Youth Month means nothing without jobs

We owe young South Africans the truth: the policies defended in their name are holding them back.

Photo by Chang Duong on Unsplash

Youth month is almost over – a month when politicians will climb onto podiums with recycled slogans and hollow promises about empowering the youth. There will be summits, media campaigns, and staged performances of concern. But for millions of young South Africans sitting at home, unemployed and without prospects, this month offers no real meaning. There is nothing to celebrate when you're 24, qualified or not, and locked out of the labour market.

The youth unemployment crisis in South Africa has been with us for decades. According to the latest data from Stats SA, nearly 46% of South Africans aged 15 to 34 are unemployed - a figure that rises even higher when discouraged jobseekers are included. Despite all the attention this problem has received, it remains unresolved. Many young people continue to be left out of meaningful economic participation.

Behind these numbers are real lives that have quietly fallen apart. Having been shut out of employment for years, they have lost more than just income. They have also lost confidence, motivation, and a sense of direction. While some have turned to drugs, others have withdrawn completely. Families have had to carry the emotional weight of watching capable young adults drift further into despair. There is only so long this can continue. Our country cannot expect stability or any real progress while so many young people remain idle.

What's even more depressing is that the ANC-led Government of National Unity (GNU), which once brought the promise of hope and reform, has remained committed to the very same policies that lie at the heart of this crisis.

One example of these policies is the national minimum wage, which ignores the realities of the market and the circumstances of ordinary people. It has long been defended on the basis that it protects workers from "exploitation". Without it, the argument goes, merciless capitalists would simply pay people whatever they like and get away with it.

The first problem with this notion of "exploitation" is that it isn’t objective; there’s no clear or consistent way of determining whether a wage is ‘exploitative’ or not. One worker may consider a certain wage unacceptable, while another may see it as a vital opportunity. The perception of "exploitation" is, thus, subjective and shaped by personal context and choice.

In fact, the minimum wage restricts economic freedom. It limits the ability of people to decide for themselves what work they are willing to do, and at what wage. There is no reasonable doubt that many people would take certain jobs if they were legally allowed to, but the unfortunate reality is that they aren't. Here, some may argue that the playing field is uneven and that employers often hold more power. But this is precisely where economic freedom becomes important. In a truly free market without wage controls, workers have options. If they're not satisfied with what one employer offers them, they can look for employment elsewhere.

The third problem with the exploitation argument is that it overlooks how real economies grow. What it terms “exploitation” has, in practice, helped millions escape poverty. China’s industrial rise, as a case study, was primarily driven by low-cost labour. The Chinese state didn't fix wages or hold employers back. It simply created space for firms to compete, expand, and absorb workers on a massive scale.

Wages in China only began to rise in the early 2000s after years of capital growth and gains in productivity. And while low-cost labour still plays a key role in its industrial economy, there is credible evidence that its embrace of free market reform - rather than regulation or state intervention - is what has made higher wages possible.

It is therefore striking when a Marxist organisation like the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), which fiercely defends the minimum wage, presents China as a successful model of state-led growth. Its implication is that the country rose within a framework of wage control and tight regulation, rather than through a market-driven and low-cost labour environment.

The result of such revisionism is not only the misrepresentation of history, but also the legitimisation of a harmful discourse that keeps many young people out of the economy in the name of their “protection.” A discourse that suggests they are better off unemployed, with no income or prospects, than participating in a labour market where they can earn, learn, and build experience. A discourse that demands passivity in the face of hardship and asks them to wait indefinitely for an ideal that will never materialise.

China's experience demonstrates what's possible when a country prioritises growth and employment over rigid regulation. It proves that large-scale job creation and the reduction of poverty are two outcomes that can only be achieved by creating space for people to work and not locking them out in the name of protection.

This Youth Month calls not for more promises, but for more honesty. We owe young South Africans the truth, which is that the very policies defended in their name are part of what's holding them back. If we want to give them a real future, we must stop shielding them from work and start fighting for their freedom to pursue it.

Ayanda Sakhile Zulu holds a BSocSci in Political Studies from the University of Pretoria and is an intern at the Free Market Foundation.