If the future has no place for you, why protect it?

I was in Paris this last week. Given the reports of protests and riots across France, I was interested to see what the city actually felt like.

There was very little evidence of serious disorder. A few shops were boarded up. There was a good deal of graffiti and, in two places, the remains of what appeared to have been minor fires.  There were police around. The heavily armed soldiers were still patrolling near Notre Dame, but they are there because of threats considerably more serious than home grown protesters.

Otherwise, Paris was Paris.  The restaurants were full. The Metro was crowded. People were shopping, working, eating and getting on with their lives.  This matters because it is easy to look at pictures of burning cars and conclude that Europe is descending into chaos. It is not.

Most of the recent demonstrations have been peaceful. Those involved do not all share the same grievances or motives. A relatively small number of people have used the protests as an opportunity for violence and looting.

But it would be equally foolish to conclude that, because Paris continues to function, there is nothing important happening.  The visible damage may be limited. The underlying loss of confidence may be much greater.

What are young people protesting about?

The immediate causes vary.  In France, students began by protesting about deteriorating schools and educational conditions. In Spain and Portugal, housing has been a central issue. In Italy, young people have been protesting about employment, wages, education, housing and public services.

Behind these different complaints sits a common question.  If I study, acquire skills and work hard, will I ever be able to build an independent adult life?  For an increasing number of young Europeans, the answer is far from clear.

In August 2026, almost three million people under 25 were unemployed across the European Union. Youth unemployment was 15.4 per cent, more than twice the overall rate. The International Labour Organization reports that the improvement in youth employment following the pandemic has stalled, with Northern, Southern and Western Europe experiencing one of the largest recent increases in youth unemployment.

Housing adds another barrier.  Across the European Union, young people left the parental home at an average age of 26.3 in 2025. More than a quarter of people aged between 15 and 29 lived in overcrowded accommodation. Young people were also more likely than the population as a whole to live in households spending at least 40 per cent of their disposable income on housing.

It is easy for older generations to describe this as a change in lifestyle. Young people marry later, have children later and remain at home for longer.  But how much of that is choice?  If wages do not cover rent, if buying a home is unimaginable and if secure employment is increasingly difficult to find, independence has not simply been delayed. It has become inaccessible.

The first rung is disappearing

This week Barclays announced that it would remove around 5,000 jobs, approximately 5 per cent of its workforce. Many of the losses will be in support functions, including some developer roles, as the bank expands its use of technology and AI. Other large employers are making similar decisions.

It would be wrong to blame AI for the whole youth employment problem.  The OECD says there is not yet convincing evidence that AI is driving the wider deterioration in young people’s employment prospects. Slower economic growth, weak investment and cautious recruitment are also important.  But the direction is uncomfortable.

Many of the roles organisations find easiest to automate are the roles through which people traditionally entered the workplace. Administration, research, basic analysis, routine coding and junior professional work may not have been intellectually demanding all the time, but they allowed people to learn.  They learnt how organisations made decisions. They watched more experienced colleagues. They discovered what good work looked like. They made mistakes while the consequences were still manageable.

If AI now performs much of that work, what happens to the people who learnt through doing it?  For an individual company, removing junior roles may appear entirely rational. The work can be done faster and more cheaply with fewer people.  But if every company removes the first rung of the ladder, where will experienced employees come from in ten years?

AI can remove tasks. It cannot automatically replace the human development that happened while those tasks were being performed.  We may improve today’s productivity while destroying tomorrow’s competence.

Why should the rest of us care?

Most young people are not protesting and very few are rioting.  They are studying, working, applying for jobs and trying to make a life within the circumstances they have been given.  But societies do not become unstable only when a majority takes to the streets. They become unstable when enough people stop believing that the existing system offers them a future.  Young Europeans are among the most educated people in history. They can see enormous wealth around them. They are constantly shown lifestyles they cannot afford. They are told that their education matters, while watching qualifications lose value and entry level jobs disappear.

Their parents could reasonably expect that work would lead to increasing security. Many young people now fear that, despite doing everything expected of them, they will be poorer and less secure than their parents.  That does not justify violence.  It does explain why anger is growing.  People who believe they have a stake in the future are usually reluctant to destroy the society in which they expect to enjoy it. People who believe they have little to gain from that society behave differently.

The danger is not confined to graffiti, broken windows and burnt rubbish bins. It appears in declining trust, political extremism and the conviction that existing institutions protect those who are already comfortable.

Creating work, not simply offering training

Governments often respond to youth unemployment by announcing more training. Training is useful when it leads somewhere. It is not an answer if the jobs do not exist or if people are being trained for work that employers are already automating. Europe does not lack useful work.  It needs more homes, better energy infrastructure, stronger defence, improved transport, more care provision and extensive adaptation to climate change.

These are not marginal activities. They will determine whether European economies remain capable of supporting their populations. The opportunity is to connect this essential investment to apprenticeships, technical education and early career employment.  Housing must be treated as economic infrastructure as well as social policy. Young people cannot move to where the jobs are if they cannot afford to live there. Employers cannot complain about labour shortages while supporting planning systems that prevent homes being built near their workplaces.

This will require difficult political choices. Existing homeowners benefit from scarcity. Employers benefit from reducing labour costs. Governments benefit from making promises whose consequences will not become visible until after the next election.  Helping young people will therefore require some people who already have power and wealth to accept change.  That is the part usually omitted from the discussion.

Employers must preserve the route into work

Businesses should not be expected to retain jobs that no longer add value. Protecting obsolete work is not a sustainable employment policy.  But removing unnecessary work is not the same as removing the route through which people become competent. Employers need to redesign junior roles around AI.  If AI allows a young employee to produce analysis, write code or conduct research more quickly, that person should be able to take on more demanding work sooner. AI should enable accelerated development, not provide an excuse to stop recruiting.

Boards approving major investment in AI should ask what appears to be a simple question.  “If this technology removes junior work, how will we develop the experienced people we shall need in the future?” If there is no answer, the business case is incomplete.