Jobs for UK youths - why increase pension age?

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
04/11/2011 07:31

I'm struggling to understand the policy decisions that increase pension ages but do not take account of the effect this will have on youth employment rates...

Am I right in thinking there are only so many jobs to be done and keeping people in positions beyond the current pension age will have a negative effect on jobs for those wishing to start out on a career?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-15578300

OK pensions cost money, but it's mostly money paid in by workers. Unemployment and disaffected youth costs money too... is it all an attempt to turn back the clocks to a low-wage economy?

Have the Tories realised that having hived-off jobs to the far east we now have to compete on those wage rates? Is the Clean Air Act the next to go?

I'm struggling to determine the thinking (if there is any) behind these moves...

Deniz1


Joined: 28/07/2009
Posts: 3829

Message Posted:
04/11/2011 08:31

It does seem crazy to me also. Those that have paid in all their lives are now subsidising all those that the government have let in and thrown money too, Leading to the health care system so overloaded that its difficult to get treatment. Those of us that have decided to leave are still helping the government as we dont us the services any more so the free loaders can.

yrret


Joined: 17/08/2010
Posts: 761

Message Posted:
04/11/2011 08:54

The payment to a pensioner is more per week than to a young unemplyed person, so saves money, plus, if the pensioner also has another private/occupational pension from elsewhere, they would pay more in tax as would be further over the various thresholds.

If you are not of pension age, i.e. working, no free prescriptions etc.

If you eneter the pensions system, and die, the widow/widower still gets the after death benefit.

Basically, it's an attempt to align the life expectations with retired years.

In 1908 when the pension was introduced, the life expectancy was about 50, not many people ever collected it.

Now people live longer, move the goal posts so not as many ever collect it.

Meanwhile, it's cheap to keep a bunch of spotty youths walking the streets.

Maybe.

martinD41


Joined: 06/09/2010
Posts: 3001

Message Posted:
04/11/2011 09:20

msg1....In order to "Turn the Clocks back" you would have to do away with the Automation/Robotics in Factories and Farms, as those are the areas that traditionally "feed" the population.. But how do you tell the "Rich Industrialists" that they must build "labour intensive" organisations, take a cut in profits, in order to employ young people.

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
16/11/2011 23:44

Bank of England governor Sir Mervyn King cuts UK growth predictions, as figures show more than a million young people are without work.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15755835

Ah so that's the time to increase the pension age and create more blocks to employment prospects for the young....

Are any of them prone to joined-up thinking?

BizziLizzi


Joined: 02/08/2011
Posts: 855

Message Posted:
17/11/2011 00:19

Those of us that have decided to leave are still helping the government as we dont us the services any more so the free loaders can.



Oh Thank you, thank you, Deniz. You have made the point that I have been struggling to get over in other contexts for years!



The alleged economics are as stated in another post - increased life expectancy means that people are drawing pensions for longer.



I suspect, however, that the real reason they want to keep older people on is that the standard of education of todays youngsters (and some not so very young) is so poor that they are incapable of doing the jobs.

Woodspeckie


Joined: 25/01/2009
Posts: 2263

Message Posted:
17/11/2011 00:28

Deniz1. Some of those people who have left still return to the UK for treatment so are still using the NHS, postings have been on here saying returned to UK for treatment and hope soon to be back, a couple just recently.

Deniz1


Joined: 28/07/2009
Posts: 3829

Message Posted:
17/11/2011 09:29

Well shame on them then. I have not been to uk since 2004 and i am sure if i did go back i would be refused treatment unless an emergency. I have chosen to live here so i must get on with it warts and all. Ok the health system here is unpredictable but no worse than many other countries where you have to pay. I went to a doctor ealier this year in Girne she was most professional and the whole thing only cost me 80ytl. Cheaper than a meal out.

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
17/11/2011 10:20

This discussion is not about the NHS it's about the seeming lack of direction in a society dogged by youth unemployment that can't see the irony in forcibly increasing the working life of the over 60's.

Whilst I agree that people should be allowed to work as long as they are fit, able and wanting to do so, I don't see the point of forcing people wanting to retire to stay in work beyond the age of 65 if there are millions of youngsters craving a career path. The social repercussions of youth unemployment is far more corrosive to society than the cost of pensions.

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
17/11/2011 12:18

Is there an argument for stopping immigration whilst the unemployment figures in the UK are increasing?

blade


Joined: 19/06/2010
Posts: 1286

Message Posted:
17/11/2011 12:36

I think that we need to invest so much more in our young people. Not just with education and training but life in general. If we don't we are going to be a nation left behind. Even for a young person to own a car is fast becoming a rich kids hobby with the expense of insurance ect.

The retirement age increase i think is wrong, when people have worked hard all of their lives. If people want to work after retirement there is alway charity work.

As for immigration what i have experienced in the UK is that many people either don't want to work or are better off on benefits. We tried to get three quotes for painting work. Either they were silly expensive or they just didn't turn up to quote. So hence we employed a Polish guy, reasonable price and a good job. We would rather have employed someone British but in business thats just sometimes how it is.

davpat


Joined: 23/08/2011
Posts: 225

Message Posted:
17/11/2011 13:29

Deniz,message 8



you can get something for your warts from the Chemist!!

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
17/11/2011 17:15

Basrnados are saying that it will cost the UK 56,000 pounds per head over a lifetime for kids who are between 16 and 18 who are not in employment, education or training.

Coachie



Joined: 29/07/2008
Posts: 2135

Message Posted:
17/11/2011 18:37

Groucho..In a lot of cases the young people do not want to work for the basic minimum wage that most older people get.They want top money with out having to really graft for it.

B&Q employ a lot of retired people because they cannot get young people to fill the vacancies.

Another thing is that a lot of employers do not want to employ young people on 40 hr week contracts.The common practice is to employ a lot more on part time contracts(24hrs)They certainly save themselves a lot of money by doing it.The kids find out that they dont get full holiday pay and sick pay etc.so they leave after acouple of weeks and go and draw benefits. It is not going to be an easy problem to solve and printing extra money to throw after the problem is not going to help it in the long term....