The math is simple: Entitlements decline with the growth of good-paying jobs
When analyzing the issues confronting those living in poverty, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between cause and effect. As William Julius Wilson pointed out in his 1987 book, The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy, this is a problem faced by both liberals and conservatives.
A common belief of conservatives and some economists is that government programs such as Section 8 housing, food stamps, unemployment insurance and Medicaid provide such generous benefits that many citizens are encouraged to remain unemployed. While there are indeed some freeloaders who would delight in such indulgence, studies indicate that employment provides a sense of self-worth for most people. However, having a job might be a luxury that some people cannot afford in a period of stagnant wages.
With the minimum wage so inadequately calibrated to the cost of living, it might be wise for someone at the entry level salary to refuse employment in favor of the more bountiful government benefits. That would be a wise economic decision. Some might argue that such a citizen should pursue an entrepreneurial solution, but not everyone has the disposition to follow that course.
What then is the responsibility of the much touted job creators? What special benefits can they expect from the government if they are unable to create jobs and pay their employees a living wage? The expectation that underpaid employees could receive Earned Income Tax Credits to compensate for inadequate wages places the financial burden on the general taxpayers.
Harvard economist Edward L. Glaeser proposes a sound policy. Those on benefits should continue to receive enough of a payment to assure that their income will be greater by being employed. It is good to remember that those on entitlement benefits know how to do the math.