On the other hand (isn't it great that economists have so many hands?) if businesses are already having to compete with the welfare office which pays people for doing nothing, isn't it better that people actually do some work for their government check?
I once thought that would be a good “stepping stone” to self-sufficiency and non-welfare life. However, a govt job that pays could become a very unproductive and lazy place that doesn’t lead to a better or non govt job.
Here’s why. First, a private sector business tries to make money, even profit, by using labor and other inputs to create value and sell at a higher price than it cost to produce. Simple ECON101.
However, a government agency exists to get the votes to keep the sponsoring official elected. It also exists to help strengthen a political party or group within the govt. It also exists to perpetuate itself and its budget. None of these goals much benefits the large number of taxpayers who fund the agency. Any benefits to the participants are of little interest. For example, Head Start has been studied and shown to have no measurable benefit. Despite that, recently I heard a radio report touting its wonderfulness. It is certainly a success for the employees and politician sponsors of Head Start—it has lasted many years and gets votes for the sponsor. Such a program wouldn’t survive in a private environment. Is it better than simply giving welfare to people? Such programs offer work instead of a mere paycheck but the work is not as valuable as private sector work—it also puts power in the hands of politicians who can unionize the workers or make the workers vote for them “else you will lose your jobs”. It puts more power in the hands of govt. This weakens the argument for gov’t work programs although I am not sure if straight welfare isn’t worse.