Does Welfare Make People Lazy?
A broad overview of the United States’ welfare regime and why it’s important.
I had a conservative-leaning friend tell me recently that government assistance makes people lazy, or at the very least, encourages laziness. This blanket statement triggered me, and we got into a brief argument over it. The argument petered out soon after it started, when I realized that arguing over text is usually pointless. Things get misconstrued, and it’s hard to mount a significant defense when so many threads are being tossed about. Nevertheless, I came away from it convinced that this very old idea that government assistance turns people into leeches is wrong. The problem, though, was that my surety in the moment was based solely on intuition, similar to my conservative friend’s initial statement and following argument.
On its face, there is an ostensible logic to it. If you give someone something, they tend to appreciate it less than if that same person worked hard enough to earn it. So now imagine you gave that person money every two weeks. That person could either take that gift every two weeks or not take it and instead work for two weeks and then be given that same gift as a result of their work. It seems reasonable that most people would choose the former.
The thought experiment makes sense, and I think that is why this idea has stuck around for so long, ever since at least the days of Reagan. People have taken that logic and greatly expanded on it to encompass government welfare, packaging in with it the sinister idea that not only are these people lazy, but that your tax dollars are subsidizing their laziness. There is a whole history of racist dogwhistles that began in the days of Reagan that comes along with any discussion in the US about welfare, but that is for another post. Ultimately, though, I must admit it’s a potent image, one that connects with base ideas of fairness and work ethic, is easy to understand and digest, and stealthily convinces people to work against their own interests.
Before I continue, I will mention that the government has dozens of smaller welfare programs narrowly targeted towards certain groups. These programs include things like social security, free school lunches, student loan forgiveness, and farm subsidies. For this post, I will be focusing exclusively on three big ones that are specifically aimed at helping the poorest Americans: SNAP, unemployment, and Medicaid. It’s also worth noting that some of the United States government’s welfare programs are often defined as corporate welfare. These programs, such as oil subsidies, PPP loans during the pandemic, and other tax credits, are directly aimed at businesses and corporations. For some reason, these programs that pour money into corporate coffers are never the target of ire, though. Odd.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a food assistance program targeted at low- and no-income persons with the goal of helping them maintain a steady, nutritious diet. Although the program is administered by the U. S. Department of Agriculture via the Food and Nutrition Service, benefits are doled out on a state-by-state basis. The amount of benefits awarded to each household varies depending on the household size, income, and expenses. The USDA is responsible for determining what types of food and drink are allowed to be purchased using SNAP benefits. Things like fruits and vegetables, breads, dairy products, and meats are allowed, while alcohol and tobacco, various hygiene products, cooked foods, vitamins, and medicines are explicitly not allowed.
SNAP currently serves around 41 million people every year, though it has seen surges in enrollment during challenging economic periods in the country. In the wake of the 2008 Great Recession, according to Ben Senauer at the Federal Reserve Bank in Boston, “Average monthly participation grew from 26.3 million people in fiscal year 2007 to 44.7 million in FY 2011, and then to 46.5 million by December 2011, when one in seven Americans were enrolled. The 76.8 percent increase reflects the severe financial hardship in many households resulting from the Great Recession and the slow recovery.” During the COVID-19 crisis, Jason DeParle, writing for the New York Times, reported that “More than six million people enrolled in food stamps in the first three months of the coronavirus pandemic…From February to May, the program grew by 17 percent, about three times faster than in any previous three months, according to state data collected by The New York Times.”
While the SNAP program has been tweaked over the years in various ways, just this year, the Trump Administration and Republicans in Congress passed a bill that would cut almost $200 billion from the program. Kevin Williams at NBC reports that, “A CBO analysis released this month estimates that 2.4 million fewer Americans, including families with children, are forecast to receive food stamps benefits in an average month. Other estimates show families across the U.S. could lose anywhere from $72 to $231 per month in support.” The law, passed in July, introduced a myriad of changes that aim to reduce the number of people utilizing SNAP. The changes include expanded work requirements, dramatically limiting waivers for areas with significant unemployment, removing eligibility for thousands of lawfully present immigrants living in the United States, reducing benefits for many low-income households, and increasing the risk that applicants will make mistakes when applying for the program.
Given all of that, it’s worth looking at how effective the SNAP program is at reducing hunger and providing nutrition for America’s poorest households, and whether the billions of dollars required to fund the program are money well spent. First, though, let’s look at the cost of chronic food insecurity. Across the board, no matter how old you are, food insecurity is a strong predictor of detrimental physical and mental health conditions, including hypertension, coronary heart disease, hepatitis, stroke, cancer, asthma, diabetes, arthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and kidney disease. According to Steven Carlson and Joseph LLobera at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), “Several studies based on large national surveys find that food insecurity is associated with the underuse of medication due to cost among working-age adults, including those with chronic disease and diabetes, and among older adults.” Additionally, a large portion of SNAP beneficiaries are children. Heather Hartline-Grafton at the Food Research & Action Center writes, “In fiscal year 2019, about 4 out of every 10 SNAP participants were children. In addition, researchers estimate that half of all of American children will receive SNAP at some point during childhood.” Food insecurity puts children at risk of all manner of adverse health outcomes and can have a long-term effect on their growth and education.
The societal cost of food insecurity is a little harder to estimate, but still compelling to consider. Steven and Joseph at the CBPP go on to write, “Food insecurity imposes a substantial burden on society, including lost productivity and avoidable health care costs. Those who experience food insecurity tend to make greater use of and spend more on health care than those who are food secure…Canadian researchers, for example, using linked survey and administrative data on 67,000 working-age adults in Ontario province, show that public health care expenditures are substantially higher for food-insecure people, even after adjusting for other socioeconomic and demographic characteristics that might affect either food security or costs…The researchers found that individuals in households with moderate food insecurity are a third more likely to use health care services — and expenses among these health care users are a third higher — than those in food-secure households. And as food insecurity increases, so do health care costs. People in households with the most severe food insecurity are 71 percent more likely to use health care services, and the expenses of these health care users are 76 percent higher, than those in food-secure households.”
So, how efficiently does SNAP help fight against food insecurity? Nearly 94% of SNAP’s federal budget goes towards benefits used to purchase food. Additionally, research was done that links SNAP to adults having fewer sick days, making fewer visits to the doctor, less likely to forgo needed care due to cost, and less likely to exhibit psychological distress. SNAP is also beneficial to the economy. According to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, “SNAP is proven to boost the economy. This is especially true during economic downturns, when every $1 billion in increased SNAP funding boosts Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $1.5 billion, supports 13,560 jobs, and creates $32 million in farm income.” The main question, though, is what effect the SNAP program has on people’s willingness to work and how effective work requirements are.
Well, a group of researchers wanted to analyze this very question, and so they looked back on the Great Recession in 2008 when work requirements for SNAP were temporarily lifted and then reinstated. They found that “the requirements caused a much larger proportion of beneficiaries to leave SNAP than previously estimated. Additionally, the requirements did not significantly incentivize employment or earnings for the majority of beneficiaries.” They estimated that upon reinstatement, there was a sharp, almost 24 percent decline in participation in SNAP. Now, whether that drop truly was only people who weren’t working or includes people who found the new requirements too onerous or confusing is unclear, and while people may find that acceptable if it means no public funds go to people who “leech” off public benefits, research continues to suggest that “work requirements did not have a large impact on earnings or employment. Though the requirements appeared to improve earnings for a small subset of SNAP users, there was no statistically significant impact on employment.”
Unemployment Insurance
Unemployment Insurance (UI) is a social insurance program targeted towards workers who have become unemployed through no fault of their own, with the purpose of replacing a portion of their income while they search for another job. The first program of this type in the United States was created in Wisconsin in 1932. Since then, it has expanded to all fifty states and is funded via a mix of state and federal payroll taxes levied on employers. The benefits that unemployed workers receive vary widely by state, with ranges starting at a few hundred dollars a week to upwards of a thousand dollars per week. That said, barring extenuating circumstances, those benefits are rarely enough to fully live off of in most areas. On average, unemployment insurance is available for six months after the employee leaves their job, but that limit and the amount offered per week have been expanded in times of economic crisis like the Great Recession and the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to the National Employment Law Project (NELP), “In March 2025, 7.1 million U.S. workers were counted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as unemployed. Yet only 2.1 million workers filed continued claims for UI benefits. In other words, fewer than 30% of unemployed workers successfully claimed the primary public benefit established to support unemployed workers.” This number increased significantly during the COVID 19 crisis where “roughly roughly one in six U.S. adults (about 40 million people) received unemployment insurance benefits.” The Bipartisan policy center goes on to write that, “eligibility for UI depends on more than unemployment status. Reason for unemployment, length of unemployment, recent work history, and other factors can disqualify an unemployed worker from receiving UI benefits; this group can include new labor market entrants or reentrants, gig economy workers and independent contractors, and those who voluntarily quit their most recent job. The number of individuals eligible for UI is not consistently measured, but government officials and analysts often assume, as a rule of thumb, that roughly half of unemployed workers are eligible for UI at any given time.”
When you look at recent trends, there is a significant gap between those of the unemployed who are eligible for these benefits and those who actually apply and are successfully granted those benefits. Considering the Bureau of Labor statistics from 2022, you see that “The majority—about 7 in 10—of unemployed people who worked in the past 12 months had not applied for UI benefits since their last job.” Among those who did not apply for UI benefits, “55 percent…thought they were ineligible to receive benefits. About 17 percent of the unemployed did not apply because they expected to start working soon. Another 10 percent cited attitudes about or barriers to applying, such as they did not need the money, had a negative attitude about UI, did not know about UI, or had problems with the application process.” As for those who did apply, only “Fifty-five percent who had applied for UI benefits since their last job received benefits.”
Let’s put this all in context. Of the unemployed population in the US in any given year, it’s assumed that roughly half are eligible to receive benefits aimed at helping them manage until they can find another job. According to the data, about 70 percent or so of unemployed people aren’t actually applying for the benefit due to a variety of reasons, including thinking they are ineligible, societal attitudes toward UI, and problems with the application process. Additionally, of the 30 percent or so who do end up applying, only half of them are receiving any benefits at all.
So, as far as effectiveness is concerned, it is clear that UI fails on that mark because it reaches less than half of the people it is intended by its creation to reach. As one of the most criticized welfare programs in the country, the critics do have a point. In its current form, employers are paying thousands of dollars a year for a program that is helping a fraction of the people it is meant to help. So what should be done about it? This is where the critics and I differ, though. While some might advocate getting rid of the program altogether, I would advocate for expanding the program, removing unnecessary barriers and stigmas for those who qualify for it, and reforming how the process largely works across the states.
And we have some evidence that points to why expanding UI benefits can be really beneficial, especially during times of crisis. NELP looked at the data and, according to what they found, “access to unemployment insurance reduced the official poverty rate from 12.9% to 11.4%, preventing 4.7 million people, including 1.4 million children, from falling into poverty in 2020.” Additionally, “An estimated 1.1 million Black people and 1.2 million Latinx people avoided poverty as a result of unemployment insurance benefits. According to a different indicator of poverty, the Supplemental Poverty Measure, unemployment insurance benefits had an even greater anti-poverty impact, preventing 5.5 million people from experiencing poverty in 2020.” And finally, “The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) compared households that received unemployment benefits at some point in the pandemic with households where a worker applied for benefits but did not receive them. The BLS found that successful unemployment benefits recipients were significantly less likely to experience food insecurity, have difficulty with household expenses, fall behind on their mortgage or rent, or report symptoms of anxiety or depression.”
Medicaid
Medicaid is a health insurance program aimed at adults and children with limited income or resources. Established in 1965 under Lyndon B. Johnson, the program was significantly expanded in 2010 when the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed. As of 2022, the program provided taxpayer-funded health insurance to around 85 million low-income people. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), “Overall, children account for 37% of full-benefit enrollment, but 15% of the spending, while seniors and individuals with disabilities account for 21% of enrollment but 52% of the spending…Differences in spending per enrollee reflect differences in health care needs and utilization. For example, seniors and those eligible on the basis of disability tend to have higher rates of chronic conditions, more complex health care needs and are more likely to utilize long-term services and supports (LTSS) than other enrollees.”
KFF also states that, “While Medicaid covers 1 in 5 people living in the United States, Medicaid is a key source of coverage for certain populations. In 2023, Medicaid covered nearly 4 in 10 children, over 8 in 10 children in poverty, 1 in 6 adults, and almost half of adults in poverty. Relative to White children and adults, Medicaid covers a higher share of Black, Hispanic, and American Indian or Alaska Native (AIAN) children and adults. Medicaid covers more than 1 in 4 adults ages 19-64 with disabilities, who are defined as having one or more difficulty related to hearing, vision, cognition, ambulation, self-care, or independent living…Medicaid covers 41% of all births in the United States, nearly half of children with special health care needs, 5 in 8 nursing home residents, 29% of non-elderly adults with any mental illness, and 40% of non-elderly adults with HIV…Medicaid is a key source of coverage for individuals experiencing homelessness and those transitioning out of carceral settings, particularly in states that have adopted the Medicaid expansion.”
Medicaid is funded by the federal government and the states that administer it. According to the Commonwealth Fund, “In 2021, state Medicaid spending for each full-benefit enrollee ranged from $3,750 to $12,425, with a national average of $7,593. This wide variation is driven by differences in how states design and administer their programs as well as variations in the health and characteristics of the covered population, like age, disability, and access to food and stable housing.” Some states have also expanded eligibility for Medicaid thanks to the ACA, while others have chosen not to expand eligibility, limiting the pool of applicants and beneficiaries to the requirements prior to the passing of the ACA.
So, how effective is Medicaid at providing better health outcomes for those enrolled in the program? According to Hannah Katch at the CBPP, “one recent study compared Arkansas and Kentucky, which have adopted the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) Medicaid expansion, with Texas, which hasn’t. In the expansion’s first three years, the uninsured rate among the group eligible for expansion coverage dropped more than 20 percentage points more in Arkansas and Kentucky than in Texas. In Arkansas and Kentucky, the expansion fueled a 29 percent increase in the share of people with a personal doctor and a 24 percent increase in the share of people who received a checkup in the past year.” She goes on to write that Medicaid is, “much more efficient and cost-effective than private insurance: adults on Medicaid cost about 22 percent less than if they were covered by private insurance, after adjusting for differences in health status, Urban Institute research shows. Medicaid also provides more comprehensive benefits than private insurance with significantly lower out-of-pocket cost to beneficiaries.”
The big question, though, is how Medicaid affects work. According to KFF, “In 2023, most Medicaid adults under age 65 were working...Among adults under age 65 with Medicaid who do not receive benefits from the Social Security disability programs, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), and who are not also covered by Medicare (referred to hereafter as “Medicaid adults”), 92% were working full or part-time (64%), or not working due to caregiving responsibilities, illness or disability, or school attendance. The remaining 8% of Medicaid adults reported that they are retired, unable to find work, or were not working for another reason.”
What Are We Looking To Accomplish Here?
So what have we learned? At least in these three examples, the vast majority of the recipients of these benefits are working at least part-time. If they aren’t working, generally it’s because they are either disabled, sick, attending school, or just unable to find work. We also see time and time again that when work requirements are implemented, the only result of that is that some significant portion of the people who are receiving these benefits will lose them. The question then becomes, what is the ultimate goal of these programs? Is it to support people during difficult situations, including during periods of unemployment, with the intention of helping them overcome it, or is it to ensure that everyone in these programs is working or actively trying to work?
If it’s the former, then while some small percentage of “leeches” will always be perceived as taking advantage, the data shows that the vast majority of recipients are well-meaning, good-faith individuals and families who are struggling and wish to better themselves. If it’s the latter, then while stringent work requirements are what’s called for to ensure employment among beneficiaries, it’s virtually guaranteed that some significant portion of people who really need help will miss out on these benefits.
What I’ll say is this: KFF did some research, and they found that in general, “those in better health and with more education are more likely to be working. Health status, age, and education level were all strong predictors of work.” So if the ultimate goal is ensuring anyone who receives help is either already working or actively seeking out work, then we might have it exactly backwards. Requiring work to receive benefits seems like a ploy to ensure the people who need the benefits the most don’t receive benefits, because more often than not, people who are working require fewer benefits. That being the case, if we flip the script and say that people who receive benefits with no requirements are then able to focus on finding work, it all starts to make more sense, especially if we consider research that tells us that if people are young, healthy, and capable, they tend to want to seek out work on their own.