Actually, people in areas of high rate of unemployment can't simply go out and get a job and educate themselves. Education is expensive (unless you create the social insurance of public university, vocation, and apprenticeship), and the microeconomics would suggest people can't just go spend money they don't have to go to college or to move to an expensive area where there are jobs. Really, though, it's the macroeconomics that are the problem.
In areas of high unemployment, you can't have jobs. You open a shop to sell things and nobody has any money to buy. People over in the next area—people with spending money—also have shops near them, and buy there because there is more opportunity cost in spending extra time and money driving into the poverty-stricken area to shop than there is in shopping locally. Because you can't get revenue, you can't pay yourself or your workers, and so you can't support employment.
As well, a Dividend isn't means-tested: you continue to receive it regardless of situation. For example, the Federal policy would pay $500/month; a full-time job at minimum wage would pay $1,667 (minus taxes) at the current minimum wage, and $2,500 (minus taxes) at the $15 target often discussed. A person receiving $500/month would sit across the street from a neighbor also receiving $500/month, plus another $1,333 (or $2,000) per month. Taxes and Dividend taken into account, the unemployed has $500/month while the employed has $1,833 (or $2,500) each month.
That's a 266% (or 500%) increase in standard-of-living, while the incentive to educate yourself and become an IT technician (at $35/hr) is a 250% increase in standard-of-living. You suggest that the existence of McDonalds causes people to lose their will to seek education, since they can just make $10/hr running fries.
The Dividend is based in lucrative motive and competition. It couples the economy broadly to itself to ensure that the demand for goods exists, enabling purchasing in poorer local economies and thus providing the supply of jobs to those who would seek them.
However, I was more interested in the consideration that higher unemployment leads to slower labor force growth—reduced labor supply—while low unemployment leads to increased labor force growth. Stronger welfares in absence of a high minimum wage lead to an increased labor force growth and increased labor supply. Therefor your model needs to account for the effect of lower unemployment itself on labor force size, per-capita income, and household standard of living.