Unemployment is not just an economic problem — it's a crisis of lost hope
Unemployment is not just an economic problem — it's a crisis of lost hope. Across the world, millions of young people leave school only to find that qualifications alone don't guarantee a job.
They are stuck in limbo: educated, yet unemployed. The irony? Businesses everywhere are crying out for skilled workers. The solution, tested and proven across continents, lies in one word: apprenticeships. In England, the government is about to launch bold reforms aimed at turning the tide. A new Growth and Skills Levy will replace the outdated apprenticeship levy, expanding funding for shorter, more flexible apprenticeships and new foundation-level schemes tailored for young people. The aim? To directly bridge the gap between school and the job market, especially in sectors with acute shortages like healthcare, education, technology, and manufacturing. This is not charity — it's strategy. Research from the European Commission and global institutions shows that apprenticeships are among the most effective ways of securing employment for young people.
In countries like Austria and Ireland, up to 90 per cent of apprentices are employed immediately after completing their training. In the UK, apprentices not only gain practical experience but often outperform university graduates in terms of job readiness. Why? Because apprenticeships combine theoretical learning with hands-on experience. They don't just produce workers — they produce professionals who know how to solve real work problems from day one. And it's not just young people who benefit. For employers, apprenticeships are a smart investment. Companies that embrace apprenticeship schemes report higher productivity, better staff retention, and even lower recruitment costs. In the UK businesses report gaining up to £18,000 per apprentice during training — and those numbers rise once apprentices are fully qualified and integrated into the workforce.
But who pays for all this? In successful apprenticeship systems, the cost is shared — a partnership between government and business. In the UK, for instance, small businesses are eligible for government funding that covers up to 100 per cent of apprentice training costs. Larger businesses contribute via a national levy, which they can use to fund training within their own companies.
Under the new UK reforms, employers will be asked to focus their investment on younger, less experienced workers, while funding more advanced, master's level training themselves. This balance ensures that companies are fully committed to apprenticeship schemes — investing not just money, but time and mentorship. At the same time, it ensures that no willing young person is excluded from opportunity simply because of cost. Internationally apprenticeship programmes have proven just as effective. In Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands, dual vocational training — combining classroom study with practical work experience — has slashed youth unemployment and built highly competitive economies. In Yemen, even in the shadow of war, a young man named Muhammad al Tahri went from despair to business owner after completing a solar panel installation apprenticeship. His story is a powerful reminder that practical training can transform lives, even in the harshest conditions. Oman, like many nations, faces the dual challenge of youth unemployment and a demand for skilled labour. Oman has ambitious, intelligent youth. It also has employers looking for talent. The missing link is a structured, well-funded, quality apprenticeship system that connects the two. To make apprenticeships cost effective government, private enterprise and education providers need to join forces. Let employers identify the skills they need.
Let technical institutions adapt their training. Let government fund the future through smart, targeted investment that delivers real economic returns — in the UK as much as £21 for every £1 invested, according to the UK's National Audit Office. A thriving apprenticeship culture is not just a nice idea. It is an economic necessity for Oman, a social imperative and the most cost-effective investment it can make in its future.
It's time to stop talking about unemployment and start tackling it with the tools that work. And nothing works better than apprenticeships. Countries with high levels of unemployment are running out of time. There is an AI Tsunami on the horizon and when it arrives those employees without the necessary skills will find themselves out of a job.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Observer
5 days ago
- Observer
Businesses welcomed the UK-EU Brexit ‘reset'
Prime Minister Kier Starmer will be pleased about his catch in international diplomacy: a trade deal with the European Union, which the government hopes will boost the chances of achieving higher growth. In an agreement that hands EU boats continued rights in British seas until 2038, slashing red tape on food checks and increasing cooperation on defence and migration, businesses are getting a sense of whether this deal may be sweet – or sound all too fishy. For the opposition political parties, the Conservatives and Reform Party, the Prime Minister has utterly betrayed Britain's fishing industry. The right to control Britain's waters was a clear prize of Brexit. Yet, under this deal, British fishermen will never know what it means to manage the fisheries of an independent country. EU excess has been extended and the economic future of Britain's coastal communities has once again been sacrificed, the opposition say. Furthermore, the UK has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to sweep away the EU- originated rules that suppress innovation, productivity and growth. Yet, this deal binds Britain back into precisely those constraints on agriculture, preventing the regulatory freedom that would allow Britain to thrive as an agile, competitive economy. However, Business groups and their members have welcomed the deal, but professor Stephen Miller, director at the National Institute of Economic Social Research, said that, economically the cuts in red tape secured were not likely to put much additional cash in people's pockets. Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer shakes hands with European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen at the European Commission headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, in this file photo. — Reuters 'This agreement is unlikely to 'shift the dial' in the sense that the gains are small relative to the single market or customs union,' he said. While the gains may be 'small', and despite agreements on areas such as a youth mobility scheme or defence lacking detail, industry groups are largely upbeat about the opportunities presented by EU and UK officials. The chief executive of Britain's biggest business lobby, the Confederation of British Industry, suggested the new deal was a 'leap forward' amid difficult times. 'The bleak global trading environment – from escalating geopolitical tensions to sluggish growth – has underscored the importance of deepening ties with trusted, like-minded partners,' Rain Newton-Smith said. This sentiment has been repeated by leading executives at the British Retail Consortium (BRC) and the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) where leaders have said agreements will keep costs down and enrich British companies looking to import cheaper produce or export goods to European markets. BRC chief executive Helen Dickenson said the removal of veterinary checks on food would help secure supply chains and support UK competitiveness while FSB policy chair Tina McKenzie suggested that 'bottleneck at the border' could be cleared as a result of fewer checks being made. Managing director of M&S Food, Alex Freudmann also said 'pointless' bureaucracy in trade within the UK – between Great Britain and Northern Ireland – would be removed. But some elements of the trade deal were conspicuously absent. As well as the absence of progress of youth mobility, demands made by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) over the recognition of British qualifications, which are supported by other leading business groups, fell on deaf years. 'With elements not yet set in stone, there will be further effort required to ensure that what has been promised is delivered for the benefit of the UK economy, the business environment and wider business society,' said Emma Rowland, trade policy advisor at Institute of Directors (IoD). ING's James Smith suggested more negotiations on goods trade would have to be done for the OBR to raise its growth forecasts for the UK thereby easing concerns about extra tax hikes coming. 'Generally, we doubt this deal on its own will convince the OBR to change its outlook in any meaningful way,' he said.
Observer
5 days ago
- Observer
Bulgaria hails 'remarkable day' after EU green light
SOFIA: Bulgarian Prime Minister Rossen Jeliazkov said the EU's green light on Wednesday for the Balkan country to adopt the euro next year confirmed its progress. "A remarkable day. Another step forward on Bulgaria's path to the euro... This follows years of reforms, commitment and alignment with our European partners," he said in a post on X. The EU gave the green light on Wednesday for Bulgaria to adopt the euro on January 1, 2026, putting the Balkan country on course to become the 21st member of the single currency area. The European Commission said Bulgaria had fulfilled the strict criteria "intended to ensure that a country is ready to adopt the euro and that its economy is sufficiently prepared to do so". About 1,000 people demonstrated on Wednesday in front of the National Assembly building in the centre of Sofia, holding signs that read "Preserve the Bulgarian lev," "No to the euro," and "The future belongs to sovereign states." The gathering was organised by the opposition pro-Russian Vazrajdane party. — AFP
Observer
30-05-2025
- Observer
Trump Tariffs: What's the latest on the trade war?
Since reentering the office, President Donald Trump has announced a barrage of tariffs to try to rewire the global economy. The trade actions have taken effect in fits and starts, resulting in wild swings in markets and fresh tension among some of America's closest trading partners. What's the latest? A legal back-and-forth has ensued over Trump's tariffs. On Wednesday, a federal judicial panel ruled that many of the large-scale tariffs were issued illegally, including those targeting China, Canada, and Mexico. The next day, a federal appeals court temporarily preserved many of the levies. Wednesday's ruling would have forced a wind-down of tariffs Trump had enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a 1977 law. Thursday's appellate decision, however, is temporary and does not end the legal matter. Instead, it allows the panel's judges to consider the government's request for a longer delay. A defeat in court could severely undercut the Trump administration's capacity to wage a global trade war. Who has been targeted? In April, Trump rolled out punishing tariffs on nearly 60 U.S. trading partners before abruptly reversing course for 90 days for every country except China to give governments time to make deals. On May 12, he temporarily paused the China tariffs. On Friday, he appeared to revive his global trade war by threatening steeper tariffs on the European Union; by Sunday, he had backed down. European Union: On Sunday, Trump said he would delay a 50% tariff on goods from the European Union until July 9. A couple of days earlier, he said that discussions with the European Union were 'going nowhere' and that steep tariffs would take effect in a week. The climb-down came after a weekend call with Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, who said that trade talks would advance 'swiftly and decisively.' Apple: Trump also targeted the CEO of Apple, Tim Cook, on Friday. He said he had told Cook he expected iPhones sold in the United States to be 'manufactured and built in the United States, not India or anyplace else,' or face a 25% tariff. China: The United States and China, on May 12, said they had reached an agreement to reduce the tariffs they have imposed on each other for 90 days while they try to negotiate a trade deal. The announcement came after a weekend of high-stakes negotiations between officials from the two countries in Switzerland. Many Chinese imports entering the United States had been subject to at least a 145% tariff — essentially a tax equal to 1 1/2 times the cost of the product itself. That will now be 30%. For its part, China agreed to lower the tariffs it had put on imports from the United States to 10%, from 125%. Separately, Trump eliminated a long-standing exception that allowed many relatively inexpensive goods from China to enter the country duty-free. Such imports now face a 54% tariff or a $100 flat fee. Britain: Last month, Trump imposed the same 10% tariff on Britain that he put on other countries. Cars shipped to the United States from Britain face a 27.5% tariff, and British steel is subjected to an import duty of 25%. In early May, Trump unveiled a preliminary agreement with Britain that would pare back these tariffs. Under the terms of the deal, Britain would be allowed to send 100,000 vehicles to the United States under a tariff of 10%, and U.S. tariffs on steel would fall to zero. The 10% levy in place for all British exports would remain in place, though the British government said it was still pushing to bring it down. Although Britain is not one of America's biggest trading partners, Trump said the agreement would be the first of many. U.S. officials have also been negotiating with India, Israel, Japan, South Korea, and Vietnam, among other trading partners. Why is Trump using tariffs? Trump's point of view appears to be that any trade deficit — the value of goods the United States imports from a country, minus what it sends as exports — is bad. He has long described bilateral trade deficits as examples of America being 'ripped off' or 'subsidizing' other countries. The president and his advisers say their goal is to make the tariffs so painful that they force companies to make their products in the United States. They argue that this will create more American jobs and push up wages. But Trump has also described tariffs as an all-purpose tool that will force Canada, Mexico, and China to crack down on the flow of drugs and migrants coming into the United States. The president also maintains that tariffs will rake in huge sums of revenue that the government can use to pay for domestic tax cuts. Economists say that tariffs cannot simultaneously achieve all of the goals that Trump has set. Many of his aims contradict one another. The same tariffs that are supposed to increase U.S. manufacturing are also making life painful for U.S. manufacturers by disrupting their supply chains and raising the cost of their raw materials. 'All of these tariffs are internally inconsistent with each other,' said Chad Bown, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a Washington think tank. 'So what is the real priority? Because you can't have all those things happen at once.' Who pays for tariffs, and where does the money go? A tariff is a government surcharge on products imported from other countries. Tariffs are paid by the companies that import the goods. The revenue from U.S. tariffs is paid by U.S. importers to the U.S. Treasury Department. For example, if Walmart imports a $100 shoe from Vietnam, which faces a 46% tariff, Walmart will owe $46.00 in tariffs to the U.S. government. What happens next? — Walmart could try to force the cost onto the Vietnamese shoe manufacturer by telling it that Walmart will pay less for the product. — Walmart could cut into its profit margins and absorb the cost of the tariff. — Walmart could raise the price of the shoes at its stores. — Or some combination of the above. Earlier in May, Walmart's CEO cautioned that tariffs would push the company to start raising prices soon, and refrained from projecting profits for its current quarter. Trump, in turn, scolded the retailer on social media, telling it to 'EAT THE TARIFFS' and keep prices down. How have companies responded? One way to understand how companies are reacting to the tariffs is to think about Christmas. The production of toys, Christmas trees, and decorations is usually in full swing by now. It takes four to five months to manufacture, package, and ship products to the United States. And factories in China produce nearly 80% of all toys and 90% of Christmas goods sold in America. Toy makers, children's shops, and specialty retailers have recently begun pausing orders for the winter holidays as the import taxes cascade through supply chains. 'If we don't start production soon, there's a high probability of a toy shortage this holiday season,' said Greg Ahearn, CEO of the Toy Association, a U.S. industry group representing 850 toy manufacturers. Mattel, the U.S. toy company and maker of Barbies, recently said it would raise prices on U.S. toys because of Trump's tariffs on imports from China. How could tariffs affect consumer prices? It's hard to imagine an American home without Chinese products. Many essentials are imported almost entirely from China, and with new tariffs, they're likely to become more expensive. The New York Times analyzed import data to show where Americans may see product shortages, fewer choices, and price increases. What happens if shelves are emptier? Sacrifice for your country, the president says. 'You know, somebody said, 'Oh, the shelves are going to be open,'' Trump recently said. 'Well, maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls, you know? And maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally.' Trump's tariffs target countries that supply a wide variety of goods to the United States. In some cases, prices have already started to go up. But for American families, the full effect of the new policies is still to come, but they are likely to result in higher prices at grocery stores, car dealerships, electronics retailers, and clothing outlets. This article originally appeared in
