Thirty-eight per cent of young people who could work are not doing so. They're not lazy or indifferent. Nor have they dropped out. They just can't fit into the machinery of conformism that modern employers demand of them. As a result, vast numbers of talented young people aren't delivering of their best for this country.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
Why aren't young people working as much these days? That's a difficult question to answer. And I'm asking it about what is commonly called Generation Z; broadly speaking, those under the age of about 24 in the UK at present.
Now of course I do know that between the ages of 16 and 24, a great many people are in education of some sort. They might still be at school, or in college, or at university, or even in post university education of some sort, which still means they're not in the workforce. Whatever it is, of course, that's a valid occupation on their part, and a benefit to us, we hope.
But, taking those people out of account, there is still very obviously a significant trend going on in the UK, where the number of young people not working is growing much faster than in any other age group. And this is deeply worrying.
Now I see two fundamental reasons for this, and I'm basing this upon some research by John Burn-Murdoch in the Financial Times, but also a lot of commentary over the last few months on data produced by the Office for National Statistics.
And one of the reasons why there is no doubt that there is an increase in the number of people at that age not working is because of the amount of ill health that is being recorded by people of that age, most especially if they are not in education, from which many of them have been excluded as a consequence of that ill health.
Roughly half of the 38 per cent of young people between the ages of 16 and 24 who aren't working - I stress that - 38 per cent not working - roughly half of those aren't working because they have autism or some condition related to it.
Another 10 per cent now appear to have mental health-related issues.
Others have physical disability-related issues. The number who are not working because they haven't got some form of health-related issue or ability-related issue, which denies them the opportunity to work is very low.
So, what we're seeing is a significant increase in the number of people with mental health conditions in particular. A decade ago, 28 per cent weren't working, and now 38 per cent aren't working, and the rise is very largely down to mental health.
What has caused so much harm to young people in this age group? Well, of course, Covid is one of the obvious explanations. COVID hit people in this group incredibly hard. They were forced to survive massive uncertainty in their lives.
They failed to have the attention that they need needed from teachers, from supervisors at universities, from lecturers.
They didn't see their friends and colleagues for a long time and that had knock on effects on their mental well-being.
There's no doubt this is true, and we're seeing the consequences all over the place.
We're also perhaps more aware of issues around autism and other related issues now than we have before, and I think that's incredibly positive because at some point in time we're going to work out just what the value of people with autism, ADHD and all sorts of other conditions which mean they are simply not neurotypical are for the benefit of humankind, and let's be clear being normal is not all that it's cracked up to be because people who are normal suffer mental ill health.
Being divergent can actually be highly creative. And so what we need to do is understand how to put highly creative people to use in our society.
But here I come to my other thing. Because I sort of know a bit about this generation. I've taught some of them. I've known a lot of them. I have offspring in that generation. I talk to others. And what I gather from so many, and from the commentary, is that they're pretty disenchanted with the workplace.
And I don't blame them. I think they've got every reason to be disenchanted by the modern workplace. Because, frankly, modern employers treat them with - I am not going to be polite here - contempt. That's the best I can say.
When I was looking for my first job post-university, I wrote my CV. I was unusual in those days; I actually had a typewriter. I was always pounding a keyboard and was pretty good at it. And so I went off and bashed it out. I sent it off to some firms. I got called in for an interview. One interview later, I was offered some jobs and I had to choose between those who have made me those job offers.
The whole process, actually for me, lasted not more than a few days. And, that was brilliant.
It doesn't work like that anymore. If you're a young person wanting a job now, it's virtually as if you've got a full-time job applying for a job. You have to, first of all, make an online application. You have to distort, contort, and manipulate your CV to fit into whatever document format they require.
Then you almost certainly have to go through a series of online tests of ever-increasing obscurity, each of them taking a lot of preparation time and involving a lot of stress.
Then you might have to prepare an online presentation to give to somebody in the organisation. So, after going through around three rounds of these testing and application processes, you might eventually talk to somebody, but it's almost certainly going to be online, and you will have been expected to prepare something in advance to try to impress them.
If you manage to impress somebody online with the conformity of your expectation with those of the organisation, and you note there, I stress, your conformity with the expectations of the organisation, they might then, finally, in about the fifth round of the process, invite you in to take part in an exercise day, where you will be compared against 30 or 40 other candidates, after which you might get an interview.
This is farcical. It's contemptuous of the young person that the employer thinks that they can take up so much of that person's time.
It's contemptuous of the whole of their education that the employer thinks everything must be distorted to the employer's needs when at that point in time, the young person is still open, malleable, and forming themselves, and it is up to the employer to implant in due course their values and their requirements onto the candidates they think suitable, and not to expect that those candidates have already formed that awareness, knowledge, and understanding.
It's also contemptible, and I mean that word, for those who don't fit into the stereotypes. Because all of this is about putting people into boxes.
When I look back on my interviewing career, and I spent a lot more of my interviewing career as the interviewer rather than the interviewee, because I hired a lot of people in my time, I reckon that on average it took me less than five minutes to hire somebody after they come in through the door and sat down to have the interview process take place.
If I knew I wanted somebody, within two or three minutes of them arriving, the rest of the half an hour that I was going to commit to the process was all about confirming my opinion.
If I decided I didn't want somebody, and that sometimes was very quick indeed. Then I went through the rigmarole of trying to pretend that the remaining half an hour was going to be useful.
And how did I even vet them before they reached there? I would get a pile of CVs to go through, and I used my judgment to shortlist.
I can remember once shortlisting one person out of a hundred, and I said I didn't want to see anymore, and I can remember the agency who sent me the CVs saying but you've got to interview a pile of people. I said, “I want that person.” And it turned out that I was absolutely right; that person was absolutely brilliant for the job until they decided to go and become a vicar; I can remember them going off and doing that, which was very frustrating because we couldn't find a way to accommodate God, part-time, into a part-time work role, which this person could still have done. So, anyway, that didn't work out in the end, but it was three-plus years after the interview.
My point is this. The recruitment process should be one in which people engage their own discretion, their own understanding, their own expectations. And young people aren't getting that respect by anybody doing that.
Instead, they're being pumped into a machine from the outset. And what do they feel as a consequence? They feel like they're part of a machine. They feel like they're being treated with contempt as the cogs roll around them. They don't feel as though they're a person. So why should they treat the employer with the respect that the employer isn't giving them?
I don't know. I really don't know. I don't understand it. If employers want to recruit in this way, don't expect to have committed employees.
And those young people who are getting through the process to joining, there's lots of evidence that Generation Z and whoever their slightly older peers are, are really not now fitting easily into the world of work.
And we can't say this is just down to COVID, or it's just down to doing some home working at some point in time. No, young people don't buy the values of the system.
They know full well that the system is now rigged against them. However hard they work, they're not going to end up with a decent pension because they aren't available. The ones that they're being offered by their employers are frankly never going to provide them with security.
And they're not going to have the means to pay to ever buy a home. Damn it, they have enough problems paying the rent, and they're having student debt-laden upon them on top of the tax bill, making their marginal tax rates in very many cases higher than those of generations before them, including many of the managers they're working for.
This is absurd, of course they feel alienated, of course they don't buy into the system, of course they're looking for something else. And they're realising that there are more important things in life than progressing up the greasy pole in a way that my generation never did.
Of course, there have always been people who've dropped out, always people who've done their own thing. And I always encourage them to. There's the natural entrepreneurial flair that we should encourage.
But when it comes down to it, the same reason why young people aren't working - because they have poor mental health, or because their autism or whatever is affecting them, literally alienating them from the system - are the same reasons why people when they get into these jobs are saying “Thank you very much, but no, thank you. I don't like what you're offering me I don't like the way you're treating me and I want something different.”
We need to respect that. We need to provide young people with opportunity. We need to respect the fact that they must have a chance in life. And we must respect the fact that they now understand that they have their own needs and that the world will not be something that will accommodate them. Therefore, they're making it their own way.
I don't blame them. I think it's brilliant that they are. It's time we actually got on and instead of moaning about the fact that young people aren't working for some reason, ask the question, why aren't they working and required employers to change their employment systems, because until employers respect young people, we're going to have a really big crisis in this country.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
The social contract that has existed since WWII has now been thoroughly broken and the consequences are just starting to work their way through the system.
My wife and I went to look at a school recently.
It was a studio school aimed at the ‘different’
The head was fascinating, his comment was that in his opinion the rise in mental distress in young people was down to the ways schools were forcing them to behave. Deal with that and a lot of the issues many young people suffer from would disappear.
Back when I started work there were huge numbers of mostly young people basically pushing paper (note paper not Vellum or Papyrus as middle son will no doubt insist) it didnt require a great deal of thought or brainpower but those who did it well were in my experience regarded highly – we once threatened to go round to a 17 year olds house and drag her back to the office one Easter when she decided she didnt want a job for two weeks, and the return of another paper pusher, this time a woman in her 40’s was greeted with cries of joy.
So I suggest that we need both to be looking at how young people are being treated in schools and perhaps providing jobs that need doing and can provide recognition but are not over taxing on body and soul.
Oh and dont forget, God works in mysterious ways.
Much to agree with
[…] if to reinforce the message in my video this morning, the FT has reported […]
In the 1950s, you could buy a house on one salary, with a 3.5% mortgage fixed for 30 years.
I think that today’s youngsters know their worth.
I couldn’t agree more. From personal experience, and that of two of my children, employers do show both ignorance and contempt towards employees with autism.
Those on the autistic spectrum have a different approach and perspective when dealing with situations. It’s not wrong, just different. And often that difference can be remarkably creative and productive. Employers who ignore this are losing out in the long term.
Agreed
Many neurodiverse people find their place (and good remuneration) in the IT industry.
Some parents are taking things into their own hands eg https://www.harryschocs.co.uk/ set up (in Ely) by the parents of an autistic man and employing/training autistic people.
But most employers do not see the Gift of neurodiversity.
I know the company
Stephen Hawking (Reddit Ask me anything, 2018)
“If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.”
We need to challenge the automatic assumption that machines should remove people’s livelihood and make most people’s lives worse,
But I alsos see a second trend.
When you get through a year’s supply of Vivaldi, a robot repeating an endless disclaimer, and a long series of suggestions that you should use your computer like anyone else, you find that the human you reach has been reduced to a robot, repeating mindlessly the same questions you would find on an online form.
Oh, my. Michael G’s last paragraph describes our service industry’s awful disconnection perfectly. Perfectly. We’ve all experienced this, and are now experiencing it nearly all the time with every organisation we deal with.
I wonder to what extent consanguinity is contributing to the mental health problems the country has.
And there also seems to be a surplus of men in the 16-24 age group and for whatever reason men are more likely to suffer mental health problems.
It’s a subject that needs a boatload of analysis.
My view is that already in the minds of those above us – corporatists and politicians – is that AI is reducing the need for people – in their imaginations the future is already here and they are essentially decoupling from the rest of us already.
I see this phenomenon in processes like TUPE and other divestment activities in organisations already – once the decision us made to ‘let go’ the drive to meet the needs of those being divested just goes and they are left to sort themselves out.
I’m afraid that that is the truth of the matter to me.
You have hit the nail on the head with this article. As a father of two Gen Z sons (one of whom has high-functioning autism), I must say that the disenchantment is palpable. The general lack of purpose in the work environment, low pay for young graduates, and the cost of living stifle young people’s growth and route to independence. There is also the awareness of the bleak-looking future thanks to global warming. The list can go on and on. I’m not surprised to see such a sharp rise in mental health issues in the UK.
Much to agree with – and I recognise a lot of what you say
Thank you for saying this. Both ‘sides’ need to hear it. You speak both for Gen Z and the generation before (Millennials?) – emphasising that these are genuine difficulties, not excuses – and to them. Not all ‘Boomers’ think that way – even if it feels like they all do. And you say it with the passion they do.
My daughter (now 36) has been saying everything you’ve just said for years – including to her father! (Oxbridge First, PhD, wandered straight into the first job he applied for. Took years for him to grasp how much things had changed out there.)
She was badly hit by graduating just after the 2008 debacle and resultant cuts. I recognise a lot of her struggles with applications in what you say, not helped by the fact that she did break down due to anxiety and depression. A CV isn’t enough these days, you’ve got to tailor it specifically to every single application. And she’d spend hours filling them in saying to me “I don’t know why I bother. I can’t sell myself so I won’t even get an interview”. My son (on the spectrum) said the same thing some 10 years earlier.
Imagine going through the process you describe with anxiety and depression! I helped as much as I could – doing the secretarial bits, compiling generic responses to cut/paste/tweak. At one stage she was so bad she couldn’t face looking through the vacancies in her (highly competitive) field at all, so I’d vet them. I found it exhausting and depressing enough.
It’s soul destroying for the actual applicants – especially if they’re already fragile or atypical.
It seems to me that many employers are either too lazy or too grasping to develop potential. I doubt that many would recognise it if they fell over it. In a way it’s not their fault because they’ve never learned how to. For some 40 years they’ve never had to. Until recently there’s been a pool of perspective, employees with the relevant skills who would fill the jobs British workers “wouldn’t do”. (ie they didn’t have the skills through lack of training/experience and/or wouldn’t slave away for long hours for peanuts)
I think it’s been going on for many years, though. It’s just that it’s got worse. I remember a fairly well-known opera singer in the 70s saying they’d been back to their college and realised “I wouldn’t even get a place there now. They don’t want to develop talent. They want a finished product that they can just polish.” Which I think is perhaps another part of the problem. There are far fewer entry level posts for those young people who do want to start their way up that greasy pole.
Anyway, thanks again for this. I’ll direct my daughter to it. (Even though she’ll probably say “I’ve been telling you that for years!”) She’s in a good position now and uses her own experiences to help her team. In both this and her previous post some members have been either neurodivergent or mentally fragile and they – and the ‘normals’ benefit from the input.
So much to agree with
And re music, watch Young Musician of the Year for conformation of that trend – they’re massively overqualified at 15 it seems, but musicality? That sems lacking in mmany cases. That’s the modern world.
I appreciated you saying all that
Anecdote about hiring people – I once rejected a candidate before interview (after a paper shuffle exercise the college insisted on) after observing, by accident, him parking in a disabled spot and then addressing Reception in a rude and condescending manner. Professional of me, maybe not, but…..
I think that entirely fair
These things matter
It doesn’t suggest “team player”, does it? 🙂
But “team player” is sometimes overrated (which is not to excuse the behaviour discussed).
That’s especially true for neuro divergent, who are nevertheless highly valuable.
When I was recruiting, HR tried to insist that team work was more important than qualifications and ability.
More recently many companies embrace “agile development” which presupposes that team work is always the best approach. Of course teamwork is often needed, and “agile” is sometimes an excellent development strategy – but not always. My colleagues all laud “agile” to their managers and employers (not to do so can be career death). But in private they rail against it.
So teamwork yes; sometimes good, sometimes not. But young job applicants have to genuflect to the god of teamwork.
Buisinesses frequently want self-starters and team players without realkising that by and large these are very different things.
Jargon usually rules.
Trouble with “agile” is that people often think it means not having to do things properly. And it doesn’t. So they do their “agile” and things break and cost many times more than doing it properly in the first place!
Tim; agreed, it too often means ‘on message’ and ‘won’t rock the boat’.
Corporations and their managers have access to so much knowledge and information, but show so little wisdom.
I would assume some combination of:
1. Seeing what David Graeber saw about bullshit jobs, and that they’re being asked to take part in a meaningless activity.
2. Knowing what Greta Thunberg and what environmental activists see, that we’re destroying the world we need to survive, and they’re being asked to engage in the cause of that activity.
3. Having been betrayed by society who allowed social media free access to their minds, causing the mental health challenges you’ve referred to. Jonathan Haidt wrote that the staggering rose in teen mental health issues correlates incredibly closely with smartphone enabled use of social media: https://www.humanetech.com/podcast/jonathan-haidt-on-how-to-solve-the-teen-mental-health-crisis.
The latter point is very important for various reasons:
1 The mental vacuity access to ‘instant’ info creates (“Google says…”)
2 The penetration of nasty right wing ideology, especially misogyny, online
3 The vast unreal world that is presented “I want to be an influencer, Sir”.
4 Unquantified changes to perception and consciousness we are yet unaware of.
I’m very conscious of the influence phones can have as I teach 16-19 year olds, and observe their interactions as my classroom opens onto the common room.
I was accused of being an influencer the other day
Weird, at 66….
An important topic, the contempt for job applicants is disrespectful, indecent, vile. I can’t understand how it’s become so bad and impersonal, we should stick two fingers up at the employers who operate these schemes, but supply and demand, it won’t happen.
According to my father it all went wrong when they renamed “personnel” to “human resources”.
Replying to Ian Tresman’s comment about buying a house in the 1950’s. I do wonder how general that experience was. After their marriage in 1946, my own parents -my father was a secondary school teacher and my mother– as most women were ( despite working as a nurse throughout the war) a’ homemaker’- were only able to rent a room from the school caretaker!! and then a few months later a’ flat/apartment’ above the local corner shop, in fact rooms in someone else’s house.! It was only in 1952 that they were able to finally rent a home in the new estate that was being built to house all the steelworkers in Port Talbot. There was never any idea that we could buy a home until the situation arose that I would be going to the newly established comprehensive school rather than to the school where my father taught. All stops were pulled out to borrow a loan-cash – from the savings of my grandparents (former coal miners) and thence a mortgage. My father was just 40 then and unfortunately lived only just long enough to pay off the 25 year mortgage…
My parents – married in 1949, him a chartyered engineer, her a nurse – bought their first home in 1957, having been througha. variety of rented properties
I did only 4 years of that – but I am not at all sure that renting is a bad thing when young and mobility is really useful
You could be right. It will depend on when you purchased, and of course, the value of the property.
The link is to a chart that shows 175 years of house prices as a multiple of average earnings, which ranges from 12x wages in 1845, to today at 9x, with a sweet spot of 2¼x around 1920.
Source: “What 175 years of data tell us about house price affordability in the UK”,
https://www.schroders.com/en-gb/uk/individual/insights/what-174-years-of-data-tell-us-about-house-price-affordability-in-the-uk/
I remember my niece when applying for a very very part time job stacking shelves after school hours having to write 2 pages about why she wanted the job!! Obviously the only reason was to get some money – – and being bright she managed some sort of ludicrous waffle about job fulfilment or God alone knows what. If it was that much of a farce 20 years ago God help the current generation.
This social conversation around neurodiversity, is beginning to echo similar tropes deployed in the medical debate about eugenics initiated by a social evolutionary approach to Darwin.
[…] Why aren’t young people working? Funding the Future […]