‘First Job Guarantee’ must be universal and local

Jobs and wages. After many cycles of elections in which real issues seemed to be banished from the poll arena, we have arrived at a moment when they can no longer be swept under the carpet. Millions of people in every part of the country can’t get jobs, even with a college degree. Meanwhile, prices of basic necessities have risen significantly. In survey after survey, pollsters are hearing from voters that the biggest anxiety among the public is about unemployment and inflation.

The worry is highest among the youth, who are now staring at a staggering scale of joblessness. Most recent reports suggest that at least 1 out of 5 young people don’t have a job. The true figures are much higher; India’s data collection processes are quite weak. And with rising prices of necessities, the need to find a job is urgent. Family members have also been telling young people repeatedly that inflation is crushing them, and they need more money to run the household.

Now, with elections underway, a chunk of the unemployed are heading to the polling booth, and these worries are at the top of their list of expectations from candidates. Which button they press at the voting booth may depend a lot on who has the best answers to their search and fears.

It’s not surprising, therefore, that in addition to the usual promise of more government jobs -- which are rarely fulfilled -- there is emerging talk of paid apprenticeships for educated young people, as well as minimum wages for many jobs. The focus on family finances is a welcome shift in our politics, although it is still nascent. The economic condition of those in the lower half of the pyramid has been precarious for a very long time, but it has been ignored by those who cheer economic growth figures without mentioning how highly unequal the gains have been.

In a democracy, the regular opportunity to vote in elections gives people one kind of participation in deciding the course of the nation. But without livelihoods, people are locked out of the economy, and unless they can secure this participation too as a right, they might have nothing to gain from the GDP growth that decision-makers are preoccupied with.

Some state governments have responded by making a few things free or affordable. The overwhelming response to those is a truer reflection of the state of the poor than the various studies and reports of government bodies. The likely impact on public finances is high, of course, but those in charge of that are in a better position to find nuanced solutions, whereas ordinary people have no chance of finding a way out of their battered family finances.

Paid apprenticeships will surely help. But how many of these positions can the government find in the formal economy? Geography is also a factor; the economies of states are widely different, and without more mass migration -- which is already wrecking families and communities -- it will be difficult to make the scheme work. And if only college graduates and diploma-holders are eligible, then what about the majority of young people who have neither of these? The questions provide a hint of the answers that we need. The support must be for all young people, and it must be available locally.

There is an even more stringent requirement. A lot of young people can perform the duties of an entry-level job, but they struggle to convince employers to hire them. Therefore, they need to be given a first job without interviews and skills-testing. That’s what it means to have a ‘right to a first job’.

But which employer will provide an apprenticeship to anyone without assessing them? There are two parts to the answer. The first is that a lot of local shops and establishments would like to help young people in their neighbourhoods; they know them, and they empathise with the financial and social situation of the job-seekers and their families. Local opportunities are especially important to young women, who cannot travel far from their homes for work. The second is that a lot of small businesses would be happy to have extra hands and minds to help them, but they can’t afford to take on the cost of an apprentice.

Once we recognise these two, the solution presents itself. The government should fund the apprenticeship, and let job-seekers attach themselves to whichever employer they can find. Local businesses will like this; they’ll get an extra worker without the worry of finding the money to pay them. They might even be forced to compete for apprentices!

There are many other considerations, but this one is key. A scheme that depends on formal positions in large or medium enterprises will benefit only a minority of unemployed youth. And if companies are asked to fund those positions, they might even lay off someone while taking on an apprentice. Instead, if the government directly funds the job-seeker, it can create a scheme that is widely beneficial, and with a strong emphasis on local opportunities. A ‘First Job Guarantee’ is a social commitment too, not only an economic one, and we must approach it that way.

A public problem-solving group that I lead is piloting this with a small group of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, and I will write further about it in this column as I learn from it. Inputs and collaboration are welcome.