> I would especially argue against the idea that leisure is a virtue amongst the poor. . . Leisure may not be good for the poor (because it leads to depression

> I would especially argue against the idea that leisure is a virtue amongst the poor. . . Leisure may not be good for the poor (because it leads to depression and social alienation) but it is valued by the poor. Just like an alcoholic may value a drink even though it causes him harm. All things being equal, leisure is generally preferred over work. > welfare, in the U.S., is not perpetual . . . The fact that the government-offered choice not to work may not be permanent does not mean that it does not contribute to poverty. If I can spend spend five years of my life not working, making kids, and getting myself in trouble, not only am I likely to be poor during those five years, but I may well continue to be poor for a long time thereafter as a result of the choices I made during those five years. See http://nationalinterest.org/article/swedish-models-869?page=show http://nationalinterest.org/article/swedish-models-869?page=... for a long answer on why Sweden does not present a good model for welfare.