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.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks