Good article. But, the ONS response rates chart starts too late, in 2015. Response rates had been falling for a long time, including a near 10% fall in 2010, mostly in 2nd-5th wave interviews (maybe survey cutbacks). 70% response in 2000, now back up to 25%.

Mainly graduate earnings falling in real terms. Other groups not so much. ONS mfp productivity release data, adjusted by ASHE mean and CPI. ONS qualifications break in series 2022.

Never ceases to surprise me that people assume that young people don't find out about trends in job availability (unless someone informs them officially). Friends/older siblings/relatives. And data is available.

Most skilled trades having relative and real falls in earnings and falls in employment levels 2021-2025. Food preparation trades affected by Minimum Wage change. Employees only (data from ASHE). The employment and wage signal is the top right quadrant (rising relative pay, rising employment).

A good take. And thinking only of 16-18s (NEET rate around 6%) doesn't explain the 18-21s (15% - so 10% must have been inn education to 18) and 22 -24 (20% - so another 5% of age-group in education up to 21). Proposals are for 14-16s or 14-18s, before most NEETs happen.

Advert for dodgy number plates. Chatham Town centre.

Found in my basement preparatory to moving house. With some reference for the Milburn report, interim and forthcoming. 2004 comments on lost generation and a million not in work or education. Working Brief 157, 2004.

Being a cynic, some in DWP may recall government training schemes being off-benefit (training allowance) & counted 'in employment'. See rebuttal by employment department in: doc.ukdataservice.ac.uk/doc/3721/mrd... @paulconvery.bsky.social

@edjennings.bsky.social . Something going on by the Chatham waterfront.

Reading the Milburn report on young people and work, the annex includes evidence that most disabled young people claiming PIP (Personal Independence Payment) are in education - 54% of 16-24 PIP claimants. Varies with age, of course. Danger that changing PIP could mean they leave education.

Though as the highest NEET rates are post 21, today's piece on students finding it hard to get a job is quite relevant: www.ft.com/content/16e2...

Those Romans didn't half give the best lines to their opponents - Jugurtha

The Romans did give their opponents the best lines.

More leaders should think it possible they themselves are wrong.

Remember, when one looks at labour market changes, you have to look at the whole picture. All the flows are important and can affect the headline figures.

The cyclical patterns of flows vary - but job starts from job changers and unemployed show similar patters - for job starts from inactivity there are similar patters pre-covid, but the post-covid pattern shows higher job start rates than most of the period before.

Labour Force Survey shows 1.7 million job starts in Jan-Mar 2026, 647,000 job to job changers, 583,000 starts from inactivity and 495,000 from unemployment (almost always the smallest group). Some of the unemployed job starters were previously inactive, but observed looking for work last quarter.

Looking at the same data over the whole period we have data, new job starts have fallen a lot since covid reopening, and are now well below pre-covid patterns. Job leavers (including to new jobs) have been much more stable. To split out whether job starters or leavers are job changers needs LFS. 2/

Looking at yesterday's labour market stats, most of the comment has been about stocks. Chart shows numbers of starts (inflows) and finishes (outflows) of employee jobs from HMRC data. Both have risen from summer 2025. 590,000 job starts is 1.95% of PAYE jobs month prior, 618,000 job finishes 2.04%.

The big question is whether any change in the unemployment rate results from a reversal of the last q flows from inactivity to unemployment, rather than movement in the employment/unemployment flows.

On Friday, ONS published its annual human capital release; www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula.... I used this to estimate human capital premia for qualifications, for men and women, relative to GCSE A-C levels. Women have much higher graduate premia than men. Higher education below degree -ve.

Milburn quotes a stat that "45% of young people aged 24 who are NEET have never had a job". There are about 130,000 NEET 24 year olds. The statement is that 45% of them never had a job, and 65% have had a job, but don't now. That's an estimate of 50,000, never worked, based on 35 respondents...

This has happened before - chart shows London child populations from 1981 (from NOMIS). Numbers of Inner London aged 10-14 fell 35% 1981-88. Primary age showing minimum 5 years earlier. How did the Education Department and local authorities manage that? Did the NAO look into this? 1/2

Like this.....

18-24 employees up marginally over the year - the LFS 18-24 employment numbers are very volatile. LFS employment should be higher than HMRC employees - as LFS employment is employees + self-employment (not in HMRC). So 16-17 LFS employment must be understated.

Looking at the latest flows - but only job starts and finishes, which is what you get from HMRC - job starts (inflows) are almost same as last year job finishes well down on last year. Fall in unemployment unlikely to be much to do with Employment-Unemployment flows.

The numbers show the same picture. Most NEET people have been in full-time education 16-18, and frequently in HE. They may not have been in work, because they have been prioritising education. Education can be greedy for time, not valuing time spent working while studying.

The extensive margin (middle chart) surprisingly flat on average - so far rising employment rates at 60 plus have counteracted the demographic ageing process.

Splitting those NEET numbers by disability (small sample numbers, so wide confidence intervals) shows rises with age for both disabled and not disabled young NEETs.

This morning's UK stats for young people not in education, employment or training (NEET) show, as usual that the highest NEET rates are for 21s and over. 18-20s are lower, but the group that may have been rising rather than falling. 16-17s remain at low levels. www.ons.gov.uk/employmentan...