> Neither the federal government nor the states that ran the welfare-to-work programs had the political will to rethink the programs, which they had worked already to reform.
This is an under-appreciated constraint on government-run welfare programs and other government-run charities.
The larger problem – providing welfare and other forms of charity – is, of course, huge, complex, and possibly impossible-to-solve (completely).
Most political leaders are focused on making their problems someone else's problem. We tend to overweigh the amount of "thought" going into these things.
In this case, you had an expensive benefit that was politically unpopular with just about everyone and very expensive to local government (who provides the workforce and shares costs). Welfare to work "fixed" that, and at the end of the day, most of the people who fall off the wagon end up on the Social Security Disability rolls.
All the stakeholders are happy:
* Recipients are happy - They get their money, and deal with less bullshit once their get the benefit.
* People who get off of government supports are happy. They have a job.
* Local politicians are happy - Social Security pays for everything, their share goes away.
* Local voters are happy - "We're not paying for those freeloaders. Derp."
Well, it's partly a problem of shifting the problem to a much larger one that affects much more people, which allows the original stakeholders to shift responsibility. The new problem includes the entire State or US population as a stakeholder, and they are not happy that the burden has been shifted to them.
Put another way, local pain is spread throughout a much larger area, allowing a more average level of burden overall (which helps heavily affected areas), but more importantly allows hiding of the cost for the local area, so local stakeholders are "happier", if by happier you mean they are now upset about the same thing under a different guise, which they no longer see as their own responsibility.
The problem is that over time the miracle has proven to be largely a fluke of the labor market at the time (there was a large demand for low skill workers when the program was started) and people who went through the former style of retrain and reeducate do better over time. In that case I don't think the solution can be called good since it has poorer results than what it replaced.
Read the article: recipients (and people who formerly received assistance) are not happy. The opposite of what you write is true--they have to deal with more onerous requirements and aren't getting good jobs.
Twenty years later, sure. At the time, it was a huge deal. Lots has changed since then. People really want to work... Previously any type of income was forbidden for folks on most forms of assistance.
Unemployment and underemployment have nothing to do with welfare policy, it has to do with the wholesale shift of any low/moderate skill job that pays well to China and other places. There are only so many hospital aide and waitress jobs to go around.
This is an under-appreciated constraint on government-run welfare programs and other government-run charities.
The larger problem – providing welfare and other forms of charity – is, of course, huge, complex, and possibly impossible-to-solve (completely).