Why Welfare Doesn’t Work, and What It Really Does…
By
robert108
on June 1, 2007 at 08:17 pm
An opinion piece by robert108:
Lately on this blog, we have been told by defenders of welfare that it helps people.
Is that true? If it is, how can we tell? Can it be measured? Maybe so. If welfare really does what it is claimed to do, we should notice a difference in society, I would think. If taking money from those who earn it, and giving it to the “less fortunate” really helps society, the results should be noticeable.
It would be logical to assume that there is a certain percentage of the population that is either unable to care for itself, or is somewhat unable to care for itself. If that is genetic, for example, then welfare wouldn’t really help to make it better, but we would at least take care of the basic needs of those who couldn’t do it for themselves, and society would be better off for that, right?
In fact, neither of the above is true. The welfare rolls are expanding, both in number and in cost, with no end in sight. So, if it’s so helpful, why are we getting more of it?
This is an especially pertinent question, since most welfare goes to those who are perceived to be disadvantaged by our competitive society, so that, although they are able, they just lack the “boost” that will give them an even chance. OK. Is it working?
Apparently not, since things are getting worse, not better.
Why is this? In my opinion, it’s all a matter of incentive. In the marketplace, if you do something that works, you get rewarded with money, and the consequence is that you do more stuff that works. Conversely, if you do something that doesn’t work, you lose money, and you have an incentive to stop doing that thing that loses you money. Simple enough, eh?
With welfare, though, incentive works the other way around. The welfare you receive isn’t about your effort, it’s about your lack of effort, so your incentive is to do what is rewarded, which is to be dysfunctional. Therefore, you keep doing what gets rewarded. In addition, receiving welfare is often a matter of being in a favored group, like drug addicts, for example. Once again, once you have boarded the welfare gravy train, how much incentive is there to get off of it? With me so far? This explains why welfare is expanding, rather than contracting, and why it is producing more dysfunctional behavior, rather than less.
It gets worse. In the marketplace example, the incentive to stop doing what doesn’t work is the loss of money, but what happens if you are protected from that consequence by welfare? In other words, what you do doesn’t work, but you get rewarded anyway? You have no incentive to stop doing what doesn’t work.
The quickest way to ruin a productive society is to create a welfare state.
Now, we need to care for those who truly can’t make it in today’s society, through no fault of their own. The percentage of the population that really can’t make it is fairly small, I imagine, and undoubtedly stays pretty constant over time. No need for eternally expanding programs for this purpose. However, subsidizing those who simply want to avoid the consequences of their actions is plain wrong. We all suffer.
“When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always be assured of Paul’s vote.”
Lately on this blog, we have been told by defenders of welfare that it helps people.
Is that true? If it is, how can we tell? Can it be measured? Maybe so. If welfare really does what it is claimed to do, we should notice a difference in society, I would think. If taking money from those who earn it, and giving it to the “less fortunate” really helps society, the results should be noticeable.
It would be logical to assume that there is a certain percentage of the population that is either unable to care for itself, or is somewhat unable to care for itself. If that is genetic, for example, then welfare wouldn’t really help to make it better, but we would at least take care of the basic needs of those who couldn’t do it for themselves, and society would be better off for that, right?
In fact, neither of the above is true. The welfare rolls are expanding, both in number and in cost, with no end in sight. So, if it’s so helpful, why are we getting more of it?
This is an especially pertinent question, since most welfare goes to those who are perceived to be disadvantaged by our competitive society, so that, although they are able, they just lack the “boost” that will give them an even chance. OK. Is it working?
Apparently not, since things are getting worse, not better.
Why is this? In my opinion, it’s all a matter of incentive. In the marketplace, if you do something that works, you get rewarded with money, and the consequence is that you do more stuff that works. Conversely, if you do something that doesn’t work, you lose money, and you have an incentive to stop doing that thing that loses you money. Simple enough, eh?
With welfare, though, incentive works the other way around. The welfare you receive isn’t about your effort, it’s about your lack of effort, so your incentive is to do what is rewarded, which is to be dysfunctional. Therefore, you keep doing what gets rewarded. In addition, receiving welfare is often a matter of being in a favored group, like drug addicts, for example. Once again, once you have boarded the welfare gravy train, how much incentive is there to get off of it? With me so far? This explains why welfare is expanding, rather than contracting, and why it is producing more dysfunctional behavior, rather than less.
It gets worse. In the marketplace example, the incentive to stop doing what doesn’t work is the loss of money, but what happens if you are protected from that consequence by welfare? In other words, what you do doesn’t work, but you get rewarded anyway? You have no incentive to stop doing what doesn’t work.
The quickest way to ruin a productive society is to create a welfare state.
Now, we need to care for those who truly can’t make it in today’s society, through no fault of their own. The percentage of the population that really can’t make it is fairly small, I imagine, and undoubtedly stays pretty constant over time. No need for eternally expanding programs for this purpose. However, subsidizing those who simply want to avoid the consequences of their actions is plain wrong. We all suffer.
“When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always be assured of Paul’s vote.”
