A lost generation of 14 million out-of-work and disengaged young Europeans is costing member states a total of €153bn (£124bn) a year – 1.2% of the EU's gross domestic product – the largest study of the young unemployed has concluded.
The report, by the EU's own research agency, Eurofound, has discovered that Europeans aged 15 to 29 who are not in employment, education or training (known as Neets) have reached record levels and are costing the EU €3bn a week in state welfare and lost production.They are also providing a lot of jobs ‘servicing’ that population, though. I wonder if that’s been taken into account?
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) said Europe was "failing in its social contract" with the young and rising political disenchantment could reach levels similar to those that sparked North African uprisings during the Arab spring.Really? I rather doubt that. Unless we have a population that closely matches the demographics of North Africa.
Not that the EU aren’t working on that!
"The consequences of a lost generation are not merely economic," the report warns, "but are societal, with the risk of young people opting out of democratic participation in society."Looking at the voting breakdown by age, that ship has well and truly sailed…
Of course, nowhere (except in the comments) is the chief cause elucidated:
Nobody to blame but the EU itself. When I was 17/18, I was working part-time in Tesco. These days the youth find it extremely difficult to get work in places like Starbucks or a supermarket, why? The free market and the uncontrolled open door immigration policy has changed the demographics of the UK. I am not opposed to immigration, but when it is uncontrolled this like it puts enormous pressure on public services. From housing, schools, NHS, policing, public transport, the list goes on. The worst thing is nobody is doing anything about it. During a recession you would have thought a limit would have been slapped on so our own people have a chance of getting work having been laid off elsewhere. I'm sorry but I see no growth in Britain for at least a decade, for as many jobs the government creates through big projects the army of workers from Europe will sweep them up.Hard to disagree…
"young people opting out of democratic participation in society"
Oh dear. Have the authors of this pile of fudge ever actually thought what most people already know? Deciding not to vote is perfectly legitimate and often a conscious decision. An increasing number of people of any age think voting is worthless as all major decisions are taken without any reference to the voter's opinion. Even the thing you voted on, the party manifestos, are in fact a complete fabrication. As the young say, they are NGTH.
You vote once, quite probably for people other than the ones who form the government, and for the next four or five years that body of people take decisions that affect you in various ways without any reference to you and yours.
The left too always rumbles up this strange spectre of non-involvement in democracy without ever explaining it's only their label for people simply not voting their way.
Voting for the left and misbehaving is fine. Not voting and not being a problem is really bad.
As for a social contract, it simply doesn't exist. if it did, we could sue governments for a whole host of destructive policies and decisions, starting with unfettered immigration.
Some French youth seem to be becoming a little more engaged, although still politically disenchanted.
""costing the EU €3bn a week in state welfare and lost production.""
I wonder how much of the 3bn they have put down to lost production? If there are no jobs available then surely there is no capacity for extra production. If there was capacity, employees would be taken on to fulfil it.
If a company was loosing production it would be because they can't get staff which would happen in a situation where there is full employment.
Someone has made the mistake of thinking if these 14 million unemployeds had jobs they would be producing x amount for the economy, without thinking that if there was the capacity to produce x amount, those 14 million would already be in employment.
Unless it's just a nice way to ramp up the figure, like ASH quoting the cost to the economy from smkoing
Out of the EU now. Simples.
I just know I'm going to regret saying this but:
The other issue here is the increasing numbers of women in the workforce. That's not a misogynistic opinion by the way.
As an example, I am a nurse. the number of full time posts has been drastically reduced. Why? Because most posts are now 0.5 or even 0.25 FTE (family-friendly working being now a requirement). Who wants, and more importantly can survive on those hours? Only women with children, since working <16 hrs/week they retain their full benefits, or married women as a second wage.
The consequence. Almost no males and single, childless women can find posts and those that do simply can't find a post on whose income they can survive. So the young and newly qualified, unless single parents, are unemployed.
Repeat across an economy where almost all manufacturing capacity has been 'globalised' leaving 'administrative' and office work as the main categories of employment (traditionally and still a predominantly female dominated area) in many areas.
So what's the betting almost all those unemployed 'young Europeans' are actually young European males sacrificed on the altars of globalisation and feminism.
Please don't regret saying what you said. I'm now in my 60s, and I recall my parents talking about the 1930s Depression in the north of england. Increasingly men were laid off and only women were employed, part-time, at far lower wages, in the cotton and wool industries of Lancashire and West Yorkshire. Most households in working class Burnley ended up with only the females in work - and at far lower hourly rates than the males.
This was not the fault of women.
Some years back, when I was working professionally, the concept of "job share" was introduced as a good and modern equality measure. As a manager, a feminist, and a realist, I resisted it. Why? Because I wanted the adults who worked for me to earn a living wage. Some of our jobs were genuinely part-time, but the serious jobs were fulltime and paid accordingly, whether to men or women. We recruited purely on who could best do the job.
And you're right - the introduction of increasingly complicated benefit systems meant that we couldn't easily increase someone's hours from, say, 16 to 24, even if the work demanded it, because the worker would end up with less money! Crazy times, and unintended consequences.
They are not unintended.
Like Lysistra, I grew up in the North (East, in my case) of England and saw the effects of regular non-investment by successive governments on the proud working men and the even prouder wives who had to make do with less. As a result of this, I left home and joined the Army. Partly because I had no wish to be a financial burden on a cash-strapped household but also because it was work, it paid well(ish), and there was the possibility of long employment, if not a career. Outside the military, as technology advanced, it became obvious that where once it took 4 men to do a job, one man could it by pushing a few buttons. What happens to the other 3 men? And their children (imagine an inverted pyramid)? One suggestion into lowering the unemployment levels is to introduce a military divided into two sections: the first is a home defence force, where postings are based within the mother country with a role of defending that country and learning a trade which could be valuable after ending of service (no matter how technology advances, there will always be work for plumbers, electricians, bakers, chefs and engineers, etc). The other would be the regular military which would involve postings abroad, would attract a (slightly) higher pay scale than the home defence unit and allow a higher promotion scale. Those in the Home Defence units could apply to join the regular military after 2 years satisfactory service. The cost of this would be taken from that of paying unemployed men and women sitting on their arses, possibly seeking extra cash from the black economy, and also offer a lifeline in self-respect and discipline. Those who have been unemployed for 2 years could be given an option of joining the Home Defence Force or losing their benefit. Those with families would be incorporated into the married quarters system, though this would obviously entail families from one part of the country to another - not such a bad thing if a regular wage is at the end of it (my grandparents moved from one part of the UK to another to seek work and, to a certain extent, I did the same). Disadvantages? Of course thee will be disadvantages for some. There always are. No system is perfect, but it is believed that this system is better than the current one! Perhaps you have a better one?
XX Europe was "failing in its social contract" with the young XX
Are these the same "young" that they keep telling us there are ever fewer and fewer of, or are these a different "young"?
XX Bucko said...
If there are no jobs available then surely there is no capacity for extra production. XX
Oh but there IS.
Trouble is, the "Production" is all too often farmed out to India and China.
The youth have wholeheartedly bought into the left wing, multi-culti, anti-racism, prizes for all, dumbed down qualifications and celeb culture and now they whine it's not going how they thought it would. Oh dear, very sad...
"Deciding not to vote is perfectly legitimate and often a conscious decision."
To me, though, it still feels like wasting something hard-earned if I don't...
"I wonder how much of the 3bn they have put down to lost production? If there are no jobs available then surely there is no capacity for extra production. If there was capacity, employees would be taken on to fulfil it."
Ah, but you have to factor in the red tape produced by the EU itself that sometimes makes it not worth creating extra employment.
Except in the civil service and local government, of course!
"Out of the EU now. Simples."
"The other issue here is the increasing numbers of women in the workforce. That's not a misogynistic opinion by the way.
Indeed, and it's also a factor we can't ignore.
"... the introduction of increasingly complicated benefit systems meant that we couldn't easily increase someone's hours from, say, 16 to 24, even if the work demanded it, because the worker would end up with less money! "
I fear Noggin's right - those unintended consequences weren't!
" No system is perfect, but it is believed that this system is better than the current one! "
Believed, yes. But by whom?
"...and now they whine it's not going how they thought it would. Oh dear, very sad..."
Half of the litle fuckers dont want to work. My wife has had numerous jobs open this year. lazy, unreliable. mobile phone using wankers. She pays over the min. wage and is an honest employer. offers on site qualifications, and training. The recent offering of 13 yrs of socialism could not even work out what 13x6 was.Did not know what cutlery was and thought we lived in the north of england (dorset).I see the life blood drain from my wifes face, when she has to deal with them. And yes they are encouraged by the parents.
Post a Comment