Left, right, left, right!

Why is a gap year a luxury?

There may be some who are funded by the bank of Mum and Dad but if so, I've not met any and know or know of very many young people who have taken gap years.

nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/careers-advice/advice-on-a-gap-year/

Even the government recommends it 😀

I'm sure there are loads of reasons. My son was a NEET for extended periods before he was 24 for a couple of reasons. He never registered as unemployed or claimed benefits. He now has an MSc and a job. I'm not even sure he would have appeared in any statistics. I can't honestly see that any national service would have been beneficial.

A gap year is a year being paid for by taxpayers, as whoever funded the location and fares, someone else is paying for health, defence, roads and all the other things we all get just for living in the UK, so yes, it’s a luxury.

I’m not saying that I disapprove of gap years, just that I can’t see why an 18 year old who is having a year out should be exempt when one sitting in front of the tv or whatever people think so-called NEETs are doing should have that choice removed, or why an 18 year old with a baby should be exempt when one who doesn’t have one isn’t. I realise that this isn’t being suggested by Sunak - there seems to be no detail whatsoever - I’m responding to posts on here.

Where are the figures of NEET young people coming from. Please?
I've just looked it up and it doesn't seem to be as high as people were saying.

www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/unemployment/bulletins/youngpeoplenotineducationemploymentortrainingneet/may2024#total-young-people-who-were-not-in-education-employment-or-training

Also, can anyone point me to statistics for other age groups re being NEET please?

Thanks.

Where did the 3 million even come from?

NotSpaghetti

Where did the 3 million even come from?

No idea . None of this seems to be based on very much, really.

Apologies, apologies, apologies.
I must have misread the figure because I thought it was three million. Many apologies. The figure is nearly three hundred thousand, so many apologies. I’m so relieved that it’s not three million, it puts a different light on things.

Doodledog

A gap year is a year being paid for by taxpayers, as whoever funded the location and fares, someone else is paying for health, defence, roads and all the other things we all get just for living in the UK, so yes, it’s a luxury.

I’m not saying that I disapprove of gap years, just that I can’t see why an 18 year old who is having a year out should be exempt when one sitting in front of the tv or whatever people think so-called NEETs are doing should have that choice removed, or why an 18 year old with a baby should be exempt when one who doesn’t have one isn’t. I realise that this isn’t being suggested by Sunak - there seems to be no detail whatsoever - I’m responding to posts on here.

A gap year is a year being paid for by taxpayers, as whoever funded the location and fares, someone else is paying for health, defence, roads and all the other things we all get just for living in the UK, so yes, it’s a luxury.

I'm not following the logic of that at all.

I think this idea of Sunak's is to turn what he believes are hopeless 18 year olds into purposeful, enterprising adults, learning skills and contributing to society.

purposeful, enterprising adults, learning skills and contributing to society well describes all the people I know who took a gap year as young adults.

I'm not saying others aren't but you are lessening the value of what these young people achieve which is similar to the aims of Sunak's suggested scheme.

purposeful, enterprising adults, learning skills and contributing to society

This us what happens if we cherish, grow, educate and empower young people.

I think we need to start in the pre-school years to truly achieve this. SureStart and other early-years work would be better than NS in my opinion given that they both had similar "goals" - happy healthy communities and successful adults.

I think Aristotle had the right idea with his "give me a child until he is 7" idea.
18 is too late for many.

www.healthline.com/health/parenting/first-seven-years-of-childhood

One thing that would help young people would be to encourage them to have a Saturday job. If nothing else, it would teach them the value of money.

Like many on here, I had a Saturday job in the early sixties whilst in the 5th and 6th forms. I worked in Woolies and my pay was around 12/- for the day. This enabled me to buy a 45rpm single. I was able to do extra work in the holidays and this helped buy and LP (30/-) and "going out" clothes.

NotSpaghetti

^purposeful, enterprising adults, learning skills and contributing to society^

This us what happens if we cherish, grow, educate and empower young people.

I think we need to start in the pre-school years to truly achieve this. SureStart and other early-years work would be better than NS in my opinion given that they both had similar "goals" - happy healthy communities and successful adults.

I think Aristotle had the right idea with his "give me a child until he is 7" idea.
18 is too late for many.

www.healthline.com/health/parenting/first-seven-years-of-childhood

Yes, I agree.

I think Aristotle had the right idea with his "give me a child until he is 7" idea.
18 is too late for many.

I thought I'd said that but can't see it, must be on another thread, NotSpaghetti!

(I really am not very purposeful today though.)

Callistemon21

Doodledog

A gap year is a year being paid for by taxpayers, as whoever funded the location and fares, someone else is paying for health, defence, roads and all the other things we all get just for living in the UK, so yes, it’s a luxury.

I’m not saying that I disapprove of gap years, just that I can’t see why an 18 year old who is having a year out should be exempt when one sitting in front of the tv or whatever people think so-called NEETs are doing should have that choice removed, or why an 18 year old with a baby should be exempt when one who doesn’t have one isn’t. I realise that this isn’t being suggested by Sunak - there seems to be no detail whatsoever - I’m responding to posts on here.

A gap year is a year being paid for by taxpayers, as whoever funded the location and fares, someone else is paying for health, defence, roads and all the other things we all get just for living in the UK, so yes, it’s a luxury.

I'm not following the logic of that at all.

I think this idea of Sunak's is to turn what he believes are hopeless 18 year olds into purposeful, enterprising adults, learning skills and contributing to society.

purposeful, enterprising adults, learning skills and contributing to society well describes all the people I know who took a gap year as young adults.

I'm not saying others aren't but you are lessening the value of what these young people achieve which is similar to the aims of Sunak's suggested scheme.

Sorry for the nested quotes but there are a few things to pick up on here.

My logic is (in response to your question about whether a gap year is a luxury) that we all benefit from living in the UK, and get healthcare, education, defence, law and order and much more provided. That is paid for by taxes. If someone is not paying in, they are, by definition, being subsidised by others, so yes, a gap year is a luxury. Whether that is a bad thing or not is debatable, but it is undeniably (IMO) a luxury, and one that by no means everyone can afford. It doesn't matter who pays for the fares to wherever the young person is staying, or for their accommodation, their citizenship is being funded by others.

I do feel that a lot of people take that for granted (and by no means all of them are 18 year olds). It is very entitled to expect all the benefits of UK citizenship to be given free - or more accurately at the expense of others - if you are capable of making a contribution in return.

My main concerns with the national service idea are firstly that it is not thought through and we have no detail. It is clear that the military are not on board with this, and there is no indication of what conscripts would do for the NHS or fire service either. Secondly, that like so many things it would be unevenly applied, so students, people doing DofE schemes, those with internships and so on would be exempt, and the people conscripted would be like those who fought in Vietnam, mainly the poor and otherwise disadvantaged. Thirdly, I can understand actual military service being targeted at young people, but there is no reason why community service should be restricted to that age group when there are older people who are neither 'earning or learning' too. Finally, many of the young already resent the old, and this seems certain to exacerbate that problem, particularly taken together with the mooted fourth 'lock' on pensions.

Sorry - forgot to say that I am not in any way lessening the value of young people. I think they have a raw deal these days, and don't see this as helping them, as there is a real risk that this will be used as cheap labour - a bit like the YTS schemes of old. If there were a national drive to get us all involved in making a contribution to society it would be one thing, but targeting one group is quite another. Open opportunities for young people, reduce or abolish fees for education and training, encourage employers to bring in more apprenticeships, give young people the same minimum wage as adults, help them with housing, do something useful about gangs and drugs - any of those things would be more valuable than asking them to turn up once a month to do unspecified voluntary work, IMO.

My older son worked in Safeway (as it was then) on Saturdays and school holidays to pay for his gap year. My younger son worked in a pet shop, and his gap year was actually two years working in Sri Lanka to pay for himself. Our daughter was the only one we paid for, and she didn’t actually have a gap year, but went to work in the Philippines as a medical student as her elective. An elective is part of the medical course and takes place during the university term. Our daughter went for two months because that was the time allocated by her university. We paid for her aeroplane ticket but her accommodation and food was arranged and provided by the university in the Philippines, and she lived and worked with medical students in the Philippines. She was engaged in clinical practice during this time. Before she went to university, she worked in a shoe shop on Saturdays and school holidays. We encouraged all our children to work on Saturdays as we felt it was good for them. So in actual fact, our children paid for their own gap years.

That is missing my point, which is that regardless of who paid the expenses, someone on a gap year is being subsidised by the taxpayer every bit as much as someone who is not working for any other reason. I am not saying that this makes one set of people in any way 'better' than another, nor that I disapprove of gap years - I am arguing that if one set is going to be conscripted so should they all.

This scheme is nowhere near happening, but already people are lining up to ask 'what about people doing x y or z', to excuse their loved ones. I reminds me of 'other people's children should think about not going to university' said by people whose loved ones all have degrees, and 'Benefit claimants are scroungers' said by people who only ever paid tax for a year or two after leaving school.

But if young people are out of the country Doodledog, they are not using the services the country provides and so not costing the country anything at all.
That’s how I view it anyway.

But I agree with you that if young people are going to be conscripted, then every single one of them should be, as I believe they are in Sweden and Norway. Obviously people with disabilities would not be conscripted.
Anyway, it’s not going to happen, so not worth worrying about.

growstuff

Callistemon21

growstuff

Casdon

There are 900,000 NEET, but a lot of them aren’t claiming benefits - and presumably a lot of that group are not therefore going to take up offers of volunteering or military training.
I don’t know what they are doing, unfortunately the information doesn’t tell us that. I guess they could be abroad on gap years, working or study abroad, staying at home with their children supported by a partner, doing online degrees, living off their parents, working cash in hand, drug dealers(!), and lots of other things I haven’t thought of.

Exactly! Some of them could have started families and be stay at home parents. A lot more information is needed.

I never thought of that, it seems so young!

MY mother had me when she was 23. I wouldn't mind betting there are many posters on GN who had their first child before they were 24.

Of course.

I married at 16, gave birth to our first a bit before 18.

Seems to me sahp could still fill the option of one weekend a month in community, being in the forces could be problematic.

maddyone

But I agree with you that if young people are going to be conscripted, then every single one of them should be, as I believe they are in Sweden and Norway. Obviously people with disabilities would not be conscripted.
Anyway, it’s not going to happen, so not worth worrying about.

Agreed. It's a bit of a dead cat, isn't it?

Seems to me sahp could still fill the option of one weekend a month in community

Definitely! Community service, at the beck and call of the youngest citizens.

So will people who have committed a crime still be given community service?

I don’t think there’s any reason to dispense with it. It’s a necessary form of punishment.

Most eighteen-year-olds have not committed a crime so why should they have to do community service?

Yes, it's hard to badge it as both a punishment and a civic duty, isn't it?

Yes, that was my thinking.
I'd feel I had to point out it wasn't because of a crime, if my teen had to do it.