Paying People Not To Work=Less Work (SURPRISE!)

This study from researchers at Harvard and the University of Exeter brings facts to the arguments about whether government handouts are productive or not. 

During a randomized trial conducted from July 2020 to May 2021, researchers assigned 2,073 low-income participants to receive a one-time unconditional cash transfer of either $500 or $2,000. Another 3,170 people with similar financial, demographic and socioeconomic characteristics served as a control group. The trial was funded by an anonymous nonprofit.

Participants earned an average of about $950 a month and had $530 in unearned income (e.g., food stamps). About 80% had children, and 55% were unemployed. Over 15 weeks they were surveyed about their physical, mental and financial well-being. Forty-three percent also agreed to allow researchers to observe their bank balances and financial transactions.

The top-line result: Handouts increased spending for a few weeks—on average $26 a day in the $500 group and $82 a day in the $2,000 group—but had no observable positive effect on any individual outcome. Bank overdraft fees, late-payment fees and cash advances were as common among cash recipients as in the control group.

Handout recipients fared worse on most survey outcomes. They reported less earned income and liquidity, lower work performance and satisfaction, more financial stress, sleep quality and physical health, and higher levels of loneliness and anxiety than the control group. There was no difference between the two cash groups.

These findings contradicted the predictions of 477 social scientists and policy makers the researchers surveyed. That’s not surprising. Most liberal academics and politicians believe government handouts are the solution to all problems. If transfer payments were a ticket to the middle class, the War on Poverty would have succeeded long ago.

The researchers posited that perhaps the cash payments weren’t generous enough to generate a positive result. “Receiving some, but not enough, money may have made their needs—and the gap between their resources and needs—more salient, which, in turn, may have made them feel distressed,” they write.

“Needs” is a subjective term. The theory is that low-income people who got handouts became more stressed when they realized they still couldn’t afford everything they “needed,” or more likely, wanted. If that’s true, simply giving people even more cash would surely lead to the same problem.

More plausible, the payments made work less rewarding, which reduced feelings of personal well-being. Cash recipients reported less earned income and felt worse about their work. It’s no surprise that people who received a large percentage of their monthly income for doing nothing were less motivated to work and less satisfied with their work. Earning a paycheck can give workers a sense of personal agency that encourages them to make better financial and health decisions. Receiving a handout may do the opposite.

Why Government Productivity is Always Less Than the Private Sector

Want to understand why government productivity is inevitably much worse than the private sector?

Imagine there are two companies. Lets call them Alpha and Beta.

At Alpha, employees get reviewed frequently and are rewarded with raises if they meet their goals. Those that don't meet their goals for many quarters are fired and replaced with new employees. The company's motto is: Adequate is Not Good Enough.

At Beta, performance reviews have few consequences. Employees don't get raises for meeting goals, but rather for years of employment with the company. Employees who fail to meet goals are allowed to stay with the company as long as they want to. The company's motto is: Adequate Is Good Enough. 

What would you expect to happen?  Beta employees who are ambitious and can meet goals realize they can make more money working at Alpha. Alpha employees who can't or don't want to meet their goals get fired or quit and go to work at Beta.  Over time, what happens? Alpha ends up with more of the better performers, Beta ends up with fewer.

Now if Alpha and Beta are both in competitive industries, Alpha does well and grows; Beta shrinks and eventually goes out of business. But what if Beta has no competition? What if they can literally force their shareholders to give them money to stay afloat? They just keep getting worse and bigger.

It's just that way with the public sector and the private sector. The private sector attracts more of the ambitious goal-oriented employees; the government attracts the less ambitious people who seek employment security over accomplishment. Neither will ever be made up entirely of one type or the other, but the skews will be in opposite directions.

Economics 101: That which you reward you will get more of. That which you penalize you will get less of.

Work Versus Welfare

It is a fundamental economic principle that if you pay people more to do A than you do to do B, you will get more people doing A.  A new Cato Institute study demonstrates how this principle applies to choices between work and welfare.

The current welfare system provides such a high level of benefits that it acts as a disincentive for work. Welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states (even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit) and in 13 states it pays more than $15 per hour. If you live in Hawaii, welfare provides you with almost $50,000 in payments (see Table 14 below). You would have to earn over $60,000 in pretax income just to match those benefits (see Table 15 below). Is it any wonder that Hawaii has so many people who choose not to work? In California unless you have jobs that pay you at least $37,000, you would be better off on welfare.Is it any wonder that California has 12% of the country's population but a third of all its welfare recipients?

And that's just the monetary aspect. It does not account for the value to you of the extra 40, 50 ,60 hours of leisure time you enjoy when you're not having to work.

Welfare recipients are often maligned as being stupid people. Maybe not.