Critics argue that the current approach to the job crisis is fundamentally flawed because it ignores the need for labor-intensive industrialization. They contend that while digital and service sectors are important, they cannot provide the sheer volume of jobs required to employ millions of young people. These observers suggest that the government should prioritize the manufacturing sector, which has historically been the engine for mass employment in developing economies.
Many experts point out that the current economic model relies too heavily on capital-intensive industries that require high levels of automation, which naturally limits the number of new hires. By failing to incentivize labor-intensive manufacturing, the country is missing out on the opportunity to integrate its youth into the global supply chain. This perspective suggests that without a shift toward policies that favor job-heavy industries, the unemployment rate will remain stubbornly high regardless of how many training programs are implemented.
Furthermore, critics highlight that the quality of jobs being created is a major concern. Many young people are forced into the informal sector, where wages are low, job security is non-existent, and there are no benefits. This leads to a cycle of poverty and instability that prevents young workers from building a secure future. They argue that the focus should not just be on the number of jobs, but on the creation of decent, formal-sector employment that offers a living wage.
Finally, there is a call for greater accountability regarding the effectiveness of existing employment schemes. Skeptics argue that many programs are poorly executed and fail to reach the people who need them most. They advocate for a more transparent evaluation of government spending to ensure that resources are actually resulting in measurable job growth. Without a fundamental change in strategy, they warn that the country risks wasting its demographic dividend.