Compass on ageism - 19 comments

I understand that posts on the Compass site are intended to promote discussion, and that (as I was once told) we're not suppose to hold the organisation responsible for the articles posted on its site, but I've got to say that what purports to be the premier think-tank of the Labour soft left has a good record of producing utter tripe. That's not to say that its posts are very much below average for the political blogosphere, but most bloggers can't claim to be part of a funded organisation that counts MPs and Councillors among its supporters, and which must feel confident it has a chance of influencing future Labour manifestos. What is it they do that earns them this status?

Here (via Tom at Newer Labour), Andy Morton argues that resistance to removing the lower National Minimum Wage [NMW] rates for those aged 21 and under, is entirely a matter of ageism:

However, we must reject the need for the youth rates in the National Minimum Wage which amounts to nothing less than ageism. Compass Youth, in its launch event on Monday night in Westminster, is campaigning for the National Minimum Wage youth rates to be scrapped and to have the full adult rate minimum wage available to ALL workers.

What reason might the Government have for sticking to its guns? Well before we proceed: how can you possibly discuss policy that has a major economic effect when you're either (a) ignorant of economics, or (b) don't accept it has any relevance to the issue? That's one possible, and plausible, reason for disagreement before we even look at ageism. Oh, and here's another one:

The government claims the youth rates are necessary to reduce youth unemployment. The same rationale was used by the French government when it proposed relaxing hiring and firing laws for workers under 26 earlier this year. There were massive youth demonstrations. France does have a huge problem with youth unemployment.

Not massive demonstrations against unemployment, of course; against the ossification of the labour market; or the social effects of past unemployment. Anyway, it sounds bad, so what is Andy's criticism of the French government's proposals? Well, apart from being a "worrying fad" (try a little empathy...), there is none, just an observation that the proposals were too controversial for that fractious society to accept. Perhaps, though, the UK government is - or rather, continues to be - keen to avoid those social problems¹, perhaps also on the basis of what would the evidence (and models) suggest is best for the economy, rather than what the most powerful pressure groups will permit.

What is it about ageism we really find offensive? Surely it would be the thought that workers with a great deal of experience, who are no less able to perform a particular job, are discriminated against at, or even before, job interviews, and find it very difficult to re-enter the job market. Do these same factors tell against workers under the age of 22? Clearly young workers do not have to face the prospect of early retirement, or de-skilling, with no prospect of earning decent money again. In the real world, experience is vital for one's career prospects, but young workers generally can't offer this to potential employers. Sure, this doesn't apply to all industries, and it doesn't apply to all young workers, as some will be highly talented. The NMW, however, applies to all, irrespective of industry, talent, and passion. Furthermore, are we saying that highly effective young workers can only expect to advance at the Government's behest?

Even if rising employment elsewhere masks the effects of changes in the NMW rates, there will inevitably be a reduction in jobs and/or hours for younger workers. Is that a price worth paying so that those who are left - and who may very well not be poor at all (the issue of poverty seems to have entirely passed the original article by) - may earn a higher wage? Potentially the slack could be taken up by mechanisation, by illegal workers below the NMW, or else by those who might jump at the chance to work at this wage - possibly new immigrants, though older workers may suddenly become more attractive.

The effects of this policy, aimed at the youth, may thus be of most benefit to those workers who really do suffer the predations of ageism, with some benefits for remaining young workers, at a cost of higher youth unemployment. Whether this tempts more 18-21 year olds into higher education, or into social exclusion, I certainly couldn't say off the top of my head. Nor, I suspect, could Andy, off the top of his head, but whichever of us has the ability to influence policy ought to bear these possible consequences in mind, and look at detailed statistics rather than headline/aggregate employment and unemployment figures.

___________

¹ OK, it would be a gross simplification to suggest that France's urban social problems are entirely a result of youth unemployment, and/or that the same awaited the UK. Nonetheless, and especially given that the equalisation of NMW rates is not being promoted for being an effective poverty-reduction measure, the Government has a duty to be cautious about making changes that are likely to cause unemployment within a social group, or dramatic shifts in income between age groups.