4 ms·

>Welfare traps are a policy feature for company owners who employ a lot of people. It's simpler than that. There's not even a need to speculate about outside

>Welfare traps are a policy feature for company owners who employ a lot of people. It's simpler than that. There's not even a need to speculate about outside meddling. No bureaucrat or appointee ever got a promotion or got more resources at their disposal for getting people off of government services and shrinking the relevance of the program. If you start with the program serving 10k people budget negotiations, getting those job reqs, etc, etc. will be harder if the program is so good that next year there's only 9k people on it. There's a massive incentive to just not give a shit about giving people a bridge to actually get off of welfare because why would any organization actively give a shit about creating a pathway toward making itself less relevant.

pydry 5y ago
>It's simpler than that. This isnt complicated. >No bureaucrat or appointee ever got a promotion or got more resources at their disposal for getting people off of government services and shrinking the relevance of the program. I can remember a number of such examples where there were incentives this being just one: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/30/cruel-benefits-sanctions-dwp-job-advisers-evidence-work https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/30/cruel-... If business runs government then it's in their interests to keep benefits systems stingy, capricious, hard to navigate and unpredictable as it makes people more reliant on their employers. Removing it altogether would probably trigger riots but the frog can certainly be boiled.