42.9% youth unemployment in London .. comments?

[durruti02]

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article...ng_nothing&in_article_id=627667&in_page_id=34

" .. 1m young people are 'doing nothing'
Monday, April 20, 2009

Sit back and relax: 850,000 young people are 'doing nothing', according to new figures
The number of young people 'doing nothing' has soared to 850,000.

They were not in employment, education nor training at the end of last year.

The so-called 'Neets' have grown by 220,000 since statistics were first gathered in 2000......"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/apr/20/neets-young-people-education

" ..Record numbers of young people are not in any form of education, employment or training (Neets), according to figures published today by the Conservatives.The latest official figures from December, obtained by the Tories through a parliamentary question, show that 857,000 people aged 16-24 were not in school, jobs or training. This is up from 629,000 Neets overall in 2000..."

though this http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/mar/26/neet-young-increase says there are 100k and increasing NEETS in the 16-18..

 

[JHE]

The thread title is very misleading, it's 42.9% of 16 to 17 year olds , not 42.9% of youths . Plus a lot of those will be barred to jobs by their age.

It is an extraordinary figure nevertheless. I thought that nowadays the overwhelming majority of youngsters (more than 80%, I thought) stayed in education beyond the age of 16, mostly in FE colleges or sixth form colleges.

 

[_angel_]

It is an extraordinary figure nevertheless. I thought that nowadays the overwhelming majority of youngsters (more than 80%, I thought) stayed in education beyond the age of 16, mostly in FE colleges or sixth form colleges.

How many jobs are actually open to you when you're 16/17 these days, anyway?

 

[greenman]

A lot of the jobs previously taken up by 16-17 year olds (unskilled/semi skilled - those aiming above that skill level tend to stay in sixth form or college) have now been casualised. One thing that needs to be taken into account is the agencies that now dominate that sector of the economy willfully ignoring the age discrimination legislation. They will say "you have to be 18" to any 16/17 year old coming in to sign up in many cases, or if they do sign up the 16/17 year olds will come last in the pecking order for vacancies. Still 42% seems massively high compared to the rest of the country. For 16-17 year olds this may also be to do with the collapse of the government's Connexions strategy in parts of London. In other parts of the country Connexions (tasked with reducing NEET figures amongst 16-19 year olds by placing the YPs into education, employment with training or training) has been relatively successful (with some notable exceptions). However, in London, many areas have not been successful from the start and the Government has been floundering around in policy areas connected to this age group for the last several years. Currently there is a hotch-potch around the country of ownership and standards as regards youth advice and placing which is much worse than the old local authority careers services before they were privatised by the Major government, and then incorporated into Connexions by the first Blair government.
Government cock ups and private sector greed and illegality impacting negatively on vulnerable young people? You wouldn't believe it, would you?

 

[trevhagl]

When i was a teenager i went on 2 shitty schemes, one with Tindale & Stanton and one with a firm who had "electrocis" in their name, hence i figured i might learn something.

Both were slave Labour, and both got the money from the government to pay me. I left within 2 weeks of each. Then there was the community programme scheme, working with sadists in the woods (2 went on to be murderers, 2 drug dealers) - but i STAYED. Why? Well apart from there being no jobs anywhere (a bit like now) it actually was the only work based scheme that paid a decent wage (same as council at the time)

THIS is something the govt needs to bear in mind. You might think you can fob young people off with promises of 'training' etc but when reality turns out to be working for half the minimum wage, they'll be off, many into crime.

 

[scifisam]

I know some people automatically go on and on about people choosing to claim benefits rather than work for a pittance, but that's even less relevant than usual in this thread - very few 16-17 year olds will be eligible for benefits. When they are, it's because they're estranged from their parents or are a parent themselves, and the amount they get is lower than for adults.

fair play and i have to also say the figure does not sound right on reflection! BUT looking at this maybe it is ..

http://www.lowpay.gov.uk/lowpay/lowpay2006/chapter3b.shtml

generally there are 75% of 16 17 year old in education .. and of the rest the unemployment rate has increased significantly .. is it possible in london the FTE rate is much lower and the unemployed as a % of non FTE is much higher giving the 42% .. say only 50% of 16-17 year old in London were in FTE .. and of those 80% not working would give and overall 40% ..

the princes trust put england figures of NEETs at 20% so that suggest london could have 40%

http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/main site v2/downloads/Cost of Exclusion apr07.pdf

though this puts neets at 10%

http://www.dfes.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2007_0115

while this puts london NEETs at 7.7%

http://www.lda.gov.uk/upload/pdf/London_European_Social_Fund_Regional_Framework_2007-2010.pdf.

so the 42% can only make sense in terms of many people in FTE being classified as unemployed .. in which case as mauvais warned .. DODGY stats!

( btw the 18-24 rate stats seem pretty solid )

Those numbers are very odd, aren't they? How did different organisations come up with such varying numbers?

How many jobs are actually open to you when you're 16/17 these days, anyway?

Hardly any. Truly, it doesn't help that there are lots of people from abroad willing to work in fairly shitty jobs - people who are older, have work experience and qualifications - but that's only part of the story.

Health and safety regulations would often preclude someone under 18 being allowed to do certain types of work - or they'd have to train for a while to get the qualifications first (not training on the job, either).

Does anyone have an answer to these two questions of mine?

Do insurance companies charge more for companies who employ under 18s?

Do companies that employ under 18s have to have everyone else there CRB checked? After all, if you work in any field that includes vulnerable people - which includes people aged 16-18 - you have to have a CRB check. Surely, then, even a bakery that employs under 18s would have to get their staff checked out?

 

[durruti02]

Those numbers are very odd, aren't they? How did different organisations come up with such varying numbers?

see my recent post sam .. i think it is which age group you are talking about 16-24 or 16-17

 

[sihhi]

Some new figures

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d3d312ae-5acb-11de-8c14-00144feabdc0.html