Duncan Smith's "incentive for the unemployed to move"

[Darat]

Was reading about a suggestion from Duncan Smith regarding doing something about "unemployment blackspots" (see: Duncan Smith's "incentive for the unemployed to move" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...n-to-tell-unemployed-to-get-on-your-bike.html ).

He is right to point out this problem and he is right that it needs to be tackled however his proposal just doesn't make sense to me.

He is suggesting that if someone in one of the blackspots moves to a new area to get a job they should "go to the top" of the council property waiting list. Yet we appear to have a shortage of council housing in many of the areas where there are apparently jobs e.g. the South East, and even people at the top of the waiting list have to wait years to get a property. So unless we build more council property how is this any kind of incentive? How can it work?

 

[Ashles]

He is right to point out this problem and he is right that it needs to be tackled however his proposal just doesn't make sense to me.

I completely agree. It is a real problem and I have respect that they have identified it and want to try and change it. But their answer doesn't seem great.

But I am struggling to think of a better solution.

How can you get people away from stagnant areas where they can't get jobs to areas they may have a better chance?

Maybe subsidise commuting costs? You can commute a good distance if you really want a job. I commute almost 120 miles a day (in total).
If I were desperate for a job and the commuting costs were manageable I would travel a fair distance.

 

[Lothian]

So unless we build more council property how is this any kind of incentive? How can it work?

It is Ok. We know that the Tories are in favour of people getting on their bikes to find new work. By the time they have strapped their furniture and possessions to the bike they won't be going anywhere fast.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

It is Ok. We know that the Tories are in favour of people getting on their bikes to find new work.

Are bikes included in VAT?

Why can't IDS work on getting jobs in the communities these people already live in rather than ghettoising the country? It seems the Tories always treat citizens as means to an end rather than ends in themselves.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Maybe subsidise commuting costs? You can commute a good distance if you really want a job. I commute almost 120 miles a day (in total).
If I were desperate for a job and the commuting costs were manageable I would travel a fair distance.

For many of these areas it won't just be a matter of cost but of availability of transport. In one place I lived (after the deregulation of the buses) the bus service was reduced - down to one about every 2 hours starting late morning (9amish) from the once an hour service. If you didn't have access to your own transport you were pretty much cut off.

 

[Lothian]

Are bikes included in VAT?

yes

Why can't IDS work on getting jobs in the communities these people already live in rather than ghettoising the country? It seems the Tories always treat citizens as means to an end rather than ends in themselves.

If the problem is simply that employers reject people based on their address the solution is to find some way that alternative addresses can be given. Perhaps all correspondence for jobs advertised in job centres / agencies should go via the job centre and no private address is to be requested or given until the person takes up employment. That way there is the added bonus that the job centres can see people are applying for jobs as opposed to merely claiming to.

That last comment is not my opinion of all job seekers but working near a job centre, I have overhead more than one conversation "coaching" people as to the answers they are supposed to give when asked what they have been doing to find work.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Was reading about a suggestion from Duncan Smith regarding doing something about "unemployment blackspots" (see: Duncan Smith's "incentive for the unemployed to move" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...n-to-tell-unemployed-to-get-on-your-bike.html ).

He is right to point out this problem and he is right that it needs to be tackled however his proposal just doesn't make sense to me.

He is suggesting that if someone in one of the blackspots moves to a new area to get a job they should "go to the top" of the council property waiting list. Yet we appear to have a shortage of council housing in many of the areas where there are apparently jobs e.g. the South East, and even people at the top of the waiting list have to wait years to get a property. So unless we build more council property how is this any kind of incentive? How can it work?

Seems like the wrong solution to a real problem.

Would it not be cheaper and easier to provide incentives for the jobs to move (or in the case of direct government employment to move the jobs) to where there is an available workforce with housing, than move the workforce to where there is already a housing shortage?

 

[Ashles]

For many of these areas it won't just be a matter of cost but of availability of transport. In one place I lived (after the deregulation of the buses) the bus service was reduced - down to one about every 2 hours starting late morning (9amish) from the once an hour service. If you didn't have access to your own transport you were pretty much cut off.

True, there are some shocking public transport infrastructures in some places.
I lived in Cambridge and public transport there was quite dreadful, and that's in a wealthy University city with decent employment. If they can't manage to run buses very well then I can only imagine how bad some places are.

I wish public transport were better.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I've noticed a marked improvement on the rails in the last five years or so. Remember when it was a daily complaint about the state of the rails?

True, the tube has been dreadful on the weekends for the last year, but that is mostly due to "TFL Investment work", or so they say.

 

[Darat]

The BBC seems to indicate a more reasonable interpretation of what he has said he wants to see happening: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10426714.stm

Mr Duncan Smith said he did not expect people to relocate to different parts of the country, nor did he want everyone to move to the south east of England.


But where work was available some 10 or 15 miles away from where someone lived, people would need support to take advantage of the opportunity.
"People are desperate to be able to work and be with their families," he said.

"We need to look at ways to find that for them."

...snip...

That sounds much more reasonable but as I mentioned above even 10-15 miles can prove very problematic when you have very poor public transport options in an area.

 

[Naddig74]

I always instinctively recoil in horror from Conservative employment policies.

However, the most important change that needs to be made is in the attitudes of the Social Class 5's. I live in an area where there are families on their third, or even fourth, generation of claiming benefits as a career. Housed, fed and clothed entirely by the state.

Bizarrely, they are also the people most likely to use the ''coming over here, taking our jobs'' line about immigrants.

 

[Darat]

I always instinctively recoil in horror from Conservative employment policies.

However, the most important change that needs to be made is in the attitudes of the Social Class 5's. I live in an area where there are families on their third, or even fourth, generation of claiming benefits as a career. Housed, fed and clothed entirely by the state.

Bizarrely, they are also the people most likely to use the ''coming over here, taking our jobs'' line about immigrants.

That underclass grew a lot under Thatcher, I find it amusing that the Tories are being accused of acting like Thatcher, despite the rhetoric and Tory propaganda benefits under Thatcher were much more generous than the last 10 years or so under Labour plus they were hardly policed at all. She should be known as the welfare Queen! The last Labour governments have really tightened up on benefits and reduced their value since Thatcher's years.

I doubt there is any further significant and cost effective tightening to be done with the current system, beyond simply denying benefits.

 

[plumjam]

The Tories could sell the underclass to China.
Plenty of work in Guangzhou, and the food's better than Lidl or even Netto.
They could also learn how to make their own shellsuits.

 

[theprestige]

Seems like the wrong solution to a real problem.

Would it not be cheaper and easier to provide incentives for the jobs to move (or in the case of direct government employment to move the jobs) to where there is an available workforce with housing, than move the workforce to where there is already a housing shortage?

This. I mean, isn't this what jobs do already?

 

[quixotecoyote]

I live in Missouri, and I ran into this problem this year. The job market for my skills in Kansas City is almost gone. However, there are many other places where it looks like I might be able to find a good job in a few months. Unfortunately, it's problematic for me to move and find one. Since I'm in a situation with no savings and plenty of debt (thanks education system), it's very risky to go further into debt getting to those places, getting a cheap apartment and trying to find apart time job with hours that don't interfere with job hunting.

If I thought I had some safety net to help me make that move I would, but I'm still fighting to get the unemployment for the time I spent hunting for the job I have (which I'm overqualified for and eats my job-hunt time), when I was living off my wife's income and borrowing the difference for expenses.

I'm not sure what would work for Britain, but for me, simply fixing the broken unemployment insurance system would have let me focus on jobs that would have let me contribute at my level of ability rather than settling for a job as a data entry drone. Beyond that, a no interest loan/grant/stipend/whatever given to the unemployed on the condition of moving to an area with a high market for their skillset would seem to be the better choice. Unfortunately, we can't make what we have work, so we can forget about what we need.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Perhaps they can move there and start building new council houses. There we go, employment and housing situation solved.

 

[WildCat]

Instead of council housing why not subsidize their rent in private housing? That's the direction the US has been moving in. Section 8 housing.

 

[lionking]

Even with our current (slightly) left of centre Labor government, unemployed are required to travel up to 90 minutes each way to work, or they forfeit their umemployment benefit. I don't see a problem with this. I see far too many people only wanting to work in their own neighbourhoods.

 

[geni]

Instead of council housing why not subsidize their rent in private housing? That's the direction the US has been moving in. Section 8 housing.

Already done to a large extent but doesn't adress the problem that there is a housing shortage. England had a 10% increase in house prices over the last year (other parts of the UK were a bit lower). With those kind of prices you are going to have to build more houses/flats and the private sector isn't.

 

[geni]

That sounds much more reasonable but as I mentioned above even 10-15 miles can prove very problematic when you have very poor public transport options in an area.

Fairly easy to cycle within 90 minutes which is what the current regs require.