> In 2020-21, the average young man earned £24,032 and the average young woman £23,021. Those figures cross the following year. Then, as male wages virtually stagnate, female wages climb significantly. By 2022-3, the average young man earned £24,283 and the average young woman £26,476, which is 9 per cent more.
Translated to freedom dollars: that's $30.2k vs $28.9k in 2020-1, and $30.5k vs $33.2k in 2022-3. Overall it seems like young people aren't making a lot of money, period.
But also:
> The report blames the decline of traditionally “male-dominated industries such as manufacturing, agriculture and construction” for causing a rapid fall in “secure, well-paid and meaningful jobs that used to be available to non-university educated young men”.
This, combined with the fact that the "most recent" time period of this study is still smack in the middle of COVID seems like there could be more to the story here. Were industries that traditionally hire a lot of women already bouncing back from the pandemic in ways that industries that traditionally hire a lot of men did not? Did COVID make some companies realize that they can get away with short-staffing/underpaying and we're seeing the effects of that here?
> Overall it seems like young people aren't making a lot of money, period.
Those are pretty typical wages for the UK. American wages are in a universe unto themselves and aren't a useful comparison for these purposes (it would be less than the minimum wage in some regions of the US).
I always find of hard to tell was wages mean in terms of what they represent after taxes, retirement savings, and medical costs they way they're reported regardless of country.
In the UK it is before income tax or national insurance (public healthcare), and also before pension saving. However most jobs give you an additional bit of pension on top of your salary (usually 5%).
Pension at 5% or more is only the norm for ‘professional’ jobs.
For many people they only started getting employer pension contributions with auto-enrolment which is 3% of qualifying earnings, not your whole salary. In 2013 only 49% of workers were participating in a workplace pension scheme but it’s over 80% now.
We've been in a recession for years now, at least since 2020. The lockdowns were basically on the way out by 2022.
>Were industries that traditionally hire a lot of women already bouncing back from the pandemic in ways that industries that traditionally hire a lot of men did not?
Yes, probably. The difference could be due to health care jobs or restaurant jobs doing disproportionately well compared to construction or manufacturing during those two years, for example. And I think there may also be some effect related to getting laid off and rehired at a higher salary.
I remember hearing a lot of whining about how the pandemic affected women more because of the type of work they tend to do. So here's another angle. If you lost your job and got rehired at a higher salary, that could actually turn out better than keeping your job for those two years with all the inflation we've had.
Is it called that because those with the dollars get the freedom?
On another point, both in the original article, and in the above comment: the lack of trade based career opportunities.
I have doubts about this. Obviously much manufacturing was sent to China by ownership, so the balance is still probably in the negative overall, but many trade service operators are complaining about the inability to hire. Specifically trades like plumber, electrician, and handy man.
There have also been reports of agricultural operators offering over $20/hour and still being unable to hire workers.
I'm working with a couple of young people as electricians and plumbers on a project here. The cost is not small. They make good money, but still find it hard to hire.
Maybe if World of Warcraft, or Call of Doom could be replaced with a video game glorifying unstopping a toilet, we could get the kids to pay attention? (just thought I'd end with another laugh)
Translated to freedom dollars: that's $30.2k vs $28.9k in 2020-1, and $30.5k vs $33.2k in 2022-3. Overall it seems like young people aren't making a lot of money, period.
But also:
> The report blames the decline of traditionally “male-dominated industries such as manufacturing, agriculture and construction” for causing a rapid fall in “secure, well-paid and meaningful jobs that used to be available to non-university educated young men”.
This, combined with the fact that the "most recent" time period of this study is still smack in the middle of COVID seems like there could be more to the story here. Were industries that traditionally hire a lot of women already bouncing back from the pandemic in ways that industries that traditionally hire a lot of men did not? Did COVID make some companies realize that they can get away with short-staffing/underpaying and we're seeing the effects of that here?