Our workforce is ageing markedly. This is one message from today’s labour market figures.
These show that, in the last 12 months, the number of under-24 year-olds in work fell by 319,000. Although under-24s accounted for only 14% of workers in Q4 2008, they account for 64.3% of the net jobs lost. The recession, then, has borne disproportionately upon the young.
By contrast, the number of people of retirement age in work rose by 68,000 (5.1%) in the last 12 months. 12.1% of people of pensionable age - one-in-eight - is now in work.
Many of those young people who have lost their jobs have dropped out of the labour market. Economic inactivity among 16-24 year-olds has risen by 240,000 or 10% in the last year.
Granted, this increase is almost entirely due to increased numbers of students; the student population has grown by 217,000 in the last year. But is this a good thing? Yes, if people prefer to study. But the number of economically inactive people who say they’d like a job has risen by 224,000 (to 2.33 million) in the last year. This suggests quite a few students would rather be in work.
In one sense, this shift to employing older workers is an artefact of the growth in part-time employment, which suits older people more than youngsters; in the last 12 months, part-time jobs have risen by 157,000 whilst full-time ones have fallen by 585,000.
There are, though, two reasons for concern here.
First, these figures suggest that many employers, when they are in a buyers’ market, would rather hire old people. Might this be a sign that younger people are considered ill-prepared for work, lacking either skills or discipline (or subservience and malleability)?
Secondly, there’s good evidence that youth unemployment has a scarring effect, particularly for the unskilled (pdf); people who are unemployed when young are more likely to be unemployed later, and likely to earn less even if they have jobs.
These show that, in the last 12 months, the number of under-24 year-olds in work fell by 319,000. Although under-24s accounted for only 14% of workers in Q4 2008, they account for 64.3% of the net jobs lost. The recession, then, has borne disproportionately upon the young.
By contrast, the number of people of retirement age in work rose by 68,000 (5.1%) in the last 12 months. 12.1% of people of pensionable age - one-in-eight - is now in work.
Many of those young people who have lost their jobs have dropped out of the labour market. Economic inactivity among 16-24 year-olds has risen by 240,000 or 10% in the last year.
Granted, this increase is almost entirely due to increased numbers of students; the student population has grown by 217,000 in the last year. But is this a good thing? Yes, if people prefer to study. But the number of economically inactive people who say they’d like a job has risen by 224,000 (to 2.33 million) in the last year. This suggests quite a few students would rather be in work.
In one sense, this shift to employing older workers is an artefact of the growth in part-time employment, which suits older people more than youngsters; in the last 12 months, part-time jobs have risen by 157,000 whilst full-time ones have fallen by 585,000.
There are, though, two reasons for concern here.
First, these figures suggest that many employers, when they are in a buyers’ market, would rather hire old people. Might this be a sign that younger people are considered ill-prepared for work, lacking either skills or discipline (or subservience and malleability)?
Secondly, there’s good evidence that youth unemployment has a scarring effect, particularly for the unskilled (pdf); people who are unemployed when young are more likely to be unemployed later, and likely to earn less even if they have jobs.
In my business I deal with many self employed skilled men. All of them are older than me (and I'm turning 40 next year). Many of the skilled trades are dying because either the youngsters don't want to go through the hassle of learning a trade, or they are unemployable in the first place.
If the standard of school leavers is anything like the ones I meet who work in the pub I go to for a quiz night, then I'm not surprised they struggle to get anything other than low grade jobs. The girl who reads the quiz out struggles to read any words over 3 syllables, and she's a teaching assistant during the day!
Posted by: Jim | February 17, 2010 at 02:15 PM
I always believe that the older work force has a lot to give business, they have a wealth of experience to give.
Posted by: Russell | February 17, 2010 at 10:23 PM
The most depressing part of this story is that it comes after 13 years of a Labour government. The same government that, back in 1997, told us it would make education its priority. What does it say about the state of our politics when there is only one politician brave enough to consider the long-term consequences of intergenerational injustice and he's a Conservative (David Willetts)?
Posted by: Econoclast | February 18, 2010 at 08:41 AM
I think that all this depressing incident is happening due to the intensive propagation of "Family Planning" and control birth which is not going to generate Huge problems in the long run if appropriate steps are not taken by the governments.
Posted by: David Morson | February 18, 2010 at 09:27 AM
What about people's retirement pots not being worth as much as they were necessitating those who would have retired early to stay on, leaving no jobs for those below them to move into? This would then also exacerbate the youth unemployment questions as fewer jobs at the bottom were moved out of. I'd be interested in seeing some figures on how mobile people have been in the labour market in the last two years: I suspect the answer is, not much.
Posted by: Katie M. | February 20, 2010 at 11:18 AM
Certainly amongst professionals, the private sector is chronically ageist. Companies specifically target the middle-aged for redundancy, while simultaneously recruiting (only) new graduates. Experience is a liability, while youth is the most marketable commodity.
For example, engineering companies claim to suffer skill shortages and lobby colleges to provide them with new graduates. While completely ignoring the thousands of already qualified engineers made redundant over the last three decades.
Amongst skilled trades, apprenticeships have died, because companies are not willing to pay the costs of training themselves.
I suggest that your youth unemployment issue is actually an unskilled/uneducated youth unemployment issue. Youth itself is certainly far more marketable than experience.
Posted by: (Layman) Mike | March 02, 2010 at 07:27 PM
In this article it states that many more older workers have been employed that younger ones during the period mentioned. Essentially i think one of the main reasons for this is the experience a older worker has over a young person.
In tough economic times companies are less likely to want to take the chance of hiring a inexperienced youngster. An older worker may be seen as a ‘safe pair of hands’, someone who can be expected to provide maximum performance for the company.
For young people this again demonstrates the age old problem of how to go from academic education into a full time job when you have no practical experience.
As the article rightly points out those who are unemployed when they are young are also more likely to be unemployed when they get older. For this reason I believe drastic measures are needed.
One was would be for Government to consider beefing up current policies or introducing new ones that encourage companies to employ younger people. For instance tax breaks or grants.
Posted by: Tony Dean | June 25, 2010 at 01:41 AM