X Close

Generation corona has been handed a life sentence The class of 2020 could see their dreams dashed and their skills dwindle

The prospects of this year's graduates are bleak. Credit: Liu Guanguan/China News Service via Getty Images

The prospects of this year's graduates are bleak. Credit: Liu Guanguan/China News Service via Getty Images


May 22, 2020   5 mins

As someone who left university in 2010, I remember only too well the sheer exhaustion of starting a career in the aftermath of an economic shock. I approached exams with a sense of trepidation not for the academic gauntlet but for the abyss beyond. The jobs market brimmed with competition and employers were still holding in their belts after a dreadful year in which many went under.

Over and over, I felt the slow-motion gutpunch of realisation that an employer was never going to respond. Like many, I worked for free, drawing on savings from summer and university jobs from the previous year, to get my foot on a career ladder that wasn’t my first choice.

It hadn’t been until September 2009, 12 long months after Lehman Brothers’ collapse, that Gordon Brown announced his plan for youth unemployment. By that point, the damage had already been done. In the intervening year, youth unemployment rose at four times the average rate, putting an extra 157,000 18-24 year olds out of a job and leaving more than a quarter of a million unemployed for six months or more.

I was lucky, as it turned out. I caught a break, never suffered long-term unemployment and eventually found a career path that has been good to me. But for many of my contemporaries that career start took a toll that endured for many years. According to work by the Resolution Foundation, the generation that entered the labour market alongside me between 2008-11 took six years to make up their lost wages and graduates were 30% more likely to work in low wage jobs than students who left university before or after them.

Even worse effects were experienced after previous downturns. The cohort that entered the labour market during the mass unemployment of the early 1980s were earning between 13 and 21% less, on average, two decades later. A study of school leavers in the Netherlands in the 1990s found that delaying their entry into the job market by a year reduced their likelihood of finding a job in the following two years from 60% to 16% for men, and from 47% to 13% for women.

We cannot afford to be as lethargic about youth unemployment this time. As the latest ONS figures show, coronavirus may kill fewer young people than previous pandemics (peak mortality during the Spanish Flu was among 28-year-olds) but it has greater potential to sentence them to a life of lower earnings, worse jobs and weaker productivity. The downturn we are entering will be deeper than any other in living memory, and it may also be longer lasting. We must avoid long-term unemployment becoming a rite of passage for a generation.

This will be harder than it sounds. Young people are typically the most vulnerable in recessions because they are most expendable. As existing jobs are lost and new openings become scarce, newly minted youngsters are usually first to be fired and last to be hired. The thinning of the labour market means young people are forced to compete with people with years of experience. Their ambitions and dreams can disintegrate and the skills they built up can fade as time goes on. These effects will already be being felt by the many young people on furlough.

The priority for the Government should be to keep as many young people in work as possible, and to bounce them back into work as quickly as possible when they fall out. The extension of the furlough scheme will help to achieve the first of these objectives, at least for now. But very soon ministers will have to consider options that were previously unthinkable to salvage a generation — and protect the future economy.

Put bluntly, we will need to start paying employers and institutions to keep young people in work and study. That is a sentence to make fiscal conservatives and economic liberals baulk. But in case you have not noticed we are not in normal times and the normal rules do not apply.

Evidence from other countries provides some evidence of the effectiveness of limited, targeted wage subsidies. A recent evaluation of France’s policy of small business hiring credits for low-wage workers, introduced just three months after the fall of Lehman Brothers in December 2008, found that it had strong and immediate employment effects. Another study of Sweden’s AnstĂ€llningsstöd employment subsidy programme, which supports up to 85% of wages for underemployed workers, found that firms that hired through the scheme grew quicker than counterparts that did not.

A less expensive option would be for the Treasury to waive employers’ National Insurance contributions for younger workers. Saving these frictional costs will not generate thousands of new jobs but it might shift the balance in favour of younger workers for existing posts. In the current environment, when youth unemployment is surging ever higher, the usual protests about the deadweight costs are less salient. Whatever its form, some kind of Coronavirus Youth Job Retention Scheme will be needed to keep young people in work long after the furlough scheme is over.

But in a severely dampened economy, jobs and wages are always going to have limited reach; there will simply be fewer jobs around. So ministers should consider keeping some young people in education for an extra year. It is little unremarked upon, but it costs the taxpayer marginally less — around £4,000 a year — to support an 18-year-old in college than it does to support them on the basic Universal Credit allowance for a year. These costs fall even more if the effects of lower long-term unemployment on productivity and earnings are taken into account.

Some young people may not want to — in which case we should not force them — but many might want to learn. Given the hammer blow dealt to university finances by plummeting international student numbers, there is a strong case for asking the best institutions to develop cheap one-year courses to upskill the coronavirus generation. It would be an elegant way for the Government, which has rightly resisted a sector-wide bailout, to support the best institutions through the next few years.

For those of less academic persuasion, this is the moment that apprenticeships should come into their own. One of the virtues of the Conservatives’ apprenticeship reforms is that every firm in the country now has access to a pot of money they can draw upon to fund apprentices, funded from a levy on the biggest employers. These pots could be topped up, co-payments by small businesses could be suspended, or golden handshakes introduced to encourage more firms to hire school leavers as apprentices and put them on a technical path to skilled employment.

Even before this crisis, younger generations had a bad lot. Unlike previous generations, today’s graduates leave university saddled with debt and with marginal tax rates of up to 51%. The pension they receive will be smaller, but they will have to work for longer and contribute more to receive it. The things that previous generations took for granted — a home, a secure job, the ability to settle down and start a family — are harder won and later found, if at all.

As the country begins to emerge from lockdown, where the focus has inevitably and rightly been on the mortality rates of older generations, the focus must swing quickly to the effect on young people. Leaving school or graduating from university is meant to be a wonderful time of adventure and exploration. The unlucky Class of 2020 face heartbreak and listlessness. The scars they will bear from this disease may not generally be visible or medical, but they will last a lifetime unless something is done right now.


Will Tanner is the director of think tank Onward.

Will_Tanner

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

43 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paul Theato
Paul Theato
4 years ago

Above all let’s start training British people and employing them in place of importing cheap, or ready made foreign labour. Tax and reward should be geared to that goal. Decades of globalist so called socialist and and so called conservative governments have torn holes in our British cultural and economic life by not doing that. The needs of British people who love their country have been deliberately ignored in favour of globalist economics (mainly the introduction of social media, bits of useless plastic and other crap) when we should be building something solid that our own peoples can help construct to their benefit and enjoy long term. Let’s continue to work with global partners but let’s slow down and put Britons and British culture first. Brexit should be the start of that but I don’t see a man (Johnson) wishing to give an amnesty to 1m illegal migrants while doing nothing about further illegal and legal migration being the person for the job.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
4 years ago
Reply to  Paul Theato

I agree 100%.

JR Stoker
JR Stoker
4 years ago
Reply to  Paul Theato

The sentiments I understand and to an extent I concur with – especially where national security is concerned, as, for example Huawei. But there is a point to international trade, which my economics master explained thus (age revealing anecdote) “Britain is very bad at producing avocados but very good at marine engines. So it makes economic sense to sell our marine engines to overseas, and buy their avocados.” The same still holds true, there is a real economic benefit in trade.

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
4 years ago
Reply to  Paul Theato

Admirable sentiments. Johnson’s form doesn’t look good, however don’t despair.
This Chinese Death Flu (CDF) catastrophe should prove to be the catalyst for a massive change in direction. Mr Cummings is the man to make it. He has precisely the maverick character, unapologetic and unorthodox approach to pull off the unthinkable. Fortunately he is the Puppet Master and Boris the amiable Puppet.
Let’s face it without CDF we would have continued in the same old stagnant rut. Hoovering up megatons of Chinese consumer crap, becoming endlessly obsessed with the bleating of adolescents like Greta Turdberg about Climate Change and other arrant nonsense. In fact ‘we’ have become a vacuous, self obsessed nation of morons who have completely lost the plot. Now we have a real chance for change, a Renaissance moment you might say.

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
4 years ago
Reply to  Paul Theato

You could start by insisting that all children learn the magnificent John of Gaunt speech, from Shakespeare’s Richard II Act II Scene I.

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
4 years ago

An excellent, if rather depressing piece Mr Tanner.
However I must disagree with the statement in the final paragraph that states, “where the focus has inevitably and rightly been on the mortality rates of older generations “.
Inevitably yes, rightly no!
Speaking as one the older generation it is almost beyond belief that the future of millions of the young have been in effect ‘sacrificed’ to save generation F (Fossils)!
‘We’ have had our time, hedonistically plundered the planet on an industrial scale, and already, as a result of so called medical advances, seen our lives needlessly prolonged beyond their ‘sell buy date’.
I know I speak for many of my generation who cannot comprehend why this is happening. I certainly have not encountered any of ‘us’ screaming for more, or using dreadful euphemisms such as “because I’m worth it” etc.
Historically we have never lived longer, but as the Ancient Greeks said “moderation in all things ” and that must includes life itself.
Vae victis.

David Schwartz
David Schwartz
4 years ago
Reply to  Mark Corby

Also speaking as someone who has had the best of life already, I really don’t want to live cowering and afraid to go out, which is what the governement appear to have in mind for us oldies.

If the lock down and constant social distancing is what is envisaged I would rather take my chance with Covid-19 as I think the odds of surviving that are better than being forced to stay isolated and without much human contact.

My brother, not in best of health and approaching 80 survived the appalling NHS treatment he was subjected to and has made a full recovery, since going into hospital in early April, though only to be discharged to a residential home while at the most invective stage of having the Corona virus. This was made all the worse by the refusal of GPs to visit residential care homes.

carl.dalhammar
carl.dalhammar
4 years ago
Reply to  Mark Corby

I tend to agree. and above all, it seems to me that many people today are almost hysterical about issues related to sickness and Death. And even in the countries with the worst mortality rates, most people over 70 survive the virus.

Paul Theato
Paul Theato
4 years ago
Reply to  Mark Corby

Beautifully and sanely put.

gbauer
gbauer
4 years ago
Reply to  Mark Corby

We need more grandmas and grandpas speaking out. As you said, a lot of them aren’t down with this shit.

Andrew Meffan
Andrew Meffan
4 years ago
Reply to  Mark Corby

Well said.
The point of difference with C19 is it’s occupational risk to healthcare staff. The shock factor of healthy young Italian clinicians coming down with SARSCov2 was what finally spurred health officials into action. The ‘save the vulnerable’ message was helpfully vague, translated by most of us to refer to sick and elderly. But it really applied to the health systems caught off-guard and unprepared.
The Asian nations’ successful response to C19 is a reflection of their experience and preparedness as a result of previous epidemics.
Likewise the downplaying of public mask use was at least partly motivated by the need to conserve supplies for the frontline health services. As the shortages ease we hear the experts changing their tune to guardedly endorse mask use in public.
In fairness to health systems and governments, preparedness is a costly and speculative business.
What is just as important is agility.

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
4 years ago
Reply to  Andrew Meffan

Thank you so much for that analysis, it would never have occurred to me that the NHS could be caught “off guard”.
I grew up in the era of ‘Emergency Ward 10’, Sir Lancelot Spratt and Matron Hattie Jacques;Thus to even think, let alone annunciate any criticism of the NHS, was a near Capital Offence.
However emboldened by your comment, may I venture to ask wether a behemoth the size of the NHS possesses the necessary agility you speak of?

Madas A. Hatter
Madas A. Hatter
4 years ago

Young people have made huge and largely forced sacrifices to protect the lives of people like me who, up till about forty years ago, would already have died in the ancient and natural way of things. Many of us, though not me personally, are enjoying very comfortable and secure incomes in what will be very long retirements. I would not be surprised if many of us feel as I do – very grateful and a little guilty. I wonder if some form of gratitude fund might not attract significant contributions to help along those young people who will be bearing the costs of this outbreak long after we are gone. Although a huge amount of compensation should be paid, but won’t, by China.

David Schwartz
David Schwartz
4 years ago

While a noble ideal your suggestions is very much akin to those who claim to pollsters that they would be prepared to pay more tax for ‘X’ but would never vote for the party offering to fund ‘X’ from higher tax!

Offering to pay more tax is something many people claim they want but few actually do. It is like those politicians and celebs, Yvette Cooper, Lily Allan and J K Rowling all spring to mind, who claim to want to provide a ‘refugee’ a safe home, and having first made a huge splash of this claim subsequently find ways to explain how it was just not possible for them to do what they claimed to want to do.

Anyway, I am not sure after Rash Rishi Sunak has got his claws in to people in a few months time, I am not sure many people will have any money left to make a voluntary payment into any fund. A levy on wealth is coming, including the family home! All dressed up as being an emergency measure that is necessary, notwithstanding that it is only necessary as Rishi and his crew panicked and started to throw money and a problem until they managed to make it a crisis.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
4 years ago

‘A less expensive option would be for the Treasury to waive employers’ National Insurance contributions for younger workers.’

No, employer NI should be abolished for everyone. It is a tax on hiring people, utterly senseless and evil, along with more or less everything the state inflicts upon us.

cariad22
cariad22
4 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

That would discriminate against older workers though – both unfair and illegal (ie ageism). It would be constructive though for younger workers to have help to go into apprenticeships – as the country badly needs more people for jobs like electrician/plumber/etc.

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
4 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

The State should incentivise ‘death’. An man of seventy can expect to live to eighty, and thus receive about £100K by way of a State Pension.
If he was ‘rewarded’ with say £50K, (tax free) on or near his seventieth birthday, in exchange for “doing the decent thing”, as we used to say, both sides benefit substantially.
The State to tune of £50K, not to mention numerous other advantages, such as reduced pressure on the NHS, removal of reactionary political views etc.
The individual with an end of life cash bonanza, with which to placate avaricious grandchildren and other ‘worthy causes’.
We should start preparing now, for it is inevitable that something will have be done before “our angry and defrauded young ” go berserk.

philip.davies31
philip.davies31
4 years ago
Reply to  Mark Corby

That is one of the most filthy and abhorrent views I have ever heard since I first learned of Hitler’s death camps. Why have the cost of giving families a state bribe to ‘off” their elderly ‘loved ones’? Why not just round up everyone of pensionable age and transfer them in cattle-wagons to a State slaughterhouse? Job done! YOU CRIMINALLY-MINDED MONSTER.

philip.davies31
philip.davies31
4 years ago
Reply to  Mark Corby

On the face of it, that is one of the most filthy and abhorrent views I have ever heard since I first learned of Hitler’s death camps. But why have the cost of giving families a state bribe to ‘off” their elderly ‘loved ones’? Why not just round up everyone of pensionable age and transfer them in cattle-wagons to a State slaughterhouse? Job done! [irony] Or is this a perhaps misjudged attempt at Swiftian indignation?

philip.davies31
philip.davies31
4 years ago
Reply to  Mark Corby

On the face of it, that is one of the most filthy and abhorrent views I have ever heard since I first learned of H*t***’s death camps. But why have the cost of giving families a state bribe to ‘off” their elderly ‘loved ones’? Why not just round up everyone of pensionable age and transfer them in cattle-wagons to a State slaughterhouse? Job done! [irony] Or is this a perhaps misjudged attempt at Swiftian indignation?

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
4 years ago

Poor choice of adjectives, but a revealing rant. Thank you.
Perhaps ‘Free’ flights to Zurich might be offered in an attempt to alleviate distress in the Airline Industry.
One way or the other population control will have to be addressed, whether you like or not. Surely you have read your Malthus?

philip.davies31
philip.davies31
4 years ago
Reply to  Mark Corby

On the face of it, that is one of the most filthy and abhorrent views I have ever heard since I first learned of H*t***’s death camps. And why even incur the cost of giving families a state bribe to ‘off” their elderly ‘loved ones’? Why not just round up everyone of pensionable age and transfer them in cattle-wagons to a State slaughterhouse? Job done!

But are you really that ruthless and inhumane? Or is this a perhaps misjudged attempt at Swiftian indignation?

philip.davies31
philip.davies31
4 years ago
Reply to  Mark Corby

On the face of it, that is one of the most filthy and abhorrent views I have ever heard since I first learned of H*t***’s death camps. And why even incur the cost of giving families a state bribe to ‘off” their elderly ‘loved ones’? Why not just round up everyone of pensionable age and transfer them in cattle-wagons to a State slaughterhouse? Job done!

But are you really that ruthless and inhumane? Or is this a perhaps misjudged attempt at Swiftian indignation?

philip.davies31
philip.davies31
4 years ago
Reply to  Mark Corby

I wanted to reply with an explanation of why I voted you down. But ‘UnHerd’ won’t hear of it and keeps putting me on the ‘waiting to be approved’ queue – then dropping my comment.

Chris Taylor
Chris Taylor
3 years ago
Reply to  Mark Corby

I have always thought of you as sensible fellow worth taking seriously. I now realise I couldn’t have been more mistaken.

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Taylor

Yes agreed, too much Ouzo to celebrate the first Lockdown perhaps? Anyway it was seven months ago so I’m afraid I have forgotten the inspiration for such a provocative rant.

However in order to celebrate the inalienable right of an Englishman to say anything he damn well likes I do occasionally throw out something really ridiculous to gauge the reaction of the demos.

On this occasion it fell flat on its face, that is until your kind comment, thank you.

andy9
andy9
4 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

NI was set-up to fund the NHS, sickness and unemployment benefits and state pensions.

Even if you remove NI, these things still need to be paid for and in most countries, even those without government healthcare or pension systems, employers will still be paying contributions towards provision of those services and benefits.

Would you move those costs onto corporation tax? or directly onto the employee? ultimately they have to be paid for.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
4 years ago

It seems to me that every generation complains that they’ve had it tough. I entered the jobs market in the spring of 1986 when yoof unemployment reached its peak under ‘Fatcher’. The Guardian always marks the anniversary with a picture of two rather gormless youngsters sitting on a fence in front of some cooling towers. Anyway, I had no problems finding a full- or part-time work during this period despite having no qualifications to speak of.

Moreover, it seems to me that as ‘digital natives’ today’s young people have all the advantages in terms of getting or creating exciting digital jobs that can be performed from anywhere.

And failing that, like this guy they can always start or join another sodding Think Tank that is of no use whatsoever and somebody – probably the long suffering tax payer – will fund it. That gives me an idea – Thomas The Think Tank Engine. It could be a fun, with a Fat Controller called Karen.

Will D. Mann
Will D. Mann
4 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

1986 was the most fortuitous time during the whole decade of the 1980s to enter the labour market. The ” Milk Round” was re-estabished as employers were taking on new graduates and school leavers . Those slightly older who had spent several years in the dole, or with intermittent employment records were treated with suspicion by employers

Peter White
Peter White
4 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

So wrong. From 1980 to 1987 I worked in a careers office in a town in the north west. During all those years we had hundreds of government funded 6 month placements, YTS. There was much churning of training scheme occupants by employers who clearly had a 100% subsidy. Young people had little choice but to join in this merry-go-round and suffered with low prospects of finding long term employment.

gbauer
gbauer
4 years ago

As it happens, my son just graduated and my daughter has one class to go. Great, two 2020 uni grads. I’m royally pissed that my kids and their peers will be paying the price for our batshit-crazy response to covid. I’m 63 years old and have no fear of the virus. What I fear is this dystopian world we’ve created to deal with it.

annescarlett
annescarlett
4 years ago

I am recently retired and in the ‘vulnerable group’, however, I and many of my peers, who I speak with regularly on the phone, would literally give up their lives for their children and grandchildren in order that they can live theirs. To me it seems absolutely morally wrong to sacrifice the whole future of a generation to keep a few like me alive. I sincerely believe that the vulnerable and elderly should lock themselves down if they choose to do so and if not should take their chances. Our young people could have got on with education, work, life and leisure, brought us necessities and checked on us regularly.

Peter White
Peter White
4 years ago
Reply to  annescarlett

I agree with your second sentence, but there are too many vulnerable sub-groups: what of the obese, the BAME, the bald, et al.?

carbonscorn
carbonscorn
4 years ago
Reply to  Peter White

How about we guide those sub-groups step up and out of the high risk category? Speak with any good functional MD and they’ll tell you that main stream medicine is going about this all wrong. No one is addressing the root cause. And the elders are worse off because they’re nutrition is not designed to optimize health and their health care is being terribly mismanaged.

Everyone! Start looking around for a functional MD and you’ll quickly get to the bottom of why you’re in your risk group,,, and how to change it if you really want to.

carbonscorn
carbonscorn
4 years ago
Reply to  annescarlett

I almost fully agree, but what about…. See my reply to Peter above

Viv Evans
Viv Evans
4 years ago

Perhaps it’s time to take a long, hard and icy-cold look at “The Dream” sold to the young, the last two or three generations: that only with some academic degree is one a valuable member of society.
Perhaps it’s time for employers, private and state sector, to abolish their demands of ‘academic credentials’ for every single job.
Mention was made of the apprenticeship scheme. Now that we are praising key workers, is it really so hard to get off the need to have a degree in beauty treatments’ for hairdressers and similar degrees?
Perhaps many young and even not-so you have found, during the lockdown, that they are good at something where they can use their hands and imagination, from tailoring to gardening, creating one-person businesses in their communities. That is where government could help, with reduction of all that red tape.
There’s a reason why even unto the last decade or so of the last century people were saying ‘oh, he (r she0 is an academic’, meant in a derogatory fashion …
And finally: can we please stop this narrative of ‘we the elderly have robbed our roof’. If I remember correctly, before we became ‘the elderly’ we cared for and supported and paid for our own children and grandchildren, robbing ourselves, if you wish, of buying goodies and consumer articles for ourselves. And unless the state demands a 100% Inheritance tax that which the much blamed elderly have acquired will go to the youth, won’t it.

rosemarytrustam
rosemarytrustam
4 years ago

It’d be great if young people with the right values and attitudes considered support work. In a charity which is in a university town and works mainly with learning disabilities but also people who may have additional mental health, autism etc and people needing really high levels of skill, we’ve had students working while studying in their university. A number too have ended up staying long-term – and ofcourse some will have developed and got more senior roles. social work and nurse learning disability/mental health have ofcourse gone on to get the necessary professional skills as well as management training and so become future managers too. It’s a job which may not make you rich but can give you a decent lifestyle as well as a job you want to get up for and really enjoy making a difference to people’s lives. So good if they did try it..but only if you care about people.

David Bell
David Bell
4 years ago

Some very important points in this article and there is a case to help unemployed youth to get into real jobs.

The only problem I have is right now there is no employment at all. These schemes will only work once we have jobs for people to go to and that means opening the economy.

Carolyn Jackson
Carolyn Jackson
4 years ago

“Unlike previous generations, today’s graduates leave university saddled with debt and with marginal tax rates of up to 51%.”——————unlike previous generations there are more opportunities to go to university. Most of us left school at 16 (even younger the generation before mine) and started work, then worked until they retired, often 50 years later in the case of men. Also most of the students leaving these days get free education as a huge proportion of student debt is never repaid.

slorter
slorter
4 years ago

You need for a start to remove the Neoliberal trend in macroeconomic policy. The essential thing underlying this, is to try to reduce the power of government and social forces that might exercise some power within the political economy”workers and others”and put the power primarily in the hands of those dominating in the markets.

That’s often the financial system, the banks, but also other elites. The idea of neoliberal economists and policymakers being that you don’t want the government getting too involved in macroeconomic policy. You don’t want them promoting too much employment because that might lead to a raise in wages and, in turn, to a reduction in the profit share of the national income. So, sure, this might increase inflation, but inflation is not really the key issue here.

The problem, in their view, is letting the central bank support other kinds of policies Instead, they want to put power in the hands of those who dominate the markets, often the financial elites.

Since the onslaught of neoliberal influence under Reagan and Thatcher, governments have come and gone, but the new language of governance has remained, creating a self-perpetuating mechanism. In the neoliberal regime, the concept of governance has contributed to putting decision-making power back into the hands of those who possess capital, and limiting the influence of government and of their regulatory agencies.

The economic model is not working but in changing it we have to look also at all the elements that neoliberalism has entrenched into our global society:

Michael McVeigh
Michael McVeigh
4 years ago

Everyone is going to suffer due to the government’s over reaction. The young are the most resilient with least commitments. Your case is not made – every group could make a similar case.

jeff.m.herman
jeff.m.herman
4 years ago

And the young will not have the opportunity to travel in the carefree way of previous generations. It will not only be the new entrants to the job market that will find it difficult, but also the newly redundant of all ages.

Dave M
Dave M
4 years ago

Because looking for ways to divide people never breeds resentment and has worked so well in the past?