Anyone that's ever worked part-time knows the "we have to send you home because if you work anymore this week you might be considered full-time by Uncle Sam and

Anyone that's ever worked part-time knows the "we have to send you home because if you work anymore this week you might be considered full-time by Uncle Sam and that's bad." Another thought is throughput. If welfare wasn't so closely tied to employment, working relationships could then be more ephemeral until one found a best fit. This may also look like more cautious hiring, which directly leads to missed opportunities for all parties. Edit: Capital buys employees, but it also buys time. For every extra dollar an employee costs the amount of time it takes to make the decision to hire that employee also increases. An efficient job market would compensate based on contribution, which is a lot more possible if a significant amount wasn't mandated to be spent, and then guilted into continue spending because, you know, you don't want to take away someone's welfare.