Lies, Damn Lies and Youth Unemployment

Joe_Bloggs

I can't hit a golf ball when I am sober so I guess that drink driving can't be any worse.
J_B (bub bum )

Hereward

blueboy43 wrote: »

It is not straightforward as that.

The ONS split people in this group into either in Full time education or not in full time education. In both groups you can then either be

1)employed
2) unemployed
3) economically inactive

If we look at the cohort that is not in full time education then the latest figures are;

1) employed 2871k
2) unemployed 691k
3) economically inactive 793k (that is people don't satisfy ILO definition of being unemployed)


pretty depressing no matter how you try and spin it.

We classify people in full time education as being economically inactive. If you are in full time education, then by definition you cannot be unemployed, as you have no time available for work. Part-time education is more of a grey area.

Economically inactive also includes disabled people who are deemed unfit for work and a parent with caring responsibilities for a young child.

Pennywise

kabayiri wrote: »

I understand this. Personally, as someone with an engineering degree background, I wonder what benefit some modern subjects provide.

Is mass higher education therefore of limited value? We can't just ignore large numbers of young people without work.

There's a massive difference between academic or vocational qualifications and basic skills. A degree or NVQ or whatever is pretty pointless to an employer if the employee can't get to work on time, has poor general literacy or numeracy, is lazy, or can't/won't take instruction, can't/won't do menial work, etc.

I'm seeing both sides here. I work with dozens of small firms who would love to take on an eager apprentice/trainee, but have been stung too many times by wastes of space who think the world owes them a living and expect to do the "nice" bits of the job from day one, won't do any of the "dirty" bits, and seem to think that 9-5 hours are optional. The result is that they've decided not to bother again. On the other side, I have friends, neighbours and family with 18-24 year old children - the ones with a family work ethic go out and get jobs - even menial jobs like washing up in pubs, retail, waitressing, etc, part time at first alongside studying. Others lounge around all day, some play a bit of sport at weekends, but trot out the same old "there's no jobs innit" attitude which basically means that they're holding out for the perfect job (easy hours, good money etc) that they'll never get. My own nephew is like that - really lovely person, but too lazy to even get a part time job - just does one course after another aiming for the holy grail, accumulating qualifications along the way, but no sign of ever getting off his backside and actually getting a job.

It's time for a reality check. Many/most employers would be far more impressed by a youngster who's had a few part time jobs as it shows they have initiative and staying power etc. Qualifications aren't the be all and end all and it's time that myth was scrapped once and for all. For a lot of jobs, what matters is the basics - literacy & numeracy, getting to work on time, doing what they're asked to do, etc.

IronWolf

blueboy43 wrote: »

I wonder if you actually understand!

The figures are per ONS

938,000 people between 16-24 year olds are not in education or training or employment.

This is 16% of all 16-24 years olds (Not 1 in 5 but 1 in 6).
That means all including those at school and at High Ed.

As a check, this implies that there are 5.86 million people aged 16-24, which common sense would tell you sounds roughly right considering the population of the UK.

Whatever your political persuasion it is a lamentable number of blighted lives.

Pretty clear that one of the worst affected groups affected by the recession is the young.

Don't know what the solution is but you wonder if its sensible to have a miniumum wage in these circumstances (particulalrly where the NEET rates are chronic like the North East) and also wonder if it would be better to try and get people in work & part time study rather than what seemed to be Labours idea of parking people in dubious forms of full time education as adults.

There also seems to be a worrying base level of NEETS - it hasn't been below 640,000 since 2000 (haven't looked before that). Curious also that it is more of a female than male problem but the men have been catching up fast in the last few years (since Q1 2009)

We were talking about unemployment, not NEET. And, ONS don't publish NEET statistics, the figures you've been quoting before from ONS are not NEET statistics.

Also there are many valid reasons for being NEET, the headline stat doesn't give the full picture, people being NEET isnt always a 'problem', women have children and choose to stay at home, thats why the female NEET rate is higher. The numbers will never decrease unless they revise down the population forecasts. The weights on the surveys increase as the population increases, which means the numbers increase. So unless the proportion of NEET falls dramatically the numbers wont be going below 640,000

You cant say it has disproportionately hit the young by looking at NEET statistics, because there are none for adults.

stonethrower

NVQ or commonly known as not very qualified in the construction industry. I understand why employers are reluctant to employ who have these qualifications, they want full pay for basic skills. Bring back full time apprenticeship.