The fee could be to the government (and this is the way I interpreted Shankar’s comment), so a kind of tax on applications. This seems to resolve the issues you mention except for the first one. For that a small monthly subsidy based on some function of income/having a job or not/wealth could be an idea.
Then a similar thing could be done for job openings by companies to avoid fake job listings etc.?
I expect that sort of thing could work in some circumstances. The maxim is “tax what you want to see less of” after all.
The government here currently pays unemployed people a living allowance while they look for work, on the condition that they apply for jobs or similar activities: the default requirement equates to 20 job applications per month[1]. I suppose the government could both require people to apply for jobs on penalty of losing their living allowance if they don’t, and also charge them to apply for jobs, but this seems inefficient.
The fee could be to the government (and this is the way I interpreted Shankar’s comment), so a kind of tax on applications. This seems to resolve the issues you mention except for the first one. For that a small monthly subsidy based on some function of income/having a job or not/wealth could be an idea.
Then a similar thing could be done for job openings by companies to avoid fake job listings etc.?
I expect that sort of thing could work in some circumstances. The maxim is “tax what you want to see less of” after all.
The government here currently pays unemployed people a living allowance while they look for work, on the condition that they apply for jobs or similar activities: the default requirement equates to 20 job applications per month[1]. I suppose the government could both require people to apply for jobs on penalty of losing their living allowance if they don’t, and also charge them to apply for jobs, but this seems inefficient.
One could argue that this requirement is far too high and I would agree.