$2000 bonus for working for a year

In a new policy announcement, one of the parties have suggested a good incentive for getting unemployed people back into work is to pay them a bonus amount at they end of the first year. Is this a good/terrible idea, and why?

I think its crap - what happens after they get the 2 grand?

I think the reasons for some people's choice to be unemployed is more complex than just being able to bribe people back to work.

Well, they get $4500 if they hang around for 2 years...

Oh, well in that case.....

Nah, I could see how it would work getting people into volunteer work for experience and to build up their confidence to perform better in job interviews and to gain some self-worth, but if you were getting a wage anyway....

See, I tend to agree with you. But - this is a (allegedly fully costed) policy platform...

....<*insert pregnant pause*>....

Anyone??

Maybe if they covered my childcare costs that would be an incentive. ;)
Otherwise I cannt afford to work, $2000 isn't going to fix that.

It depends, are there a lot of people who start jobs but then give up after a couple of months? If the incentive is to keep people in the job for the year (by which time they might have got over the desire to go back to not working) then maybe.

When I used to work in a factory lots of people gave up after one week - one week isn't really long enough to get used to something. People who were there for several months tended to stay there, make friends get used to the money etc so maybe that incentive at the end of the year could make people think twice about quitting at beginning, and sticking it out for a decent amount of time.

Depends on the figures and rational behind it - I would want to see why they thought this would work before giving final verdict - (alot of policies are a result of working parties etc, analysis of figures etc. rather than just plucked from thin air)

I think costing wise would probably be negligible cost - when you factor into tax paid, other allowances might not get, super being gained.

It's ridiculous. It's an ill-thought throw-money-at-it solution, when the problem isn't lack of cash, it's more emotional and psychological. $2000 per unemployed person of support services could go a long way towards building self-esteem and getting people ready for jobs they love. Improved accessibility, affordability and quality of childcare is also necessary. Flexible hours are necessary. Family friendly employers are necessary. A better recognition of te value of volunteer contributions to the economy is necessary.

Ok, well I'm with WYSIWYG - I would very much like to have a look at the rationale/evidence base that indicates that this would work.

Mostly because I don't believe that evidence base exists - and this is why.

There's a thing called immediate gratification bias - which is where people will choose a lesser but more immediate reward over a larger reward that they have to wait for. A study was done with children and lollies - where children were given a choice between one lolly now or two lollies if they wait. There was a strong correlation between the children's ability to wait and take the greater reward, and their success later in life.

The $2000 is the 2-lolly scenario. The newly employed person needs to delay their gratification (ie "giving up" on work) for the far-away candy of the money. But it's seems highly likely that populations of people who are more able to delay their gratification (ie choose to hang in there for the $2k) are more likely to already be successfully educated/employed. There is likely to be a much lower proportion of gratification-delayers in the long-term unemployed. That seems like a flaw in the logic of the proposal.

Besides which, the $2K scheme assumes that job retention is some kind of personal choice scenario. I'm not convinced that it is. I think there's a whole lot of other barriers and issues involved and chucking tiny amounts of money at individuals will do nothing to address these issues.

It would make more sense to give it to them at intervals of three six nine and twelve months. Then after the second year. One year is a loooong time when you've just started a new job and have been unemployed for some time.

I think they should also offer it as a childcare initiative instead: you can access it for childcare from day one but you have an obligation to work each of the three month intervals.

There isn't actually much information about it around - but the criteria would be under 30 and on unemployment benefit for a year.

I am not convinced still (and maybe a year is too long and six months would be better) but - there are many ways to skin a cat, of course there still needs to be all the other things to get people employment in the first place and this is obviously only possibly going to be effective in targeting people to stay in a job. Presumably because they have said under 30, there has been a target group identified particularly in that age bracket who have problems staying in employment (experience of working in a factory in the UK, and what I have seen in warehouses here I have anecdotal evidence about issues with sticking with things.)

I do think that getting primary caregivers into work and childcare is a completely separate part of tackling unemployment - the whole childcare situation needs sorting first so people don't drop out of the workforce so then become unemployed for greater than a year in the first place, and part of that is getting the balance between childcare costs, tax benefits and flexible employment opportunities right in the first place.

I know the study you are talking about MD, but I also thought I remembered that the correlation between waiting and success in later life was correct but that being an instant gratification child with lollies didn't necessarily mean that you would always take the instant gratification route every time as you grew up - e.g. as a child you may have taken the two sweets but that didn't mean that in other scenarios you weren't capable of weighing up and taking the long term decision. (Indeed I was an instant gratification child, and probably am as an adult where food is concerned but with other things like money can play the long-game).

Any solution to unemployment needs to be multi-faceted - and maybe this could be a small part of it.

Under 30? Why?
I worked in a maximum security prison many moons ago and seriously some of these guys had never had a job. And neither had their dad. It wasn't something they were accustomed too. It wasn't normal to give up 40 hours a week to earn money. It was more customary to live in an overcrowded (by my standards!) house to reduce bills and remain unemployed. Forever.

Back in the day we put a number of these guys through work schemes. It was the first time they'd ever worked. And you know what, some of them took to it instantly. They never knew that work could be enjoyable, fulfilling, encouraging, and ultimately financially rewarding. They had to break a mould, and for some, it was a real game changer. They just needed to give it a go.

Perhaps a bonus for 12 months of work is an incentive enough to give it a go.

You're quite right that the instant gratification being not a fixed state ... But the thing that i forgot to mention is the bias aspect. Given any similar choice, more people tend to chose the immediate reward vs the delayed one. ie, it's actually psychologically more difficult to choose to wait - so it's not really going to be an effective motivator.

The under 30 thing is I assume because they are trying to tackle a certain type of unemployment within a specific group.

Several industries or locations use bonuses similar to these to get people to stay for a length of time (sometimes jobs no one wants or often in locations people don't prefer (which is another part of this policy actually), and it does work in those cases, people staying far longer than anticipated because they put down roots make ties etc. Is similat principal to granting visas to people to go to regional areas and they have to stay a certain length of time.
The media and the parties both annoy me with the lack of rational and detail given, the amount of info we are given how can we ever really decide if agree or not.