Alan Milburn / neets / youth unemployment

[PeteTheNeet]

I’m just reading with interest Alan Milburn’s article in the daily mail about an upcoming report which examines the reasons for rising youth unemployment.
Alan says of his first job delivering newspapers:

"I learned more from that than any lesson in school – the importance of turning up and getting on with it, even when I didn't feel like it.
Those early experiences used to be a rite of passage. Saturday jobs. Summer work. First proper pay packets in brown envelopes. The first taste of independence and pride. But today, entry-level roles are disappearing. Retail jobs – the biggest employer of Britain's young people – have been falling for a decade.
Walk into a supermarket and you are more likely to scan your own shopping than speak to a cashier. Ordering a meal means scanning a QR code or using an app, rather than speaking to a waiter.
Offices that hired school leavers are using AI to do basic admin, customer service and even recruitment screening.
The very jobs that used to give young people their first step on the career ladder are disappearing. Which makes this crisis not just urgent but accelerating."

Yet as I see it, it isn’t Ai or self scanners or QR codes responsible for young people finding it difficult to access their first job, but restrictive employment legislation which has effectively made it illegal for under 18s to work in many of the jobs which were traditionally given to college aged kids (16-18).
For example my local authority states it is illegal for under 18s to work in any commercial kitchen , be it a chippy, cafe or anything else. Milk rounds are also banned , probably for good reason.
In fact it’s a good job that Alan Milburn uses his paper round as the example, because actually , that’s seemingly one of the few jobs young people are legally allowed these days.
Aibu to think that restrictive employment legislation is as much to blame as Ai?
My teens have all had part time jobs in the last few years which would have counted as illegal by local authority standards. Making toasties and serving ice cream from a commercial kitchen , working late in a pub waiting tables, etc. They’ve all gone on to full time employment and every time the employer has appreciated their ‘work ethic’.
But how can young people get a good work ethic if they’re not allowed to work ?

The level of competition would reduce significantly if there were more opportunities. There’s a shortage of tradespeople. Hopefully Milburn’s report will prompt the government to address this issue and start moving funding for benefits into initiatives to increase apprenticeships. It would be a win/win situation. It’s ludicrous for any provider of apprenticeships to demand work experience in 16 year olds when there’s no opportunity for them to gain any.

So you’re going to completely ignore the large scale automation which is doing away with unskilled jobs, of which self-checkout is merely the most visible, and blame non-existent legislation instead? Under 18s can work in supermarkets, retail, cafes, factories and a wide range of other working environments. They can’t serve alcohol, tobacco or do some high risk jobs. Alan Milburn is dead on the money though - automation and AI is coming for the remaining entry level jobs and therefore the competition for those that remain will be so much higher.

It is which is why Labour making it more likely that businesses won’t choose the younger age group is madness.

Youth employment going up before AI really kicks in is so bad.

Milburn is casting around everywhere bar Labour policy, which is typical for Labour but not helping.

AI and automation has really kicked in.

More will kick in obviously. And Labour use it as an excuse for sectors not hit by it particularly.

Their policies have caused an uptick in youth unemployment.

I agree that NMW and NI increases have not helped young people but I would say that the 18-21 group are more affected than the under-18s which is what OP is talking about. There might even be an argument made to scrap the under-18 NMW, but even the current £8 per hour is pretty low - plenty of under-18 jobs in retail/hospitality are already paying more than that as it is.

I would also point to poor/non-existent/inflexible public transport in many areas as being an issue for young people.

Automation has been around for years. If only we’d all refused to use self checkouts and scanning devices when we shop. We’re part of the problem.

Automation is really advancing though, it just gets far less publicity than AI. Driverless delivery vehicles are a reality already and warehouses with no human employees at all other than a handful of maintenance workers are being built now. Datacentres have been worker-free for years.

I’m not sure what you mean. Graduates from those universities can do all the things you mention in your post, so I’m not sure what you’re not impressed by?

I think there is a big difference in opportunities depending on where you live. A large town or city, with multiple retail and hospitality establishments, is likely to have more accessible job options than a small town or village with poor transport links. We can't all live in cities.

I think it’s multifactorial tbh, but the fact there are fewer entry level jobs clearly is one factor.

Are young people less independent and equipped to go into the workforce at 16? There was a thread yesterday about a 17 year old who never made her own lunch which makes you wonder.

I used to oversee engineering apprenticeships. I didn't expect work experience but it was very competitive, even 10 years ago so grades weren't enough. Things like playing in a sports team, DofE, volunteering, being able to talk to me about projects etc were differentiators.

Maybe if you read the posts together then, as it was clearly in reference to a comment made about some unis not permitting students to work.

The boss of Next summed it up perfectly this morning. The government is too incompetents and the should focus more on how to drive economic growth, rather than messing around with trying to deal with the symptoms of the mess they have created, i.e youth unemployment.

He didn’t use those exact words but he was scathing nevertheless. And you would far rather listen to someone who runs one of the most profitable British businesses with an international footprint. Rather than listening to a bunch of idiots who fell into government by accident and have done nothing more in their previous lives than rob a wage in the public sector or worked in charities.

I did read the poses together, thank you, and it still doesn’t make sense.

The reason why Oxford and Cambridge don’t allow their students to work is because the courses are so demanding. There is simply no time to work because you’re expected to study all the time.

I went to Cambridge and found my course - English - very challenging and rigorous, and would not have been able to work on top of studying.

Baron Wolfson of Aspley Guise is a Conservative life peer - hardly an independent commentator on the matter.

Rather than listening to a bunch of idiots who fell into government by accident and have done nothing more in their previous lives than rob a wage in the public sector or worked in charities.

What do you mean by this? It sounds like you’re saying public sector workers don’t work honest jobs. Is that right? I just want to make sure I’ve understood you before I assume anything.

It's quite unusual not to be impressed by Oxford and Cambridge. I thought the whole process of getting in there showed academic ability and passion for their subject - and that they would have a good reason for choosing their university.

Do you feel that students are let down once they get there, that the degree is worth something less (in the working world) than people think?

And the CEO of a publicly traded British company generating £7b annual revenue and employing tens of thousands of people and generating hundreds of millions of value for British taxpayers economy each year.

But you’d rather defend the thickos in government than accept the opinion of a business leader who actually produces some value. Sums up why this country is doomed.

Yes AB is spot on. I grew up in the 60s and 70s. Any girl or young woman who could type could get a job in an office and work their way up if minded to do so.

I am saying that the standard of people in government and civil service almost definitely lower than people in real jobs. The results speak for themselves.

It doesn’t get much realer than running the country. It’s a lot realer than pushing other people’s money around in the City. Remind me who the taxpayer had to bail out in 2008?

Do you have any evidence to back up what you’re saying? Have you worked in government or the CS? If not, I’m not sure I can accept what you’re saying, as I don’t think you know what you’re talking about! I worked in the CS for 30+ years and it was bloody hard work!

What’s a ‘real job’?

Yes I think it's worth less than people assume it will be.

If someone tells me they chose Oxford because of it's reputation for engineering, and qualifies that somehow then fair as long as they can also tell me why they opted for a general engineering degree rather than a civil engineering degree.

If they tell me they chose Oxford because they could, because it was expected etc then they're not for me.

So it isn't that I'm anti-Oxford or anti-Cambridge. It's that they don't carry any extra gravitas with me just by default. Conversely, I'm more inclined to look twice at someone who's graduated from Bath, UCL or Imperial College because of the relevance of their module structure to industry.