top of page
Writer's pictureConnor Banks

The Vanishing Pub: How Young People Are Being Priced Out of Socialising and Why 50 Pubs a Month Are Closing

A pint on a bar

In the first half of 2024, an alarming trend unfolded in England and Wales: over 50 pubs closed every month. Once the core social hubs of their communities, these establishments are now facing an existential crisis. While various factors contribute to their downfall, one of the most critical and overlooked is the inability of young people to afford the once-cherished activity of going to the pub. What was once a staple of British social life is becoming increasingly out of reach for the younger generation, as the cost of living skyrockets, and wages fail to keep pace.


The Price of a Pub Pint: A Stark Reality

To understand this crisis, we need only look at the humble pint of lager—a bellwether for the affordability of social life. In 2024, the average pint costs £4.78, a steep rise from £3.32 in 2014. Adjusted for inflation, the 2014 price should be about £4.30 today, meaning the cost of a pint has risen well above inflation, putting an even greater strain on consumers. But the story goes deeper when we compare the cost of a pint to wages.


In 1994, when a pint cost just £1.30, it took up about 18.6% of the average hourly wage. By 2004, this had crept up to 19.4%, but it remained manageable. Today, that figure has ballooned to 26.6%, meaning that, on average, over a quarter of an hour’s work is required just to enjoy a single drink. For young people earning near minimum wage, the situation is even more dire.


Socialising: A Luxury, Not a Right

People Celebrating with a Pint

For previous generations, socialising at the pub was a given—a place to catch up with friends, watch sports, or meet new people. It wasn’t just a drink; it was a cultural institution that fostered community. Today, young people are finding themselves priced out of this experience. With rent, food, and energy prices eating up their disposable income, something as simple as a night at the pub has become a rare indulgence.


As pubs struggle to attract younger patrons, their revenue falls, creating a vicious cycle of dwindling business and eventual closure. The 50-pub-per-month statistic isn't just about pubs closing; it represents a societal shift where traditional forms of socialising are no longer affordable for large portions of the population.


Coffee Shops and Changing Social Habits

This shift is already evident in where young people choose to meet. Coffee shops, with their relatively lower costs, are rapidly becoming the new social hubs. A coffee date is significantly cheaper than a night out at the pub, making it a more viable option for those with tight budgets. In fact, a report by Allegra World Coffee Portal showed that coffee shop visits have increased by 5% annually in the last decade, while traditional pub and bar visits have stagnated or declined.


More tellingly, coffee shops are replacing pubs and restaurants as go-to locations for first dates. What was once a meal out, drinks at a bar, or even a combination of the two, has been replaced by a more affordable flat white or cappuccino. According to a 2023 YouGov survey, 46% of young adults now prefer a coffee shop for a first date, compared to just 22% who choose the pub—a stark reversal from previous decades.


This change in behaviour highlights how rising costs have redefined social norms. Where a first date might once have involved dinner and drinks, today it often involves a quick, budget-friendly meet-up in a café. This trend not only affects young people but also has a ripple effect on the wider hospitality industry, which relies on consistent, high-volume businesses to survive.


The Systemic Issue: Young People Are Being Priced Out of Life

The closure of 50 pubs a month is a symptom of a larger systemic issue: young people are being priced out of experiences that previous generations took for granted. It’s not just about a pint at the pub—it’s about the ability to enjoy life without the constant worry of financial strain. Incomes have not kept pace with inflation, housing costs are through the roof, and now, even socialising—something so integral to mental health and community—is becoming a luxury.


In 1994, a night out didn’t break the bank. Even in 2004, going to the pub was a relatively affordable activity. But in 2024, the economic landscape has shifted dramatically, and with it, the ability of young people to participate in activities that are vital to fostering community and connection.


The Broader Impact: The Erosion of Social Life

As pubs close and young people opt for cheaper alternatives, the very fabric of the community is at risk. Pubs have long been a place where people from all walks of life can come together, and their decline signals more than just a business failure—it signals a loss of social cohesion. In the past, the pub was where people met their neighbours, built friendships, and even discussed local politics. With their demise, we risk losing a key part of British culture.


At the same time, the rapid rise of coffee shops—while a testament to human adaptability—can’t fully replace the role pubs once played. Coffee shops are often more transient spaces, focused on short meetings rather than long, unhurried evenings of conversation. The very nature of how we socialise is changing, and it’s not necessarily for the better.



The closure of 50 pubs a month is a wake-up call. It’s not just about the loss of a place to drink; it’s about the changing landscape of social life in Britain. Young people are being priced out of the activities that previous generations took for granted, and this is having a profound impact on both individual well-being and community cohesion.


If the trend continues, we could see a future where social life is defined by affordability rather than choice, where the quintessential British pub is lost to time and becomes something only for the rich or for tourists. To reverse this trend, we need systemic change that addresses the root causes of financial insecurity and makes socialising accessible once again. Otherwise, the demise of the pub may just be the beginning of a larger cultural decline.

TikTok ban: An Act of Market Control, Not Freedom

TikTok ban: An Act of Market Control, Not Freedom

15 January 2025

Connor Banks

Want your article or story on our site? Contact us here

The Supreme Court of the United States met on Friday the 10th of January to discuss the imminent TikTok ban in the United States, and it's looking like the Supreme Court is going to uphold the ban. This means that TikTok will have to be sold off to an American company or be banned from America.


Facebook and Tiktok fighting each other. Felt design

The United States has long prided itself on being a champion of innovation and free-market competition. Yet, the recent push to ban TikTok exposes a different reality. While the ban is often framed as a measure to protect American "freedoms," closer scrutiny reveals that the motivations behind it are less about safeguarding national security or personal liberty and more about protecting the dominance of American tech giants who have failed to create a competing product.


The National Security Argument: A Convenient Scapegoat

The primary justification for the TikTok ban centres on national security concerns. Critics argue that TikTok’s ownership by a Chinese company poses risks of data misuse or surveillance by the Chinese government. While these concerns warrant investigation, the evidence presented so far has been largely speculative. Moreover, TikTok has taken significant steps to address these concerns, such as pledging to store U.S. user data domestically and offering unprecedented transparency in its operations.


In contrast, American tech companies, including Facebook and Google, have faced numerous scandals over data breaches and misuse, yet these incidents rarely spark discussions of bans. This double standard suggests that the TikTok ban isn’t truly about protecting users’ data but about something far more self-serving: market control.


A Failure to Innovate: American Companies’ Struggle to Compete

Tiktok logo in a 3d blog with a pink background

TikTok’s meteoric rise exposed a glaring weakness in American tech innovation. Despite their immense resources and influence, companies like Meta (formerly Facebook), Google, and Snapchat have failed to develop a platform that resonates with younger audiences in the same way TikTok does. Meta’s Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts, both designed to mimic TikTok’s short-form video format, have not captured the same cultural zeitgeist or user engagement.


Rather than innovating, these companies have leaned heavily on their lobbying power to stifle competition. The push to ban TikTok can be seen as an attempt to remove a superior competitor from the market, allowing American platforms to reclaim dominance without addressing their own shortcomings. This approach not only stifles competition but also sets a dangerous precedent for using regulatory measures to quash innovative foreign products rather than improving domestic ones.


The Hypocrisy of “Freedom”

American lawmakers have framed the TikTok ban as a measure to protect citizens' freedoms, yet the ban itself directly contradicts the principles of choice and access that underpin those freedoms. TikTok’s success is driven by millions of Americans who have chosen to use the app, finding value in its unique algorithm, diverse content, and engaging user experience. Restricting access to the platform undermines these users’ autonomy, suggesting that their freedoms are secondary to corporate interests.


Furthermore, the United States’ tech landscape is already dominated by monopolies. Companies like Meta, Google, and Amazon control vast swaths of the internet, often using their market power to squash smaller competitors. The TikTok ban does not address this monopolistic behaviour; instead, it reinforces it by eliminating a rare instance of genuine competition in the social media space.


A Global Perspective: The Irony of “Protection”

The ban also highlights a broader irony. For years, American tech companies have championed global free markets, often entering foreign countries and out-competing local businesses. Yet when faced with competition from a foreign company on their own turf, the response has been to cry foul rather than adapt.


This hypocrisy weakens America’s global standing as a proponent of innovation and fair competition. Instead of banning TikTok, the United States could use this moment to examine why its own companies failed to create a comparable product and what can be done to foster domestic innovation.


The Real Solution: Compete, Don’t Constrain

If the goal is to protect American freedoms and ensure data security, a TikTok ban is a shortsighted solution. Instead, lawmakers should focus on regulating data privacy across all platforms, domestic and foreign, to ensure robust protections for users. Simultaneously, the tech industry should be incentivised to innovate rather than rely on protectionist policies.


TikTok’s popularity is a testament to its ability to connect with users in ways that American platforms have failed to replicate. Banning the app does not solve this problem; it simply papers over it. To truly champion freedom, the United States must allow competition to flourish, even when it means facing uncomfortable truths about its own shortcomings.



The push to ban TikTok is less about protecting American freedoms and more about protecting American monopolies. Framed as a national security issue, the campaign against TikTok is ultimately an admission that American tech giants have failed to keep up with their global counterparts. If the U.S. truly values innovation and freedom, it must resist the urge to eliminate competition through regulation and instead focus on fostering a market where the best product, not the most powerful company, wins.

bottom of page