I used to consider welfare the price of doing business in a capitalist economy. The Phillips curve famously demonstrated the inverse relationship between unemployment and inflation.1 As unemployment declined, infation rose and vice versa. The goal of policy makers was then to tune the economy to employ as many as possible while maintaining a grip on inflation. In other words, if 3.8% was the optimum rate of unemployment, then we had a moral obligation to provide welfare benefits to that segment of the population.
Since the Clinton Administration vowed to "end welfare as we know it2," a movement has been afoot to place as many welfare recipients as possible into the job market. Welfare benefits are now limited and the current administration wants to limit food stamp benefits as well.3 The rhetoric sounds good. We're empowering people by putting them to work. We're attempting to break the cycle of poverty. The problem is that this effort is screws the people who most benefitted from social welfare: those who've never collected it in the first place.
As the unemployable venture off the welfare roll and into the job market, they often find themselves in the market segment which is the most demanding and least desireable, they land in service sector. These are the people who are fouling up your sandwich orders and your flight reservations; they are sending your luggage to Boise and your skis to Miami. These are the people putting the wrong fluids in the wrong holes at the lube shop. (Not that it matters since they didn't bother to reaffix the caps.) And they are calling during dinner with bothersome attempts to sell you hardware which will zap telemarketers. The Jeff Curve famously demonstrates a direct correllation between the number of habitual welfare recipients in the service sector and the number of incorrect order incidents.4 I now consider welfare a method of quality control.
Let's face it, some people are far better suited to sitting on the couch and watching Oprah then they are fitted for getting your order correct. Personally I'd rather spend tax revenues to put them back on the couch then I would to send hard working Americans off to war against a tyrant who is not capable of immediately and directly threatening the United States. If we really wanted to force Hussein to cry Uncle, then we'd just fill the Iraqi service sector with our habitual welfare recipients.
I understand that among welfare recipients there are proud people who have been hit with life's right jab. Every effort should be made to help those who want to help themselves. But at some point you start to scrape the bottom of the economic barrel. Rather then stir up that sediment, I suggest we just pay to leave it on the couch where it belongs. We could support thousands of couch blobs for the price of a single military aircraft. Think about it the next time your pizza arrives cold and covered with the wrong toppings...
1. John Petroff
2. Issues2000, Bill Clinton
3. Are the Poor Suffering From Hunger Anymore?
4. Based soley on annecdotal evidence amassed by the author.
