The Department for Work and Pensions has published an interim report on young people and work, chaired by Alan Milburn. It is one of those familiar documents produced by modern British governance: sober in tone, earnest in presentation, full of carefully arranged concern. The diagnosis is not even entirely wrong. The report acknowledges that the transition from education into employment has weakened structurally over time. It concedes that the “bottom rungs” of the labour market have disappeared. It even admits, briefly and almost accidentally, that the demand side of the labour market matters as much as the supply side.
Then, having wandered to the edge of the truth, it quietly steps away again.
What the report never quite allows itself to say is that Britain does not currently produce enough genuine entry-level jobs for young people to enter working life in any stable or meaningful way. The missing rung is treated as a mystery of coordination, aspiration, employability, mental health, recruitment practices, transport, confidence, expectations, skills, or culture. Everything is examined except the possibility that there are simply too few jobs that an inexperienced young person can realistically obtain.
The report circles this reality repeatedly without ever naming it directly. Employers complain that young people are not “work-ready”. They speak of reliability concerns, emotional resilience, communication skills, customer interaction, initiative, professionalism, and the burden of supervision. At the same time, they offer the statutory minimum wage.
This is where the entire exercise begins to unravel.
A minimum wage job is supposed to be the floor of the labour market. Its economic function is straightforward. It is work that a reasonably typical 16-year-old school-leaver, or anybody else, should be able to perform and succeed in after minimal instruction. If a role genuinely requires previous experience, polished interpersonal skills, emotional management, unsupervised responsibility, or the confidence to navigate difficult customers and irregular schedules, then the market price for that labour ought to rise accordingly. Those requirements narrow the pool of capable workers. They impose costs and should attract a wage premium.
However, Britain no longer operates a functioning labour market at the lower end. It operates in a state of permanent oversupply.
That oversupply changes everything. Employers can now demand characteristics once associated with experienced workers while continuing to pay entry-level wages because there is always another applicant waiting behind the current one. The queue itself suppresses the price. The result is that roles described as “entry-level” are often nothing of the sort. They are experienced jobs disguised as minimum wage work.
The report’s own figures quietly expose the fiction. Large numbers of so-called NEET young people possess good GCSEs, Level 3 qualifications, and even degrees. This is not a generation uniformly incapable of work. It is a generation attempting to enter a labour market where the bottom tier has been hollowed out while the rhetoric surrounding it has remained frozen in place.
For decades Britain has spoken about labour market “flexibility” as though it were an achievement rather than a warning sign. What it has frequently meant in practice is a labour market deliberately maintained in a state of permanent slack. There are always slightly too many people chasing slightly too few jobs. Policymakers treat this condition as responsible economic management because it restrains wages and dampens inflationary pressure. The social consequences are then discussed separately, as though they emerged from nowhere.
But a labour market organised around chronic labour surplus cannot rebuild its own entry tier. Why would it? Employers under no pressure to attract labour have little reason to invest in training, patience, or long-term workforce development. They can simply demand fully formed workers for the lowest permissible wage and blame schools, families, or young people themselves when those workers fail to materialise.
The irony is that the conditions most feared by British policymakers are usually the conditions under which labour markets function best. When labour becomes scarce, employers are forced to compete for workers rather than workers competing for employers. Training returns. Productivity-enhancing investment becomes worthwhile. Labour-saving technologies are adopted because labour itself acquires value. Wages begin, imperfectly but materially, to follow productivity improvements rather than lag permanently behind them. Firms sustained primarily by cheap and insecure labour begin to disappear, making room for businesses capable of supporting higher productivity and higher wages.
A permanently tight labour market is not a flaw in the system. It is one of the mechanisms through which the system modernises itself.
Britain has spent much of the last forty years attempting to avoid exactly this outcome.
Instead, the state has largely confined itself to preparing people for jobs the private sector has no intention of supplying in sufficient quantity. The Milburn report continues this tradition. There are proposals for better coordination, improved recruitment practices, wage subsidies, employability programmes, local partnerships, and support structures. The state appears throughout as facilitator, trainer, and intermediary. Never as employer.
Yet the obvious question hangs over the entire report. If the private sector will not create enough genuine entry-level jobs, why does the state not create them directly?
The silence is remarkable because the administrative answer is relatively simple. Publicly funded work could be designed explicitly around the principle that any school leaver should be capable of performing it with modest training and support. Local environmental maintenance, care assistance, cultural projects, administrative support, public amenities, community infrastructure, restoration work, transport assistance, digital archiving, neighbourhood services. There is no shortage of socially useful work in Britain. There is only a shortage of willingness to organise and fund it.
This reflects a mix of fiscal conservatism, institutional habit, and a long-standing belief within Treasury orthodoxy that only private employment counts as “real” employment. Public job creation is treated less as an option than as an intellectual error.
Instead, modern labour market policy treats unemployment as though it were primarily a defect in the unemployed. Young people are endlessly assessed, coached, filtered, prepared, nudged, counselled, trained, and monitored for jobs that do not materially exist in adequate numbers. The labour market itself is rarely interrogated with the same intensity.
And so the strange spectacle continues. Britain simultaneously complains that young people lack discipline while offering them no stable route into disciplined working life. Employers lament the disappearance of work ethic after spending decades eliminating the sort of entry-level employment through which work habits were historically formed. Policymakers speak mournfully about the missing bottom rung while carefully avoiding any proposal that might actually rebuild it.
The Milburn report is therefore less notable for what it says than for what it cannot quite bring itself to say. Its own evidence points repeatedly toward a shortage of jobs rather than a shortage of people. It identifies a labour market whose lower tier has ceased to function properly. It acknowledges, in passing, that the ladder has been kicked away.
But it stops one step short of the conclusion.
If the bottom rung no longer exists, somebody has to build another one.
Chat about this and any other MMT topics on Discord with the growing New Wayland community . New members can click this invite link which will add the server to your Discord account