The big difference between the Malthusian conservative critics of social insurance in the early nineteenth century and the Chicago critics of the 1970’s is that the Chicago critics had a point: Providing public support to the “worthy” poor, and then removing it when they began to stand on their own feet, poisoned incentives and was unlikely to lead to good outcomes.
19世纪初马尔萨斯派保守主义对社会保险的批判和芝加哥学派20世纪70年代的批判之间的重大区别在于，芝加哥学派的批判有这样一个要点：为“相称的”穷人提供公共支持，在他们开始自立根生时撤掉支持，这样做会破坏激励，不可能形成好的结果。