NationStates Jolt Archive

Mention youth unemployment and most people, well at least Europeans, will think of France. France has a youth unemployment rate of ~20%, compared to an overall umemployment rate of ~9%. You might think this is a problem only associated with France as we never hear about it with regards to other countries. But you'd be wrong.

According to the statistics published by the European Commission's statistics office on the 31st of July this year, youth unemployment seems to be a problem at lot of countries.

In fact, most countries in the EU, including the UK, have youth unemployment rates 5-10 pp above that of their total rates. Even the US, which was included as a comparison has a youth unemployment rate of 10% compared to an average rate of 4.5%. The UK's youth unemployment rate was 14.9% and rising as of April 2007 (no newer data was available), whilst it's average unemployment rate was 5.4% as of April 2007.

The only countries which had comparably low youth unemployment rates were Ireland, the Netherlands, and Denmark with 5.9%, 6.3% and 7% respectively.

http://ec.europa.eu/ireland/press_office/news_of_the_day/unemploymentstats_en.htm

It doesn't surprise me. Young people have less experience, both in work and in finding work. Despite lots of schemes to help, I think getting your first full time job is still a major challenge, both to people leaving school and university graduates. Degrees don't always help speed up the finding either.

Here's an interesting trend for US data to show the reason for under-25 unemployment:

Age:
16-17: 16.7%
18-19: 14.1%
20-24: 8.5%
25-34: 4.6%

The younger you are, the less education and fewer skills you have, so it's considerably more difficult to get a job in the open market due to competition as well as limited opportunities (obviously, many occupations are unavailable to a 16 year old). If you notice, unemployment drops precipitously after age 24, mainly due to the fact that college graduates have found jobs and even those without a college education are old enough and skilled enough to get some kind of employment.

It's not a systemic problem, at least not in the US due to our healthy job market, but it is an interesting piece of data because it shows the benefits and effects of age, experience, and education in the job market. Under-25 employment is addressed much in the same way as any kind of unemployment: through education.

Here's an interesting trend for US data to show the reason for under-25 unemployment:

Age:
16-17: 16.7%
18-19: 14.1%
20-24: 8.5%
25-34: 4.6%

The younger you are, the less education and fewer skills you have, so it's considerably more difficult to get a job in the open market due to competition as well as limited opportunities (obviously, many occupations are unavailable to a 16 year old). If you notice, unemployment drops precipitously after age 24, mainly due to the fact that college graduates have found jobs and even those without a college education are old enough and skilled enough to get some kind of employment.

It's not a systemic problem, at least not in the US due to our healthy job market, but it is an interesting piece of data because it shows the benefits and effects of age, experience, and education in the job market. Under-25 employment is addressed much in the same way as any kind of unemployment: through education.I reject that conclusion because because there are other countries with healthy markets, but have low youth unemployment rates. I would conclude that the education systems in the West have been deteriorating and don't provide students with skills that are useful or easily applicable in the work place. Hence an increasing focus on experience as employers do not see qualifications as a reliable way to differentiate between applicants.

Another way in which this can been seen as unhealthy is that wages are low in many countries causing many to go after second jobs, thus shifting more experienced job seekers to apply for jobs that normally expect to hire inexperienced people.

Mention youth unemployment and most people, well at least Europeans, will think of France. France has a youth unemployment rate of ~20%, compared to an overall umemployment rate of ~9%. You might think this is a problem only associated with France as we never hear about it with regards to other countries. But you'd be wrong.

According to the statistics published by the European Commission's statistics office on the 31st of July this year, youth unemployment seems to be a problem at lot of countries.

In fact, most countries in the EU, including the UK, have youth unemployment rates 5-10 pp above that of their total rates. Even the US, which was included as a comparison has a youth unemployment rate of 10% compared to an average rate of 4.5%. The UK's youth unemployment rate was 14.9% and rising as of April 2007 (no newer data was available), whilst it's average unemployment rate was 5.4% as of April 2007.

The only countries which had comparably low youth unemployment rates were Ireland, the Netherlands, and Denmark with 5.9%, 6.3% and 7% respectively.

http://ec.europa.eu/ireland/press_office/news_of_the_day/unemploymentstats_en.htm

The answer is in what Ireland, the Netherlands, and Denmark are doing right. I'm more familiar with the Irish, a la "The Irish Miracle", and in that case they reduced taxes to the point where business could be productive again. Maybe the problem with the rest of Europe is high taxation and less expansion in the business world?

I reject that conclusion because because there are other countries with healthy markets, but have low youth unemployment rates. I would conclude that the education systems in the West have been deteriorating and don't provide students with skills that are useful or easily applicable in the work place. Hence an increasing focus on experience as employers do not see qualifications as a reliable way to differentiate between applicants.

What countries are they? I'm wondering because there may be some special factors that affect the rate, especially access to higher education.

Another way in which this can been seen as unhealthy is that wages are low in many countries causing many to go after second jobs, thus shifting more experienced job seekers to apply for jobs that normally expect to hire inexperienced people.

Well, wages are a product of supply and demand. Low-education jobs have plenty of available workers, allowing companies to pay the bare minimum and still find people to do them. The only way to solve that is, of course, to improve workforce education levels.

Young people are simply not productive enough to justify the costs of hiring them. Minimum wages and payroll taxes are barriers to employment as the marginal benefit of that employee has to be significant enough to justify the hire.

This is especially problematic in areas where firing employees is more difficult. When you cannot get rid of an employee if the market turns sour or you find that they simply are not profitable, there is far lower incentive to take the risk.

The answer is in what Ireland, the Netherlands, and Denmark are doing right. I'm more familiar with the Irish, a la "The Irish Miracle", and in that case they reduced taxes to the point where business could be productive again. Maybe the problem with the rest of Europe is high taxation and less expansion in the business world?
I'm familiar (enough) with the Irish economy, but I was always under the impression that Denmark and the Netherlands had ones similar to the rest of continental Europe.

I'm familiar (enough) with the Irish economy, but I was always under the impression that Denmark and the Netherlands had ones similar to the rest of continental Europe.

I guess I've made the same assumption. But they are obviously doing something differently -- even if it's just a different definition of unemployed.

How are these stats calculated?

There are plenty of high-school and college students who don't need or want to be employed.

There are plenty of high-school and college students who don't need or want to be employed.

They're not included in the labor force. The unemployment rate only counts people looking for jobs who can't find them.

Canada falls under similar rates with overall unemployment last month at 6.0%, and youth unemployment at 10.6%.

But, let's be honest here too. For people under 18 there are many jobs they are simply unable to apply to for regulatory reasons. For those in the labour force, many under about 21 also are looking for very specific hours in order to integrate work with school, or enter the market for short periods such as over summer holidays. That skews the ratios as only certain employers are looking for short-seasonal work or can accommodate student schedules. And, of course, there is always that issue of needing that first job to get the next one thanks to a good reference from an old boss.

personally, I started working at 13 and the longest period I haven't worked since (almost 30 years of employment now) is two months. Getting that foot in the door and making a name for yourself as a good worker is key. Kids just need that first break.

*is under 25 and unemployed*

*is rather annoyed with it*

They're not included in the labor force. The unemployment rate only counts people looking for jobs who can't find them.

I'm guessing Denmarks secret is that they don't ask if you are looking.

In Australia the youth unemployment rate has dropped since John Howard became PM in 1996 but, ironically enough, the number of people on disability pensions and the number uf underemployed rose a lot. How governments choose to define unemployment can make a lot of difference.

I would conclude that the education systems in the West have been deteriorating and don't provide students with skills that are useful or easily applicable in the work place.
They never did. Most of what you learn in the college begins to be useful after 5-10 years of work, and the only thing useful before is terms. College gives you theory, but the beginner's work is always simple enough to need little theoretical knowledge.

It's just the way it is, colleges don't even try to teach you how to work, they will let you know what you're doing when you get to it, but work skills are almost entirely learned from scratch at the workplace.

From my college, the only courses to be useful immediately were CAD/CAE systems and C; though I was already working then and knew large part of that, but at least I guess other students found them useful. Kinda funny since they were added quite recently and considered almost complementary.

What countries are they? I'm wondering because there may be some special factors that affect the rate, especially access to higher education.It's from the EU commission. It mainly focuses on the EU25 plus other 13 countries in Europe, with the US for comparative reasons.

Well, wages are a product of supply and demand. Low-education jobs have plenty of available workers, allowing companies to pay the bare minimum and still find people to do them. The only way to solve that is, of course, to improve workforce education levels.[/QUOTE]Yes, but some employers don't want to employ someone with a degree as they don't need the skills that come with it. So improving education levels for the sole purpose of raising average wages could lead to over-qualification and the problems that come with it.

They're not included in the labor force. The unemployment rate only counts people looking for jobs who can't find them.Ah, yes, that also brings up an interesting point. Students are never counted as part of the workforce, whether they have, or are looking for a part time job. And with targets of 50% of the population to pass through higher education this would mean that 3.2% of 18-65-year-olds would be 'removed' from the workforce. I think I heard someone refer to higher education rather cynically, as 'new age conscription' in how it reduces unemployment.

In Australia the youth unemployment rate has dropped since John Howard became PM in 1996 but, ironically enough, the number of people on disability pensions and the number uf underemployed rose a lot. How governments choose to define unemployment can make a lot of difference.

The thing with the so-called 'full employment' which Howard talked about, and this was true of Reagan and Thatcher eras too, that the quality of the jobs was incredibly low for the most part, its like having a job of 6$ per hour, it's not enough to live.