Wednesday, August 06, 2014

Motivating the unemployed

Regarding the $3,000 payment to move to a job in Christchurch, the Southland Times reports:

Ministry of Social Development figures show 157 people throughout the country had so far made the move, with most coming from the southern, Nelson, Wellington and Bay of Plenty regions. There had been 24 from Southland.
The southern area includes Balclutha, Dunedin, Invercargill, Oamaru and Timaru.
As of this week none of the 157 had reapplied for a benefit.

Four months ago, when the policy was announced:


The Government is providing further support for the Canterbury rebuild with $3.5 million of new operating funding for 2014/15 in Budget 2014 to assist beneficiaries to take up work in Christchurch.
“We’re offering up to 1,000 beneficiaries a one-off payment of $3,000 each if they have a full-time job offer in Canterbury and are ready and willing to move there,” Social Development Minister Paula Bennett says.
“The rebuild is creating thousands of jobs in Christchurch, and there are people around New Zealand ready to take them up, but who don’t currently have the means to get there.

According to MSD at the end of June 2014:
  • 121,131 working-age people were receiving Jobseeker Support. 
0.13 percent have taken up the offer.

What does this say about the motivation of unemployed people who the Left repeatedly insist "want to work"?

6 comments:

Jd said...

could suggest a lot of things:

(1) rather stay on a benefit and not in Christchurch;
(2) the $3000 doesn't cover the real or imagined transaction costs of moving to Christchurch;
(3) don't have the skills/experience to get employed full time in Christchurch;
(4) don't have the drive and/or access to skills training.

Perhaps the $3000 paid is mostly deadweight i.e. these people would have moved anyway? Perhaps for young people (by definition less experienced?) the entry into the Christchurch paid labour market is thru contract or part-time work? I suspect price elasticity impacts differently on individuals - but your percentages suggest the incentives to move, retain don't really sting many to action...

thor42 said...

"What does this say about the motivation of unemployed people who the Left repeatedly insist "want to work"? "

It says that their motivation is *pathetic*.

Dear lefties - please answer these questions for me.

1 - If the unemployed are so "hard up" then why do orchardists and farmers have to bring in people from Fiji and the Philippines to work on the orchards and farms? Why are there *thousands* of people on the dole in Napier and Hastings even in fruit-picking season?

I will tell you.

It is because WINZ are *too soft* to MAKE people work on orchards or else lose their dole.

Anonymous said...

Now if you just cancelled those 121,131 benefits and stopped giving out any more, how many people would move?

Anonymous said...

5) Part of the criteria to receive this grant is that you have a signed contract for a job in the area.

6) The remuneration provided by employers in the area does not cover the living costs so in the long term an employee could be far worse off financially than if they stayed where they are.


Hamish said...

The remuneration provided by employers in the area does not cover the living costs so in the long term an employee could be far worse off financially than if they stayed where they are.

Not working doesn't cover any costs.

Anonymous said...

Not working doesn't cover any costs.

which is why the solution is the same as it always is:

cancel the benefits.