Over 1 million youth unemployed, highest youth unemployment EVER!

[Mecky]

According to the government, 5 GCSEs (including English and Mathematics) at Grade 'C' or above is the minimum qualification to get a decent job.

According to government statistics, about 60% of those who leave school at age 16 achieve that goal.

 

Simple arithmetic:

 

40% of school leavers are unemployable.

 

Is anybody surprised that so many unemployable people don't have employment?

 

Define decent job. I have qualifications well above the national average but I don't class my job as decent in any way, shape or form.

 

40% unemployable? Are there 40% more jobs to take them on anyway?

[grafikhaus74]

immigrants are not the only problem...

 

No it isn't, but, started as a matter of pure spite by Labour and continued by the spineless ConDems, to let so many people in (so many, that they don't even know how many have come in) was the politics of the mad house and utterly unsustainable. No country on Earth could cope with our current influx in terms of employment and resources.

 

According to the government, 5 GCSEs (including English and Mathematics) at Grade 'C' or above is the minimum qualification to get a decent job.

 

According to government statistics, about 60% of those who leave school at age 16 achieve that goal.

 

Simple arithmetic:

 

40% of school leavers are unemployable.

 

Is anybody surprised that so many unemployable people don't have employment?

 

And that's the other problem. But who is to blame? The parents who are probably no better than their offspring? Incompetent teachers who have had their inability to teach masked by obviously bogus exam results?

 

Never mind. If people are vexed by this current set of unemployment statistics, just think how they'd feel if the 'powers that be' published the true number of people without a full time job...

[Rupert_Baehr]

Qualifications don't guarantee a job. - My Alias is 'Freda Grease' and my third degree didn't guarantee me a job - I still had to go out and persuade an employer I was worth paying - but if you don't even have the basic minimum qualifications (according to the government or anybody else which are deemed to be the minimum required to get a job) what are your chances?

 

When I left school (in the 60's) there was no shortage of job opportunities at all levels. A select few went to university (and we are talking about a few - 10-15%) others went into other jobs (many of which led to quite good careers, - University wasn't the only way to get a decent job.

 

I suspect (and I certainly don't have the figures - do you?) that far fewer people (as a percentage or even in real numbers) left school unable to read and write than do nowadays.

 

I've read CVs from (so-called) 'university graduates' which indicated quite clearly that the applicant was unable to read and write.

 

As an (ex - I'm now retired) employer, I was seriously dismayed - nay, scared sh one t less) by the low calibre of many of the applicants who wanted to work in my organisation.

 

How did this happen? I don't believe that people are either inherently smarter or thicker now than they've ever been. I've seen no evidence whatever which suggests that the human race has become intrinsically smarter (or more stupid) than it ever was.

 

Yet the number of people who think that they are suited to executive positions (but can't even string 5 words together to make a sentence) appears to have increased exponentially.

 

I come from an impoverished background. I had a lot of luck and worked hard.

 

I'm smart (so they say) but there are smarter people.

 

In my first job Maxie (the simulator instructor) said to me: "You will learn how to solve Sine, Cosine and Tangent problems in your head. You will do advanced maths without even thinking about it. And while you're doing that you will fly the effing aeroplane. In the dark. On instruments."

 

He scared the crap out of me ... but he was right. I did learn to do that (as did many other people.)

 

There are no limits.

 

The only limits are those you impose upon yourself.

 

You have qualifications which are 'above the national average?' - So why don't you have a job which pays (or is worth to you) above the national average?

 

Nobody is stopping you.

 

The only limits are those which you impose upon yourself.

 

Most of us are born naked and crying (I was born not quite naked, I was born covered with hair about half an inch long apart from the palms of my hands and the soles of my feet.)

 

After that, I was on my own. No 'silver spoon' (mine was plastic) no 'family money.

 

I went to school, I got a job. I too am better educated than average, but I first went to university when I was 43. At my expense (and I paid for the subsequent courses, too.)

 

No silver spoon, no advantages. I too am better qualified than the average Brit and although I've had some pretty crappy jobs, I've had a few good ones, too.

 

If you are so well-qualified, (and are so unhappy with what you're doing now) why don't you go out and get the sort of job you would like to do?

 

How old are you? Are you flexible? - If you really are as good as you think you are I could put you in contact with people who might confirm your estimate of your value.

 

You could end up getting paid what you are worth.

[Rupert_Baehr]

No it isn't, but, started as a matter of pure spite by Labour ...

 

 

And that's the other problem. But who is to blame? The parents who are probably no better than their offspring? Incompetent teachers who have had their inability to teach masked by obviously bogus exam results?...

 

Never mind. If people are vexed by this current set of unemployment statistics, just think how they'd feel if the 'powers that be' published the true number of people without a full time job...

 

Are the teachers necessarily incompetent? - Or are they not allowed to do what they are paid to do? (Teach.)

 

I taught in a secondary school for 18 months. A good school.

 

I taught in a prison for 3 years. A good prison.

 

In both establishments I became aware that what I did, what I was tasked to do, was driven less by what my students needed than by what the government wanted me to pretend to do.

 

Let me give you an example. I speak fluent English (and a few other languages in various fluencies.) I am not an ESL (English as a second Language) teacher.

 

I was tasked with taking inmates from wherever they ere to the equivalent of GCSE Grade C English and given 3 months to do so.

 

I was told to teach an 'induction' course for new inmates on Thursday afternoons. I did so.

 

On the first day, I had one student. Life in prison (when you're new) is not easy. I was considerate. He didn't say much, but I explained (in great detail) what he would do in his classes with me, what we hoped to achieve and how we were going to do it.

 

After an hour of explanation (We had 2 hours together) (he wasn't very communicative) I got fed up and decided that although he was (perhaps understandably) scared, I wanted some 2-way conversation. I stopped speaking and started questioning. He became agitated.

 

He still wouldn't speak, so I became agitated.

 

Then he spoke: "Me Albanian, no Spicka Engels."

 

Right! Her Majesty's government has given me 3 months to take a non-English speaking Albanian to the equivalent of GCSE English at grade C or above.

 

That's how your tax money is spent in English Prisons.

 

I resigned at the end of the lesson.

 

I'm a bloody good teacher ... I'm not a magician

[Conrod]

At £2.60 an hour, some people would have to work 96 hours to cover their housing benefit, and a further 6 to cover their council tax benefit. And a further 20 to cover their JSA and 11 more to buy a bus pass. Leaving them 5 hours a day to travel, eat and sleep.

 

These people will rise up against the system. Were going to be looking at a civil war.

 

If I was in that position I'd attack a copper and get myself locked up. Far better to have free time and be able to eat a proper meal.

That's wonderful advice to youngsters - throw away your start in life and career training, instead get arrested and begin a life in and out of prison, with the great bonus of lots of free time and free meals.

 

Or here's an alternative:

 

That young apprentice in his first year is learning. His employer is having to spend time and money training him, and over that year he will offer very limited productivity and a significant supervision burden to the company that he's been placed with. He'll probably be doing college one day a week and on-the-job training with his employer 4 days. At the end of the year, he'll go up to a normal wage. Perhaps he could see it as securing his own future career?

 

Young apprentices tend not to be people in their own homes - they're almost invariably youngsters living at home with parents. If they were training at college full time rather than with an employer, studying A levels or similar, I very much doubt they'd get paid at all. Should A level students attack a Policeman and get themselves locked up?

[Mister M]

No it isn't, but, started as a matter of pure spite by Labour and continued by the spineless ConDems, to let so many people in (so many, that they don't even know how many have come in) was the politics of the mad house and utterly unsustainable. No country on Earth could cope with our current influx in terms of employment and resources.

 

 

 

And that's the other problem. But who is to blame? The parents who are probably no better than their offspring? Incompetent teachers who have had their inability to teach masked by obviously bogus exam results?

 

Never mind. If people are vexed by this current set of unemployment statistics, just think how they'd feel if the 'powers that be' published the true number of people without a full time job...

 

Why was immigration started as a matter of pure spite by Labour, to spite who?