Here is an article which, despite its topic being "child poverty" rather than "labor market," discusses a concept that in my mind goes right to the heart of the title of this thread:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/11/us/politics/child-poverty-analysis-safety-net.html?searchResultPosition=1
The article discusses different efforts by two different political parties pursuing agendas which were different, and including bipartisan efforts. One of those political parties had a strong preference for rewarding people for working. The article, which is a
NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE, praises the success of this feature (the rewarding of efforts by poor people to get jobs). Helping people who are willing to help themselves.
Its not just about the amount of dollars that flow into households from the program itself, said Robert Doar, the president of the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Its about sending a message that going to work is the path out of poverty. That message got through.
Mr. Doar said the welfare law, by encouraging work, made policymakers more inclined to support other aid expansions.
If you work, we will help you Americans like that message, he said.
Personally, I have always agreed with this and been frustrated by programs which incentivize laziness. And here we have the main question raised by the title of this thread. How are these lazy people supporting themselves? What dysfunctional and damaging policies are making it possible, even convenient, for people to have lives, and whole familial generations, of unemployment? It is apparently possible, due to misguided policies and programs, to receive income and resources for sitting on one's couch. It was, I thought, rightful for the
NEW YORK TIMES to raise this very question.
As an aside, something about the article frustrated me substantially. It gave information which would allow a discerning reader to figure out that a substantial portion of the decline in child poverty since the early '90s was simply due to fudging the numbers. Basically, redefining the term "poverty." Moving the goal posts. But the article did not point this out. This omission, I thought, was dishonest.