I attributed to you a common left wing position on welfare recipients. It appears I misunderstood you - apparently you don&#x27;t believe welfare recipients are just regular people.<p>If a person chooses to be toxic to those around them, why is that a behavior that should result in us giving them money?<p>Lets make this concrete. Consider a racist who chooses to be an asshole to every non-white person around them, and who also lives in a very diverse area such as Silicon Valley or NYC (and refuses to move to a very white area). They are also sexist to all the women who choose to work outside the home as well. Their voluntarily chosen behavior patterns leave them unemployable.<p>Why is this person deserving of free money taken from productive people of color who choose to pleasantly work for the benefit of others?<p>(I have of course chosen this person to be as offensive to left wing sensibilities as possible.)<p><i>In regards to your first sentence. Surely you don&#x27;t believe that every person who can be employed can find work.</i><p>I do actually believe vastly more people could be working than currently are, because I used to live in India and I saw vastly higher labor utilization. There are a huge number of jobs that simply don&#x27;t get done in the US.<p>E.g., I have a maid clean my flat twice a month, but I&#x27;d like it done twice a week (or daily, like most Indian professionals do). However, labor is simply too scarce in the US for that to be reasonable. Perhaps some of those welfare recipients who are &quot;great to be around&quot; can find me and help me out, should we implement the author&#x27;s proposal.<p>However, if such a proposal only puts half the people on welfare back to work, that&#x27;s still a good outcome.