A few additional points:<p>1) Based on what I&#x27;ve read, some welfare programs originally were designed to encourage poor women to stay home and take care of their kids, as if parenting was a priority for people or our society.<p>2) The whole meme seems no different than the myth of the &#x27;Welfare Queen&#x27; in the 1980s (or thereabouts). I&#x27;ve never seen data supporting it.<p>3) The premise is an assumption or fear (maybe a paranoia) that people are naturally incredibly lazy, that given the option they will do nothing with their lives, and that they are motivated only or primarily by money. I don&#x27;t think that&#x27;s realistic. Would you take more money to be a janitor? To watch soap operas all day? Managers who have some sophistication understand that people have intrinsic motivations unrelated to money, and in fact adding the extrinsic motivations (e.g., monetary incentives) can harm the intrinsic ones and reduce productivity. People have many limitations and motivations unrelated to money.<p>4) Research I encountered many years ago said that most welfare recipients don&#x27;t do it for the long-term; instead people end up in the programs for short periods when needed.<p>5) Other research I saw more recently said a leading cause of people being in welfare programs is loss of their assets due to healthcare costs. Also, I think it&#x27;s widely accepted that mental illness is a leading cause of homelessness.<p>6) At least a small body of research says that the most effective charity is to simply give recipients money directly; generally they use it well (and overhead is much less). See GiveDirectly (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.givedirectly.org&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.givedirectly.org&#x2F;</a>).<p>Finally, I don&#x27;t think people mean it this way, but let&#x27;s step back and and think: What have we become when we respond to the weakest and poorest by persecuting them and calling them lazy.