Young people are right not to get out of bed for less than £40k
Lockdown made them too nervous to venture out of the house. They are addicted to TikTok and online entertainment. They are not respected, or given the right training, or offered enough help.
There have been lots of different explanations offered for why almost a million 16 to 24-year-olds are neither working, training nor studying. But as one expert told a House of Lords committee this week, there is a far simpler explanation: it is not worth the hassle of getting out of bed for less than £40,000.
If that is true, it would be easy to condemn them as idle and feckless. But they are also completely right. Until we fix a dysfunctional welfare and tax system it isn't going to change – because people won't bother to work unless it pays to do so.
It was the kind of hard truth that was not meant to be mentioned in polite society. Appearing before a House of Lords social mobility committee this week, Graham Cowley, who works with young people not in employment, education nor training – or 'Neets' – argued that lots of them 'don't want to work for anything less than 40 grand'.
While the Lords gasped in horror, he reminded them 'you may laugh, but that is the reality' – and he is completely right.
The UK faces a growing challenge that many young people are no longer bothered to either get a job or even to prepare themselves for one. According to the official figures, 595,000 16 to 24-year-olds are classed as 'inactive' while another 392,000 are 'looking for work', but perhaps not very actively since they don't seem to be having much success.
The shadow chancellor, Mel Stride, has suggested that they may be addicted to online pornography and video games, while the Liz Kendall, the Work and Pensions Secretary, has suggested that especially since Covid many of them find the concept of work 'too stressful'.
From coaching, to encouragement, to more stringent medical checks there are lots of different suggestions about ways of getting them out of the house and into a warehouse, factory or retailer to start their career.
The trouble is, it is hard to believe any of that will make any significant difference. It is hard to know what exactly Stride is going to do about online pornography, and Kendall can't turn back the clock and reverse lockdown – as desirable as that might be. In reality, there is a simpler solution.
Although it might come as a surprise to some of the people on the Lords committee, most people work just to make money. Many teenagers and 20-somethings have worked out for themselves that the UK's welfare and tax system has become so bloated and inefficient that getting a job hardly pays any more. They are just making a rational choice.
To start with, taxes are far too high, and they become even higher as you start to climb your way up the career ladder. According to the Centre for Policy Studies, the effective tax rate even for someone on the minimum wage has more than doubled in the last decade alone, rising from an effective 11pc in 2015 to more than 21pc now.
Even worse, if you study for a degree, the repayments on the loan you will have to take out to finance it kick in at far too low a level, and you will be charged a punitive rate of interest. On some plans you start repayments on just £25,000 a year, and you will be charged 7pc interest on the debt you have taken on. On almost any graduate job available, you will have to start repaying your loan, significantly increasing your effective tax rate.
Next, wages are not high enough. Wave after wave of mass immigration has driven down salaries, especially for the relatively low-skilled, entry-level jobs that are typically all that is on offer to teenagers and 20-somethings making their first steps into the workforce.
The average non-graduate salary is now £29,000 in the UK, up from £22,000 a decade ago, but once the cost of living and the extra taxes are taken into account it has gone down in real terms.
Even worse, while many Neets may imagine they will finally stir themselves to get out of bed in the unlikely event that someone offers them £40,000 a year to do so, they probably won't find that very worthwhile either.
As soon as they get a promotion or a bonus they will start paying tax at 40pc, and, given the Chancellor does not show much inclination to ever raise thresholds again, that will probably be the rate for someone on the living wage by the end of the decade.
If they climb further up the ladder, child benefit starts to be withdrawn, and as the personal allowance is tapered away their marginal tax rates soon climb to 60pc or more. Staying in bed will become more and more tempting.
It is a crazy system, and one that is dragging down the entire economy. There is no point in accusing the Neets of being lazy, or not bothering, of being addicted to the web, or lacking the spine of earlier generations.
It is insulting, it is not fair, and even if there was some element of truth to it, there is not much we can do about it anyway.
Instead, we need a wholescale reform of the tax and benefit system. If we have to cut spending to pay for it, then that is the only option.
An entire generation is making a perfectly rational decision that work does not pay enough to be worthwhile any more – and until that calculation changes there is very little prospect of the economy ever starting to recover.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
8 hours ago
- The Independent
What would a Tory spending review look like? With Badenoch, nobody knows
It would be an exaggeration to claim the nation eagerly awaits the invention of 'Badenomics' but Conservatives are certainly impatient with Kemi Badenoch 's apparent inability to create a narrative on the economy, land blows on a weakened Labour government, or compete with Nigel Farage's Reform UK on a key electoral issue. This week's Labour announcements on winter fuel payments and the spending review offer some prime opportunities to 'punch through'. What is the problem? It's hardly confined to today's Conservatives; every political party that has been in power and badly loses an election finds it difficult to get a hearing. Policies the party are most closely identified with are the ones recently and decisively rejected by voters. How far should a heavily defeated team try to claim that they were right all along and that the electorate made the wrong decision? This might be termed the 'blame the voters' approach; while some buyer's remorse may have set in, it's rather futile to attack the electorate. Alternatively, a party can admit mistakes as a means of resetting voter appeal, but that means upsetting former colleagues and handing your enemies an easy win. What are the Conservatives doing about it? Making speeches, for now, rather than policy… and trying to plot a path to redemption. Last week, perhaps in response to internal concerns, shadow chancellor Mel Stride came as close as possible to apologising for the Liz Truss mini-Budget without actually saying 'sorry'. 'Contrition' is the preferred term. Truss has proved to be a potent political weapon, but for the Labour Party, scarcely a day goes by without Keir Starmer or Rachel Reeves making a scathing reference to that disaster. Stride was critical of it at the time, having left the government and as chair of the Treasury select committee; his apology-adjacent speech won't stop Labour deploying Agent Truss (and she keeps popping up, unhelpfully) but it might blunt the attacks somewhat. What are the Tories saying about the rest of their record? Still fairly proud of it. Badenoch says the Tories made 'a lot of good things happen', such as reforms to social security, plus 'near full employment' and raising school standards. 'But people remember the most recent period … and I think the most recent period was the most difficult,' she concedes. So it is Rishi Suank's fault for 'talking right, governing left' as she has put it. So Badenoch is sorry-not-sorry? The Tory mistakes she points to, such as on Brexit and net zero, actually come from the right, not the centre, and don't necessarily chime with public opinion. A passionate and now obdurate Eurosceptic, she seems to want more Brexit at a time when the voters have concluded it was a flop; as the years go on, she'll need to say if she would reverse Starmer's 'Brexit reset' that builds closer, easier relations with the EU. She will also be asked if she would scrap planning reforms that boost growth, stop skilled migration, bring back zero-hours contracts, reduce VAT on private school fees, and so on. She will also need to eat many of her own words as a minister on climate change and green growth, now she's a 'net zero sceptic'. She may hope to win back some Reform voters by tacking to the right, but she can never out-Farage Farage. Indeed, she's ridiculed him for promising economic fantasies, so how can she now embrace them and return to Boris Johnson-era cakeism? Where are the Tories with winter fuel payments for pensioners? They are demanding an apology from Labour. But Labour's present policy is identical to Badenoch's – restore the payment for all now, but try to means-test it later – so she is disarmed, and cannot even claim credit for forcing the U-turn, which was obviously down to Labour panic after local election losses. And what do the Tories say about the spending review? Badenoch's line is that there would not be a black hole in public finances if they'd won the last election, and taxes would be lower. The latter part is true, but equally a hypothetical Tory government would now be imposing an even more painful squeeze on social security and public services, to the point where the numbers would simply not be credible, leading to strikes. Voters sensed this unreality last July, and as time passes the Tories will have to come up with credible plans of their own rather than relying on Jeremy Hunt's pre-election claims. Anything else? Plenty. Stride may be doing his best, but Badenoch seems more interested in 'culture wars' than macroeconomics, which is a problem. Her shadow frontbench team is surprisingly lacking in talent and Labour ministers, despite their relative inexperience, mostly run rings around their opponents. Can the Conservatives forge the 'Right Approach' again? In truth, the Tories are on a long march back to the centre and sooner or later will have to accept climate change and exorcise the ghosts of Truss and Johnson. They need to show themselves trustworthy and realistic, and willing to compromise with their lost voters. These are the kinds of radical, symbolic 'unthinkable' things Tony Blair had to do to make Labour electable in the 1990s, and Starmer did afresh in recent years. Only then will voters lend their ears. Badenoch isn't the leader for that task.
NBC News
8 hours ago
- NBC News
Harvard gets new legal backing from 5 Ivies and over 12,000 alumni
Twenty four universities, including five Ivy League schools, and more than 12,000 alumni took measures to back Harvard University in its legal battle against the Trump administration, which has threatened it with slashing billions of dollars in grants. Princeton, Yale, Dartmouth, Brown and the University of Pennsylvania, along with several other schools, filed an amicus brief on Monday in support of the nation's oldest university, arguing that the funding freeze would impact more than just Harvard, due to the interconnectedness of scientific research, and would ultimately hinder American innovation and economic growth. Also on Monday, the group of 12,041 Harvard alumni filed a separate brief describing the withholding of funds as a 'reckless and unlawful' attempt to assert control over the school and other higher education institutions. 'The escalating campaign against Harvard threatens the very foundation of who we are as a nation,' the alumni said in the brief. 'We embrace our responsibility to stand up for our freedoms and values, to safeguard liberty and democracy, and to serve as bulwarks against these threats to the safety and well-being of all.' The amicus briefs aim to provide expertise or insight to the court, but the schools and individuals are not parties in the lawsuit itself. The filings come after Harvard in April rejected the government's list of 10 demands, including auditing viewpoints of the student body, a move that the administration says is aimed at addressing antisemitism on campus. After the government threatened to freeze $2.2 billion in multiyear grants and $60 million 'in multi-year contract value,' Harvard hit back with a lawsuit. The brief filed by the universities included other prominent institutions like Georgetown, Johns Hopkins and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The only Ivy League schools missing were Cornell and Columbia universities. The schools argued that the partnership between the government and academia has long led to critical advancements, from the The Human Genome Project to the Covid-19 vaccine. And that funding cuts to one school could endanger research at others. Harvard, MIT and Princeton, for example, have received funding from the National Institutes of Health for a project that could potentially yield tools to treat Alzheimer's disease. 'The work cannot continue at individual sites; MIT cannot use machine learning to uncover patterns, for example, without data from Princeton and Harvard,' the brief said. The universities said in the brief that the cuts would only cause more harm to the United States' ability to compete in science and academia. 'These cuts to research funding risk a future where the next pathbreaking innovation — whether it is a cure for cancer or Alzheimer's, a military technology, or the next Internet — is discovered beyond our shores, if at all,' the brief said. Sally Kornbluth, president of MIT, said in a letter to the school's community that it was critical to make a legal argument against the funding cuts. 'Although the value to the public of federally funded university research feels obvious to us at MIT, we felt compelled to make the case for its countless benefits to the court and, in effect, to the American people,' Kornbluth said. The Harvard alumni filed their brief in support of the school's motion for a summary judgement submitted last week. If granted, the summary judgment would allow the court to decide the case without a full trial. The alumni, which include comedian Conan O'Brien, author Margaret E. Atwood and Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., wrote in the brief that the administration's 'end goal is to narrow our freedoms to learn, teach, think, and act, and to claim for itself the right to dictate who may enjoy those freedoms.' The alumni also slammed the administration's concerns over antisemitism as rationale over the funding freeze. 'We unequivocally condemn antisemitism and every other form of discrimination and hate, which have no place at Harvard or anywhere else in our society,' the alumni said in its brief. 'Yet charges of antisemitism — particularly without due process and proper bases and findings by the Government — should not be used as a pretext for the illegal and unconstitutional punishment and takeover of an academic institution by the Government.' The government's demands on Harvard, the alumni said in the brief, 'have little or nothing to do with combating antisemitism' or any other form of discrimination on campus. 'Rather, its demands stifle the very engagement, teaching, and research that bring communities together, heighten our understanding of one another, and advance solutions that directly benefit us all,' the brief said. The show of legal support comes amid a monthslong back-and-forth between the administration and Harvard University. Most recently, the school sued the administration after Trump issued a proclamation last week denying visas for foreign students trying to come to the U.S. to attend the prestigious school.
The Herald Scotland
10 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Lords' objections to Data Bill over copyright threatens its existence
The critical stand-off arose as artists and musicians including Sir Elton John and Sir Paul McCartney, raised concerns over AI companies using copyrighted work without permission. Baroness Kidron, who directed the second Bridget Jones film, had put forward an amendment aiming to ensure copyright holders could see when their work had been used, which was overwhelmingly passed by the Lords for the second time last week. However this has not won Government backing. In a concession to win around the Lords, the Government has instead said it will give a parliamentary statement six months after the passage of the Bill, where it will update MPs and peers on an economic impact assessment, and a report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI. A parliamentary working group will also be established. Technology minister Sir Chris said the amendments showed the Government had 'unequivocally heard concerns'. However Conservative chairwoman of the Culture, Media and Sport select committee Dame Caroline Dinenage said MPs had been 'gaslit'. MPs voted in favour of the Government's amendment, which replace the changes put forward by Lady Kidron, by 304 votes to 189, majority 115. These will now go back to the Lords for peers to approve. During the last session in the Lords, where Lady Kidron had successfully forward her amendment, she told peers it she would not hold up the Bill further if the Commons chose to disagree with it. MPs heard the Bill will help establish digital verification services, a new national underground asset register which could speed up roadworks, and allow better healthcare and policing. It would also renew UK and EU data protection laws. The current agreement with Brussels will run out in December. Speaking at the start of the Bill, Sir Chris said: 'Double insistence would kill the Bill, where ever the Bill has started. I take people at their word when they say that they don't want to kill the Bill.' Sir Chris added: 'Its provisions have the support of all parties in both Houses. 'Which is why I urge this House to accept our amendments in lieu. 'And I urge their Lordships not to insist on their amendment, but to agree with us. 'It is worth pointing out, that if their Lordships do persist, they are not just delaying and imperilling a Bill which all parties agree is an important and necessary piece of legislation. 'They are also imperilling something else of much greater significance and importance economically; our data adequacy with the European Union.' He said he was 'mystified' by Liberal Democrat and Conservative opposition to the Bill. 'These amendments show our commitment to ensuring considered and effective solutions as I have just outlined, and demonstrate that we have unequivocally heard concerns about timing and accountability.' Conservative shadow technology minister Dr Ben Spencer said the creative industries and peers 'were not buying' the Government's approach. He said: 'They're not buying it because the Government has lost the confidence of their stakeholders that it will bring forward legislation to enact effective and proportionate transparency requirements for AI models in the use of their creative content.' Dame Caroline said Sir Chris and the Government were not engaging with the central issue. She said: 'By being cloth-eared to the legitimate concerns of the world-leading creative industries for month after month after month; they have been virtually dragged kicking and screaming to this position now, where they bring forward a couple of tiny amendments. 'By gaslighting members of all parties at both ends of this building who have attempted to draw attention to this. 'By somehow pitting our world-leading creative industries against AI, almost somehow presenting them as luddites, that they are somehow allergic to innovation and technology when actually these are some of the most groundbreaking and innovative sectors out there; they are using AI every single day to produce world-breaking pieces of creative content.' Responding, Sir Chris said: 'I would just say to her (Dame Caroline) that she clearly has forgotten that the previous government actually introduced plans which would have brought forward a text and data mining exemption for commercial exploitation of copyrighted materials without any additional protections for creative industries at all. 'That seems to have slipped her mind. 'We have moved a considerable deal since this Bill started. 'We have moved and we have listened to what their lordships and, more importantly, what the creative industries have to say in this.'
