Copy article

Reeves’ NEETs Paradox: Businesses Shed Junior Staff Despite a Critical 35% AI Skills Void

ended 24. November 2025

Rachel Reeves will stand up Wednesday to fill a £30bn fiscal hole. But she won't mention the economic cost of 946,000 NEETs, or how AI is making that problem permanent by cutting the jobs young people need to gain skills.

PwC's annual report revealed that it has scrapped a target to hire 100,000 staff because the world now looks "very, very different" due to AI, according to Global Chairman Mohamed Kande. PwC cut 5,600 jobs in the past year whilst investing nearly $1.5 billion in AI capabilities. 

Canary Wharf law firm Clifford Chance is cutting 10% of its London business services staff, roughly 50 roles  across Finance, HR, IT and support functions, explicitly citing "increased use of artificial intelligence" as a key factor. 

However, while firms cut "doer" roles to bank efficiency gains, they're facing critical skills shortages in the areas required to keep AI safe. 

We'd like your views:

  • Is cutting experienced staff whilst trusting AI to replace them a recipe for negligence?
  • How do you bridge a 35% skills gap and realise the cost savings when all firms are competing for the same scarce talent?
  • What does 58% of staff trusting AI blindly mean for customers who can't tell which firms have proper governance safeguards in place because there is zero transparency?
  • If AI is eliminating junior roles whilst 946,000 NEETS lack skills to enter the workforce, who bears the £69bn economic cost of doing nothing?

2 responses from the Newspage community

Copy all

Star Quote
Copy

Colette Mason
AI Ethics Consultant at Clever Clogs AI
You can't slash Finance, HR, IT and admin teams whilst trusting AI trained on rushed data to replace their judgement. You can't bank efficiency gains when 58% of your staff don't check if the AI is even right. And you can't bridge a 35% skills gap when you're competing with every other firm for the same scarce talent to replace who you just fired. Just look at the eye-watering sums tech giants are paying, spending millions to poach the best of the best. That principle will spread.

Firms are removing the administrative layer just as the public, fully aware of AI slop, demands more human oversight, not cheap faceless services. That's not cost savings. That's deferred negligence, with their clients and regulators bearing the brunt of the corner-cutting and them the bill for a tarnished brand.

Reeves is hunting billions. Blue-chips are creating an expensive governance and NEETs catastrophe costing far more than any budget can fix. UK PLC needs augmented intelligence, not artificial.
Copy

Patricia McGirr
Founder at Repossession Rescue Network
AI has morphed from Artificial Intelligence to 'Any Ideas,' as companies swing the axe at the people who keep their operations honest. Replacing seasoned staff with untrained teams and a chatbot isn’t innovation; it's reckless.

When most employees are using AI without checking its accuracy, the risk is already inside the building. Customers can’t see which firms have guardrails and which are letting automated guesswork make the calls.

The skills crisis is now structural. Firms are fighting over the same small pool of AI-literate talent while wiping out the junior roles that once built it. That leaves powerful systems with too few people capable of questioning them, let alone controlling them. Meanwhile, almost a million young people are shut out of work as the jobs that teach judgement and workplace basics disappear.

Leaders who cut human oversight are walking into headline-grabbing failures they won't see until the cat's out of the bag.