across various year groups. Apologies if that wasn’t clear.

My ideas are long term and very costly(and possibly unrealistic), so wouldn’t fly on here or with the government.

Sorry.I’d probably feel the same way if all I knew about schools and various issues were through being a parent, just a member of society, rather than working in/with it.

I get all that, and I sympathise totally. We love our children unconditionally and will move mountains to look after them. But calling it eugenics has a very nasty rasp. Some foetuses and new borns are not robust enough to be viable, but modern medicine can alleviate so much, possibly too much?

thats the thing where does society do whats best vs whats suitable for society as a whole when the system is based on £

Ouch @BackinRed101 that is a penetrating question. Forgive me if I don't feel up to giving a proper answer.

ill admit it is deep waters unfortunally

Because I am 70, and grew up in a world where not every baby could be saved... my first ever boss's wife was a midwife and every so often he came in quiet at work. I asked why one day and he told me, [name] had to put a pillow on an unviable newborn yesterday and tell the mum it was a stillbirth. Now, I think the world feels we should keep them all alive, regardless of the cost or the contribution they might make. The whole equation is a very uneasy one for me.

The issue is we can’t turn back the clock, to a before time , so we’d end up assigning people a value and deciding who lives and who dies based on that value. The second issue is that that value would be easily changed to suit the government/rhetoric du jour.

that seems to be the issue people are quick to say the benefits bill is omg but then if you offer up the cold perspective suddenly thats omg too, so its like what does society want etc

Exactly. A nurse filled my mother with all sorts of horror prognosis just after my birth before she saw the paediatrician (this was the mid 70s, before scans, telling her that I would be little more than a vegetable. Heaven forbid she'd taken a pillow to me...

I am the first to concede hypocrisy here. I would tell you that saving old fat people is not our first priority, but the NHS saved my DH aged 50, and he has paid 40% tax for 20 years since they did.

but some would say the cost of the treatments vs the tax paid is not enough as the treatments would cost thousands more than the taxs

DH's taxes have covered the costs @BackinRed101 ! The public is not out of pocket on this one!

in that case, much respect

Well the biggest change really is the ability medicine brought to prolong life at the other end.** In the past many people might expect to live 5 years after retirement now it's more like 20. But I suspect you aren't planning to forgo all modern medicine for yourself post retirement or fling yourself of a cliff Viking style when you are no longer fit enough to work and contribute to the economy.
(Ím not a fan of mandatory euthanasia (or effective euthanasia through medical neglect). But if you are going to advocate for it it makes more sense to start at 65 than 0.

**Child mortality is much lower but most of those children-that-would-have-died grew up to be healthy adults.