I'm not a big fan of arguments with the structure "We need to stop ameliorating the bad consequences of X, because that creates a disincentive to make a larger change that will reduce or eliminate X." Such arguments prove too much. Should we oppose the existence of the Geneva conventions or the Red Cross because they reduce the incentive to end war by making war slightly less horrible? Should we ban seatbelts and bike helmets because they reduce the incentive to drive safely? Should we make it illegal to fire bad employees because it reduces the incentive to vet them before hiring?
This debate on incentives was of a higher quality during the poor laws reform in 1834 in the UK
"It was thought that a deterrent workhouse would cause a moral reformation among the poor: that they would go out and find work rather than submit to 'the House'." -- Marjie Bloy
Parents were stripped of parental rights upon admission to the poor house and the question was whether their children should receive any education. The problem was that it would be unfair to hard-working parents who had to pay for their children education.
It was around 1900 that some statistical regularity could be observed with Otto Ammon (https://polsci.substack.com/p/pyramid-or-turnip-on-social-stratification). He saw that 2% developed country population lived in misery (beggars, vagrant, criminals) and that 20% lived in poverty (income too low to make ends meet, services priced for the middle-class are too expensive).
Disincentivizing children to be born in a functional environment while incentivizing higher fertility in dysfunctional households is only good for social services caseworkers. There is no absolute solution to this, it is a balancing act between the freedom of life choices for the welfare recipient, and externalities imposed on the remaining 98% and 80%.
I'm not a big fan of arguments with the structure "We need to stop ameliorating the bad consequences of X, because that creates a disincentive to make a larger change that will reduce or eliminate X." Such arguments prove too much. Should we oppose the existence of the Geneva conventions or the Red Cross because they reduce the incentive to end war by making war slightly less horrible? Should we ban seatbelts and bike helmets because they reduce the incentive to drive safely? Should we make it illegal to fire bad employees because it reduces the incentive to vet them before hiring?
This debate on incentives was of a higher quality during the poor laws reform in 1834 in the UK
"It was thought that a deterrent workhouse would cause a moral reformation among the poor: that they would go out and find work rather than submit to 'the House'." -- Marjie Bloy
Parents were stripped of parental rights upon admission to the poor house and the question was whether their children should receive any education. The problem was that it would be unfair to hard-working parents who had to pay for their children education.
It was around 1900 that some statistical regularity could be observed with Otto Ammon (https://polsci.substack.com/p/pyramid-or-turnip-on-social-stratification). He saw that 2% developed country population lived in misery (beggars, vagrant, criminals) and that 20% lived in poverty (income too low to make ends meet, services priced for the middle-class are too expensive).
Disincentivizing children to be born in a functional environment while incentivizing higher fertility in dysfunctional households is only good for social services caseworkers. There is no absolute solution to this, it is a balancing act between the freedom of life choices for the welfare recipient, and externalities imposed on the remaining 98% and 80%.
The point raised in this article has been in an ongoing debate now for over 50 years with no end in sight. Rent seekers help maintain the turmoil.