UK Unemployment Hitting Youths Hardest.

[Broomstick]

If debts is one of the major factors involved, I have to wonder, why shouldn't the US implement free education on the tertiary level?

Because we have a hard enough time getting people to cooperate with funding public education on a primary and secondary level, much less tertiary. Seriously, over the past few decades US conservatives have been systematically attempting to gut public education. It would conflict with too much entrenched custom and ideology to be practical.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

That was one of the simpler reasons to go into engineering for me, in fact. I refused to consider the prospect of studying anything where average starting salary per annum would be less than twice my expected debt load on graduation, primarily because I don't feel safe or happy with the prospect of carrying that debt for more than four years after I graduate, and I couldn't pay off a larger ratio in four years. It endlessly directs and intrudes upon my life-calculations and I'm viciously envious of countries where tertiary education is actually based on merit.

[The Grim Squeaker]

That was one of the simpler reasons to go into engineering for me, in fact. I refused to consider the prospect of studying anything where average starting salary per annum would be less than twice my expected debt load on graduation, primarily because I don't feel safe or happy with the prospect of carrying that debt for more than four years after I graduate, and I couldn't pay off a larger ratio in four years. It endlessly directs and intrudes upon my life-calculations and I'm viciously envious of countries where tertiary education is actually based on merit.

What do you mean? I thought the good universities were extremely competitive even with the high rates?
(Disclosure: 4 years of studies in the sciences here in the universities is about 50,000NIS with scholarships or grants or soldiers benefits. That's around 12,000 dollars (for the studies, It doesn't include dorms or the like (which are subsidized) of course).

Cheap . (Although the subsidies are being cut badly, the universities have half of what they had per student in 2004, despite raising rates by 50%).

[Darth Wong]

Why don't more schools adopt co-op education? Part of the reason for large university debt is staggeringly simple: you are unemployed for four straight years, yet you still have expenses. Even someone who was not going to school could easily find himself deep in debt after such a long drought.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

That was one of the simpler reasons to go into engineering for me, in fact. I refused to consider the prospect of studying anything where average starting salary per annum would be less than twice my expected debt load on graduation, primarily because I don't feel safe or happy with the prospect of carrying that debt for more than four years after I graduate, and I couldn't pay off a larger ratio in four years. It endlessly directs and intrudes upon my life-calculations and I'm viciously envious of countries where tertiary education is actually based on merit.

What do you mean? I thought the good universities were extremely competitive even with the high rates?
(Disclosure: 4 years of studies in the sciences here in the universities is about 50,000NIS with scholarships or grants or soldiers benefits. That's around 12,000 dollars (for the studies, It doesn't include dorms or the like (which are subsidized) of course).

Cheap . (Although the subsidies are being cut badly, the universities have half of what they had per student in 2004, despite raising rates by 50%).

My school's tuition went up by 14% last year, and will go up again by 14% this year. I receive 100% of all low income and other poverty grants from the state and federal government, and still will have managed to rack up 30k of debt in the 3.5 years I'll have been back in school by the time I get out. So even if you're an adult who reports sub-poverty-level income on your tax returns, going to school will still put you thirty thousand dollars in debt in America.

[phongn]

Why don't more schools adopt co-op education? Part of the reason for large university debt is staggeringly simple: you are unemployed for four straight years, yet you still have expenses. Even someone who was not going to school could easily find himself deep in debt after such a long drought.

I suppose it'd also depend on the field of study. Engineering is well-adapted to co-op education; many other studies might not work so well.

EDIT: At least at my university, co-op and internships were extremely common amongst College of Engineering students.

That was one of the simpler reasons to go into engineering for me, in fact. I refused to consider the prospect of studying anything where average starting salary per annum would be less than twice my expected debt load on graduation, primarily because I don't feel safe or happy with the prospect of carrying that debt for more than four years after I graduate, and I couldn't pay off a larger ratio in four years. It endlessly directs and intrudes upon my life-calculations and I'm viciously envious of countries where tertiary education is actually based on merit.

What do you mean? I thought the good universities were extremely competitive even with the high rates?

I think she's referring to nations where university education is paid for by the state and entrance is based wholly on merit. Top US universities are also (generally) based on merit but have very high tuition.

(Disclosure: 4 years of studies in the sciences here in the universities is about 50,000NIS with scholarships or grants or soldiers benefits. That's around 12,000 dollars (for the studies, It doesn't include dorms or the like (which are subsidized) of course).

In-state tuition for the university I attended is presently ~ US$4500/year (exclusive of books, lab supplies, cost-of-living, etc.)

EDIT: Total costs were estimated at ~US$19000 a year, once housing, food, books and incidental expenses were calculated. See here for more details.

[Big Orange]

I won't be surprised when everybody under 30 starts leaving the British Isle to the EU dominated Europe, Australia, and a recovering North America in the next decade or so, since why should we care about the elders running the private sector when they don't care about us? The capstone ontop of the Pyramid has a long way to fall once the foundations give way. Late middle aged workers in their 50s getting early pensions may cause less strain on society than an ugly mob of out of work young'uns who are bored enough to think about politics, but it is still a strain on the pension pot with an ugly deficit:

Pension buffer deficit more than doubles
LONDON (Reuters) - The deficit in Britain's pension buffer fund more than doubled in the 12 months to end-March under the weight of higher pension payouts to workers hit by the financial crisis.

The Pension Protection Fund (PPF) charges companies a levy to fund pensions of employees whose firms go bust.

The PPF annual report said its deficit widened to 1.2 billion pounds at March 31, compared with 517 million a year earlier. The number of workers that moved to the PPF rose to 30,732 from 12,100.

It said on Thursday that the deficit had fallen back below 1 billion pounds by the end of September as big claims dwindled and markets recovered.

The PPF built up an asset base of close to 3 billion pounds as of March 31 and said it had returned 13.4 percent on invested assets in the 12-month period, boosted by hedging strategies.

"We cannot afford to be complacent. Our position could yet be affected by increases in claims or by future movements in the financial markets between now and next March," said PPF Chief Executive Alan Rubenstein.

Reuters

[Broomstick]

Frankly, I find the notion of throwing any age demographic under the bus repugnant.

[Big Orange]

The elderly should not be neglected, but it still seems more crassly short-sighted that the future workforce has been systematically urinated on and then ejected, and on top of that how the fuck can an island like Britain support 70+ million people after the economy has been demolished?

[frogcurry]

The elderly should not be neglected, but it still seems more crassly short-sighted that the future workforce has been systematically urinated on and then ejected, and on top of that how the fuck can an island like Britain support 70+ million people after the economy has been demolished?

You're sounding suspiciously like a conservative party voter there, implying that we have too many people...next you will be calling for strict anti-immigration controls to protect British jobs?

I won't be surprised when everybody under 30 starts leaving the British Isle to the EU dominated Europe, Australia, and a recovering North America in the next decade or so, since why should we care about the elders running the private sector when they don't care about us? The capstone ontop of the Pyramid has a long way to fall once the foundations give way. Late middle aged workers in their 50s getting early pensions may cause less strain on society than an ugly mob of out of work young'uns who are bored enough to think about politics, but it is still a strain on the pension pot with an ugly deficit:

With the "early pension" and "elders running the private sector" remarks, I get the impression that you think that the elderly rich are helping themselves with the PPF while screwing the young? There's not exactly a huge amount of data out there, but based on the reports of pension funds collapsing last year most people who are getting helped by the PPF are going to be working class or similar, who worked for businesses in low margin business areas that couldn't cope with the financial crisis, i.e. the industrial-waste recycling firm in my home town that went down a few months ago (in Browns Britain, even the green industries are going under...). While there will definitely be plenty of fat cats on those pensions as well, I doubt that they'd be reliant on company pensions since they'd probably have changed job a few times over their career and so had private pensions as well/ instead which aren't affected by these failures.

Who is saying anything about putting back age discrimination? I'm saying try to get more youth employed (yes that it will affect the older people's job market). It is a practical and necessary, otherwise a whole bunch of people just got fucked.

I am saying that, as its what the OP article refers to in the last paragraph. Read again please:

The Government must find ways of encouraging companies to take on youngsters rather than grandparents.

I'd concede the point if the OP article said "The Government must find ways of encouraging companies to take on more youngsters." or similar, but it specifically says "rather than grandparents" - as in introducing a direct bias in favour of the young.

Because you say so. You have not addressed the points made explaining why it may be necessary.

It is legal if the government legalises it. It is reasonable if it is necessary to prevent serious damage to society. It would be fair if the same conditions were applied to everyone over their entire lifespans - obviously this isn't the case, since legislation and working environments constantly change, but I'm hardly going to cry for the baby boomer generation.

It's also legal for me to bias against non-white people, "if the government legalises it". It would also be legal to bias in favour of men over women if made legal by the government, and this might also be of social benefit by reducing unemployment in the part of the population most likely to turn to violent and dangerous crime if unemployed (specifically the young male part). I don't think you would say either of those are OK for any reason, so why say that age discrimination is diferent?

I don't consider the examples above any different, all of them discriminate against an individual due to an inherent property of themselves that is unchangeable, was not of their own choice, and which does not materially affect their suitability for the job all other factors being equal. In the name of a social improvement notion that may be of unprovable benefit and importance.

Will never happen, no one tells failed candidates why they failed, it is always a generic 'you do not fit our needs at this time' or 'we are sorry that you were unsuccessful, please try again later'.

The example wasn't literal, it was intended to show the unfairness of the concept. But if age discrimination was legalised then it'd probably be assumed to be the reason older people failed when they applied for jobs, no matter what reason offically given.

Graduates have not suddenly gotten worse at being 'employable'. In fact I think you'll find that CV writing and interviewing skills are on average much higher today than they were 20 years ago, due to the huge amount of books/classes/coaching now. Universities have more extensive graduate job support centers. The only real change in 'employability' is the fact that a far higher fraction of the population has a degree, so its value has gone down.

I meant "employable" as a relative value, both with others of their own peer-group and also others in the general job market, not as an absolute. The last point is very germain, particularly when you add all the foreign students seeking employment in the UK after studying here.

It is exactly what happened in Japan, from the mid 90s to present. High social conformity prevented it from being a civil disobedience issue; European countries are not so lucky.

From the article you gave as an example, I get the impression that Japans hierarchical nature hasn't helped as these workers are written off more than I think an equivalent Brit probably would in the coming years. Also they had a very long financial crisis unique to Japan, given that this is a global issue that is just worst in Britain (as opposed to regional) we presumably will recover to some extent with the rest of the world and shouldn't have such a long period of economic difficulties.

BTW, for all this debating on the subject, to what extent are young graduates actually competing with older workers? I'd have thought that usually they are in quite different job markets. Those who are young with no degree are probably more likely to suffer from competition with older jobseekers, or those who got jobs a year or two ago but have now lost them due to shedding/ businesses closing up.

[Broomstick]

The elderly should not be neglected, but it still seems more crassly short-sighted that the future workforce has been systematically urinated on and then ejected, and on top of that how the fuck can an island like Britain support 70+ million people after the economy has been demolished?

Yes, but it's not just the elderly - people in their 40-50's need to work, too, as they are typically supporting children, saving for retirement and taking care of elderly parents. Leaving them high and dry is also bad for society.

Which is really my point - leaving ANYONE behind is bad for society. Perhaps we should to distribute the pain as evenly as possible

[Starglider]

Part of the reason for large university debt is staggeringly simple: you are unemployed for four straight years, yet you still have expenses.

Really? I got the impression that most students in the US worked while at uni, either part-time or in bursts between doing their degree. In the UK, most students have summer jobs only, but at least that's some money, and 'gap' degrees with a 'year in industry' are quite popular. The only country I'm familiar with where students seem to spend many years getting degrees (five years for the same degree you could get in three in the UK) while working very little is Germany (based on my wife's rants).

[Starglider]

You're sounding suspiciously like a conservative party voter there,

Oh noes! A conservative voter! That's like 86% of a BNP voter right?

implying that we have too many people... next you will be calling for strict anti-immigration controls to protect British jobs?

Non-sequitur; jobs scale with people. He was referring to the carrying capacity of the infrastructure, and ultimately, the physical land area available. Personally I don't think it would be a problem - there are plenty of places with higher population density than the UK - if it wasn't for the fact that most of the population insists on clustering around London.

I won't be surprised when everybody under 30 starts leaving the British Isle to the EU dominated Europe, Australia, and a recovering North America in the next decade or so

Why do you believe that opportunites for young people are any better in those places? The same economic effects are at work in all of them; most European countries have this problem even worse, just look at the French youths rioting because they can't get jobs (partly due to government-mandated labor market inflexibility).

I'd concede the point if the OP article said "The Government must find ways of encouraging companies to take on more youngsters." or similar, but it specifically says "rather than grandparents" - as in introducing a direct bias in favour of the young.

Subsidising training and apprentiship schemes is not 'discrimination' by any reasonable standard.

It's also legal for me to bias against non-white people, "if the government legalises it".

Correct. Which is why I do not reference legality when trying to make a moral point.

I don't think you would say either of those are OK for any reason, so why say that age discrimination is diferent?

Two reasons. The practical reason is that gender and racial discrimination are almost never useful; in fact they are almost always harmful to the economy and people in general. They only exist due to outright delusion and worthless tribalism on the part of decision makers. Age discrimination can be socially useful under certain circumstances, even necessary to avoid unrest in extreme situations. The abstract reason is that age discrimination is in fact fair when considered over time. Everyone is young at some point, and old later. If discrimination exists, everyone will get both the benefits and the drawbacks at different points in time. This is true unless the discrimination pattern is constantly changed so as to target a specific generation - but as I've said, I have very little sympathy for the baby boomer generation, so even if that did happen I'd be crying crocadile tears.

Graduates have not suddenly gotten worse at being 'employable'.

I meant "employable" as a relative value, both with others of their own peer-group and also others in the general job market, not as an absolute.

Well fine but you can't blame individual graduates for that. I suppose a higher fraction of degree subjects are worthless now, compared to when any degree was a mark of excellence, butl the faction of graduates that chose worthless subjects is still a minority.

Also they had a very long financial crisis unique to Japan, given that this is a global issue that is just worst in Britain (as opposed to regional) we presumably will recover to some extent with the rest of the world and shouldn't have such a long period of economic difficulties.

I wouldn't be too sure. Global destruction of the financial industry would disproportionately hit Britain, because we have such a large fraction of GDP contributed by finance companies. However that doesn't seem to have happened so far; the finance sector is bouncing back on the strength of bailouts, seemingly with slaps on the wrist and very few lessons learned.

[ArmorPierce]

Who is saying anything about putting back age discrimination? I'm saying try to get more youth employed (yes that it will affect the older people's job market). It is a practical and necessary, otherwise a whole bunch of people just got fucked.

I am saying that, as its what the OP article refers to in the last paragraph. Read again please:

The Government must find ways of encouraging companies to take on youngsters rather than grandparents.

I'd concede the point if the OP article said "The Government must find ways of encouraging companies to take on more youngsters." or similar, but it specifically says "rather than grandparents" - as in introducing a direct bias in favour of the young.

You take a single statement that is obviously used to end the article with a literary license too seriously.

It continues to expand on that point it raised by stating:

find the money to keep more children in school, perhaps by immediately raising the leaving age to 18, or to create a system of national community or civic service. Extreme ideas, yes. But we still haven't yet absorbed how extreme this unemployment crisis will be.

obviously the article is not talking about firing old people. It is talking about taking on measures to directly assist young people that won't benefit older people, which a lot of people would be against because it don't benefit them at all. Where I live, for example, when a budget crisis comes, education spending is always the first thing gutted. I know that Education spending has been cut 5 years in a row so far.

The elderly should not be neglected, but it still seems more crassly short-sighted that the future workforce has been systematically urinated on and then ejected, and on top of that how the fuck can an island like Britain support 70+ million people after the economy has been demolished?

So true. The young people of today were told that they had to be patient, go to school and spend 5 to 6 digits putting themselves into debt to get their education. You need that before you can get a half-decent job and it will be worth it. Now, come around, they graduated, are in heavy debt, no job prospects, degree near worthless, and they can't even declare bankruptcy to get rid of the debt. Response to their perdicament is "Who cares, we need jobs more than you do," further cuts to education budget, and shifting today's troubles to tomorrow in order to cushion things now (which I do think was necessary but it would have been nice if they had done it whilst not leaving young people who just graduated, or are graduating out hanging).

[DaveJB]

Now, come around, they graduated, are in heavy debt, no job prospects, degree near worthless, and they can't even declare bankruptcy to get rid of the debt.

Most of that debt's in the form of student loans however, and that doesn't start being paid off until you're earning over a certain amount a year (I think the amount is £16,500 at the minute). It's only really the students that ran up big credit card bills and the like who are going to have immediate problems.

As an aside, how many degrees are there that are truly, objectively worthless when it comes to getting a job? A lot of them seem either absurdly specific (i.e. Golf Course Management) or don't have any obvious real-world value (like that old bugbear, Philosophy), but are there really that many degrees that have no real impact, or even a negative impact on employment prospects?

[Dartzap]

There is some concern over the fact that Brown intends to sell off the Student Loans debt to raise some cash, and its possible that whoever gets that will want to squeeze every last penny from it.

[Broomstick]

Now, come around, they graduated, are in heavy debt, no job prospects, degree near worthless, and they can't even declare bankruptcy to get rid of the debt.

Most of that debt's in the form of student loans however, and that doesn't start being paid off until you're earning over a certain amount a year (I think the amount is £16,500 at the minute).

Really? Over here the student loan repayment starts six months after you leave school whether you have an income or not. (Or at least that's how it was when I graduated a couple decades ago - not 100% sure the rules are the same, but I doubt it would be any more merciful than it was)

[DaveJB]

Loans from the government - or more specifically, The Student Loan Company - don't have to be repaid until you're earning £15,000 (I checked, and that's the actual amount), and they'll only take payments for the first 25 years after you graduate.

That's only for your first degree however - if you decide you want a Master's degree or if you just bomb out of your first degree and try another a few years down the line, then you have to get a loan from one of the commercial lenders, and those ones you have to repay irrespective of how much you're earning, generally starting between 2 and 6 months after your course finishes.

[frogcurry]

There is some concern over the fact that Brown intends to sell off the Student Loans debt to raise some cash, and its possible that whoever gets that will want to squeeze every last penny from it.

The loan agreement won't be alterable though, so how would that be a good idea for an investor? Also the student loan rate is linked to the RPI rate, so the rate of return will be limited, I don't see it as being a good investment for a loans company unless they can buy the loan book at a substantial discount - which would be another example of short-termism by Brown.

[ArmorPierce]

Now, come around, they graduated, are in heavy debt, no job prospects, degree near worthless, and they can't even declare bankruptcy to get rid of the debt.

Most of that debt's in the form of student loans however, and that doesn't start being paid off until you're earning over a certain amount a year (I think the amount is £16,500 at the minute). It's only really the students that ran up big credit card bills and the like who are going to have immediate problems.

I'm talkinga bout American student loans. No such law here as far as I know. You may request extenuating circumstance I believe if your student loan is a federal stafford loan. Private student loans you're probably more assed out.

[Broomstick]

I'm talkinga bout American student loans. No such law here as far as I know. You may request extenuating circumstance I believe though.

Not really.

In the US, you can obtain a short deferment (it's less than a year - six months? Nine? I forget, I paid my loans off two decades ago) but once that is used up there are two and only two way to get out of paying your student loans:

1) Death.

2) Complete, total, and permanent disability

Otherwise - you will have to pay them back, one way or another. No "extenuating circumstances", no getting out of it in bankruptcy court, etc.

Well, you can default - and they can come after you with fun things like wage garnishments.

[Big Orange]

I won't be surprised when everybody under 30 starts leaving the British Isle to the EU dominated Europe, Australia, and a recovering North America in the next decade or so

Why do you believe that opportunites for young people are any better in those places? The same economic effects are at work in all of them; most European countries have this problem even worse, just look at the French youths rioting because they can't get jobs (partly due to government-mandated labor market inflexibility).

The grass is not always greener on the other side and while a government-mandated labour market is a safeguard against the pitfalls of outsourcing businesses and immigrant wage slaves, I can feasibly see as an obstacle to young jobseekers (who are getting shafted in comparison to older employees in the UK anyway, as the OP article says).

But remember in France the citizens seem to be more politically motivated and know what they want economically and how to pressurise the government when they're selling them out ("normal" people economically protesting on a large scale largely died out in the UK sometime during the 1980s, although the more politically unified upper classes launched a protest against the fox hunting ban). The French on the whole dislike the idea of a free market (at least according to this graph).

Here's another related article:

UK jobless 'could hit 9.5% by 2011'

The UK's jobless rate could soar to 9.5% in two years' time, even after the economy begins to recover, a leading economic body has warned.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) predicted unemployment would only reach its peak in 2011, from its recent 7.8% rate.

It also warned that further "substantive" measures may be needed to prevent lingering damage to the labour market caused by the rise in youth and long-term unemployment.

Joblessness has increased faster than in most other European economies because of a deeper recession and more flexible labour rules, the OECD said.

But this is still a smaller fall compared to UK output than in previous recessions, as firms have looked to reduce working hours and retain employees.

The OECD said because of this employment will continue to fall "for some time" even after the economy begins to pick up.

Press Association