> The real problem here is the welfare state we've created. We hand out so much money in social programs that it's impractical for citizens to take low-paying, undesirable jobs. I have actually known people who have expressed that exact sentiment to me- why should I work when I can get more income from unemployment checks?

I don't buy it. Since the 1996 welfare reform, a person is limited to 5 total years on welfare, and unless you have children you'll pretty much never qualify for welfare anyway. I don't believe government programs are still a significant factor in the decisions of Americans to not work.

Your unemployment example is interesting, because isn't that what unemployment insurance is supposed to do? You get paid a percentage of your old income up to a maximum set by the state (in my state it's $450/wk, and you would have had to make more than $46,696 a year to qualify for that -- hardly a really attractive option). If the amount you would collect in unemployment insurance is more than you would make doing minimum wage work, that means your old job was significantly better paying than minimum wage. One of the ideas behind the unemployment plan is that it allows people who were working skilled jobs the time to find another similarly-paying job rather than putting in 40 hours at Taco Bell just to stay afloat. And at any rate unemployment benefits are pretty severely time-limited.

Everything I've read about the welfare reforms in 1996 have indicated they were a huge success and ended the sort of lifetime welfare recepients that you indicate exist. If you have data otherwise I'd like to see it.

Stephen