THE FUTURE OF UNEMPLOYMENT

Hokitika Guardian, 2 September 1931, Page 3

THE FUTURE OF UNEMPLOYMENT

(Otago “Daily Times.”) The growth,of the dimension of the unemployment problem .a New Zea--5 land is emphasised in the report of 1 the Unemployment Board lately presented to Parliament, which shows >. |that registrations at. the unemploy- ■ ment bureaux of the Labour Departl - ment rose by, a practically imbroketj succession of increases since Novemb--1 er of last year. Prior to that time the number of registered unemployed hr fluctuated according to seasons. During 1929 there was for the first nine month s a total of only two or three thousand names on the unemployment registers, but in October the Government announced that work would be provided within a few weeks for all able-bodied men, and the effect ,wa s at once, to swell the number of registration. They increased in seven days from 2466 to 4924, and during the. fol- : lowing week to 6264. ... ... From this period there was a decline until February 1930, when the registrations commenced to rise, reflecting doubtless the growing influence of the financial depression upon the labour market. Towards the end of last year registrations were rising at an alarming. rate, as the report that a body to deal with unemployment would be organised developed into a fact. Consequent upon . the announcement by the Unemployment Board l of its schemes for the provision of immediate employment a sudden increase in registrations wa s rcc rded. At the end of November the number of unempolyed on the hooks of the Department I was 7402, at that time an abnormally high figure; by the end of January 1931, the number had risen to 16,007; and at the end of March, the number was 38,028. The latest announcements of the Department show that at the present time the total of registered unemployed is greater than this by some ten thousand. , A study of these statistics leaves no room to doubt that the knowledge that relief is oh l ,- able acts as the main incentive to the j unemployed to place themselves on the | register. There is indeed, ground for i' the' assumption that the provision of relief, particularly" in return for work 1 which is not, of an arduous character. 1 increases the number of unemployed. 1 On this aspect of the question the re- i' port of the Unemployment Beard |< itself is somewhat , contradictory. In 1 a general preamble the Board at- j tributes the increase in the number 1 of. registrations mainly to the nbnor- 'I mality of economic conditions from 1 the time when it came into existence. In an .appendix, however, it is stat- ’ ed : “This increase . . / . . ... is hv no f means entirely due ~tota change in f economic conditions generally since- 1 last .November. . Indeed, sign s of at i least, partial recovery in the economic sphefe are not lacking.” ' It is interesting to note the contributary . case s to the increase ' in unemployment registrations. The ) Board takes responsibility for making every, effort to induce unem])loyed to register, and it was, of course, ' made plain that only registered men won?I receive relief* 1 work. j. There, are however, other less obvious causes. The prevailing economic con- j ditions are said to have disposed local [ bodies to decrease the number of men in their employment, though this appears to be an assumption on the 1 part of the board; the. existence of , the Board is held to liave caused a ) relaxi, 4; of the efforts of employers to keep men in work from motives of | sympathy; the uncertainty of the financial outlook caused employers to -r

postpone all but immcniately ui-gen: work; farmers, farmers’ sons, superannuate workers, and persons with private sources of income were among the; applicants for relief work. It must, of course, he taken into account that the figures relative to unemployment registrations are inclusive from February, of unemployed on reliefworks* • while .prior,- to that time the figures shown are; in respect of \those who had registered as unemployed but were not placed im employment. Ap . interpretation' which must unfortunately be-placed, upon the report is that 'the provision of widespread schemes for the relief of the workless is tending to create,a class of permanently “unemployed.” It can be stated , without attempting to minimise v the amount of unemployment in the Dominion, that the relief works have for tlie most part been of an unexacting nature, and have encouraged the habitually idle to seek a part-time occupation which, while making no great demand upon their energies, has offered them at least some remuneration.

It is . significant that although registration of unemployed at the Labour Department’s bureaux has been invited since the. beginning of April, 1921, the average annual number of registraions was inconsiderable so long as the department was acting merely as a labour agency and did not control, the supply of labour for public works or relief works. In surmising that the present amount of unemployment may be in part due to the disinclination of employers to undertake -any, but urgent work, the Unemployment Board makes a further significant suggestion: “The number of registered unemployed thus is probably considerably larger than is strictly justified by the economic state of the country.” The provision of funds for unemployment relief in New Zealand has imposed -a very onerous duty upon the

citizen, as d it is one that threatens to become more costly than it is. While every sympathy is felt with the thousands who, through no fault of their own, are forced to appeal for aid, it is important that the public j should not be called upon to contribute more than is necessary, and it is equally important that the funds which are provided shall he advanta,g«ous!y applied. Hopes centre at present upon the ability of the new Unemployment Board to find some form of relief schemes which will ensure, at least, that the unemployed shall be given work of a productive nature, and poss:bly this is all that can be hoped for at present;. It appears, however, that there U a rn-ed that the regulations regarding the registration of unemployed should be most scrupulously observed, and even, if necessary, amended in order t that a scheme designed merely to vivo relief to the genuinely unemployed in time of emergency shall not he allowed to invite abuses. The development of unemployment insurance at Home ,to extravagant proportions has received sufficient emphasis in trie past few days. Unemployment relief in New Zealand still remains minparat'velv free from abuses, but considerable room exists for an improvement in the system that is in operat-