3 ms·

The number of people permanently off work for "health reasons" has risen sharply in the last 5 years and affects relatively young people: "Ministers have grown

The number of people permanently off work for "health reasons" has risen sharply in the last 5 years and affects relatively young people: "Ministers have grown increasingly alarmed over a dramatic rise in the number of working-age adults falling out of the workforce due to health conditions over recent years, with young adults fuelling much of the increase. As many as one in five working-age adults – more than 9 million in total – are now in a position termed by statisticians as “economically inactive”, where they are neither in a job nor looking for one. For almost 3 million, the main reason is long-term sickness – the highest level on record." It's very odd to claim that the solution is for employers to somehow spend large sums to mollycoddle employees in order to lure young people back to work... Indeed, it seems unlikely that the underlying reason for the situation is really 'health'.

tene80i 1y ago
It’s possible to be overly dismissive of mental health issues, and it’s possible to ignore the need for resilience. The report itself looks at exactly this, despite the focus of this headline. It argues employers, employees and government all have a role to play.
- mytailorisrich 1y ago
  IMHO, for someone to be deemed unfit to work for mental health reasons their condition has to be quite serious and require professional help, which seems to be contradictory with the proposal (What can employers do?). Not sure as well what exactly an employer-provided "workplace health scheme" might mean... Does the office shut off the lift and inspects people's lunches and snacks?
SideburnsOfDoom 1y ago
> Indeed, it seems unlikely that the underlying reason for the situation is really 'health'. Why is that your conclusion based on nothing? In the last 5 years, is there any reason why population health might have declined? Does anything come to your mind at all? Did you miss the whole COVID thing entirely? People did and still do get COVID, it's not (entirely) gone. And it does frequently have long-term health consequences. Another likely causal factor is the decline in the NHS.
- clickety_clack 1y ago
  I think we are allowed to use common sense. I think it’s pretty safe to say that everyone has some kind of health condition, but there’s no way that one in five working adults has a health condition so bad that they cannot work. If I truly could not work, I would want the slackers rooted out too, otherwise they will destroy supports for the people that actually need them.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 1y ago
    > but there’s no way that one in five working adults has a health condition so bad that they cannot work. I would go further, I would also say that there are no "working adults" who also "cannot work". You don't see ill people walking around? Yes, that's how it works, it doesn't prove anything. We're not seeing what we don't see, and can't draw "common sense" inferences from that missing data. You need actual studies.
    - gruez 1y ago
      >I would go further, I would also say that there are no "working adults" who also "cannot work". He probably meant "working age adults".
      - SideburnsOfDoom 1y ago
        Sure, but the point remains - they say that know it's wrong because they see a representative sample of working age adults? No, we actually don't: There is strong selection bias by definition of the difference between "of working age" and actually "working". The ones unable to work are less publicly visible.
  - mytailorisrich 1y ago
    Exactly. Why are millions of young adults suddenly unable to work for health reasons? Either there are real health issues and then this should be an emergency situation to find and address the causes, and this proposal is totally inadequate. Or there are no serious health issues (which, indeed sounds more plausible) and this proposal misses the point and is a waste of money. Real underlying causes of the situation should be identified and addressed nevertheless. Cynically, we can notice that this keeps the official unemployment rate low since people "economically inactive" do not count, and we can wonder what would happen if those 3+ million were suddenly to look for work...

tene80i 1y ago

It’s possible to be overly dismissive of mental health issues, and it’s possible to ignore the need for resilience. The report itself looks at exactly this, despite the focus of this headline. It argues employers, employees and government all have a role to play.

mytailorisrich 1y ago
IMHO, for someone to be deemed unfit to work for mental health reasons their condition has to be quite serious and require professional help, which seems to be contradictory with the proposal (What can employers do?). Not sure as well what exactly an employer-provided "workplace health scheme" might mean... Does the office shut off the lift and inspects people's lunches and snacks?

SideburnsOfDoom 1y ago

> Indeed, it seems unlikely that the underlying reason for the situation is really 'health'. Why is that your conclusion based on nothing? In the last 5 years, is there any reason why population health might have declined? Does anything come to your mind at all? Did you miss the whole COVID thing entirely? People did and still do get COVID, it's not (entirely) gone. And it does frequently have long-term health consequences. Another likely causal factor is the decline in the NHS.

clickety_clack 1y ago
I think we are allowed to use common sense. I think it’s pretty safe to say that everyone has some kind of health condition, but there’s no way that one in five working adults has a health condition so bad that they cannot work. If I truly could not work, I would want the slackers rooted out too, otherwise they will destroy supports for the people that actually need them.
- SideburnsOfDoom 1y ago
  > but there’s no way that one in five working adults has a health condition so bad that they cannot work. I would go further, I would also say that there are no "working adults" who also "cannot work". You don't see ill people walking around? Yes, that's how it works, it doesn't prove anything. We're not seeing what we don't see, and can't draw "common sense" inferences from that missing data. You need actual studies.
  - gruez 1y ago
    >I would go further, I would also say that there are no "working adults" who also "cannot work". He probably meant "working age adults".
    - SideburnsOfDoom 1y ago
      Sure, but the point remains - they say that know it's wrong because they see a representative sample of working age adults? No, we actually don't: There is strong selection bias by definition of the difference between "of working age" and actually "working". The ones unable to work are less publicly visible.
- mytailorisrich 1y ago
  Exactly. Why are millions of young adults suddenly unable to work for health reasons? Either there are real health issues and then this should be an emergency situation to find and address the causes, and this proposal is totally inadequate. Or there are no serious health issues (which, indeed sounds more plausible) and this proposal misses the point and is a waste of money. Real underlying causes of the situation should be identified and addressed nevertheless. Cynically, we can notice that this keeps the official unemployment rate low since people "economically inactive" do not count, and we can wonder what would happen if those 3+ million were suddenly to look for work...