Sunday, March 27

A case of the Neets

One thing we noticed pretty much immediately when we moved to Norwich was the proliferation of people resembling what, in the US, we would have referred to as "white trash". "White trash" is a phenomenon that we thought was exclusive to the US, but it obviously isn't. A little later, we learned that this social group is called "chavs" in the UK (on the right, in the links section, there is a site that is dedicated to explaining this culture). They are easy to spot both by the way that they dress and the way that they act. A "colleague" of mine called attention to this group as well in a rather amusing post on his blog. Since learning of this class distinction, we have gained a hobby of "chav-spotting". Even though there seems to be a fair amount of variation in the levels of chavdom within this social group, we consider ourselves quite adept at identifying them. That is until reading today's "Sunday Times".

Apparently, there is another social group related to chavs: Neets. This stands for "Not in Education,Employment, or Training". From what we've just learned, being a "chav" is more of a fashion thing, while being a "neet" is a deeply committed lifestyle choice. The newspaper has identified this group as "a class of über-chavs" responsible for a "social and economic drag on society" because they "live on the dole". I think the differences can be summed up thusly: all Neets are Chavs, but not all Chavs are Neets.

Being clued in to the existance of "neets" has answered a question that has been burning in our brains. We noticed that at any give time (during business hours) there is a copious amount of people (a lot of them chav-like in appearance) in the city centre shopping til they're dropping. This was perplexing because a) they don't seem to ever be at work; and b) since they're never at work, how are they paying for all the stuff they're buying? Judging by what the paper has to say, it is the Neets that are filling the city centre. They're there because they don't have a job and aren't at school. And they're able to shop because they live off a healthy "dole" from the government. Seems like a logical conclusion, right?

---

"Aged between 16 and 24, they number 1.1m and are responsible for a social and economic drag on society that is vastly disproportionate to their numbers.

A study by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) conservatively estimates that each new Neet dropping out of education at 16 will cost taxpayers an average of £97,000 during their lifetime, with the worst costing more than £300,000 apiece.

Their impact on crime, public health and antisocial behaviour was so marked that the study found that a single 157,000-strong cohort of 16 to 18-year-old Neets would cost the country a total of £15 billion by the time they died prematurely in about 2060.

They are, says the study, 22 times more likely to be teenage mothers; 50% more likely to suffer from poor health; 60% more likely to be involved with drugs and more than 20 times more likely to become criminals."

[source: "The Sunday Times", March 27, 2005, pg. 12]


"Neet facts

-Neet is an acronym covering all young people ‘not in education, employment or training’

-According to official figures, there are 1.1m Neets aged 16 to 24 in Britain today

-About 85,000 new Neets leave school and join the group every year

-In Whitehall jargon, you can be a Neet, non-Neet or ex-Neet. The holy grail is to produce an entire generation of ‘Eets’ — in education, employment or training

-22% of Neets have no qualifications — 11 times the national average

-Neets are 22 times more likely to give birth under 18 oMore than 70% of Neets have used drugs — 60% more than the national average

-Twice as many offenders are Neet than non-Neet. This means they are 20 times more likely to commit crimes

-Neets are 50% more likely to be in poor health. They also die earlier than average

-Each Neet costs the state an average of almost £100,000. The worst Neets cost more than £300,000 over a lifetime

[source: "The Sunday Times", March 27, 2005, pg. 12]

No comments: