Public aid does not have to be stigmatizing and some people with disabilities prefer a jobs guarantee

Means-tested public aid programs clearly can be designed and administered in a way that does not demean and stigmatize their recipient populations. Means testing isn’t the problem. It’s never fun to disclose personal financial information, but it is a normal and expected part of life in a developed market economy. We do it whenever we apply for credit or complete an income tax return. The exercise is demeaning and stigmatizing only when it is administered in a way that (usually with intent) produces that effect. Public assistance programs that provide aid to Jobless Adults are stigmatizing not because they are means-tested or impose conditions on the receipt of aid, but because they are designed to stigmatize the receipt of public aid by such persons. This has always been a primary goal of such programs – a strategy designed to deter Jobless Adults from applying for public aid and if they are granted such aid, to drive them to seek and accept whatever paid employment is available as quickly as possible (Harvey, 1999). But, the only reason there are significant numbers of Jobless Adults who need public aid in market societies is because of the endemic job shortage that exists in those societies (Harvey, 2000b, pp. 699–748, 2007). If jobs were guaranteed for everyone who wanted wage employment, along with a full array of the support services workers need (such as child care), the population of persons needing means-tested transfer benefits would be limited almost entirely to persons whose receipt of such assistance is neither controversial nor stigmatizing. Nor would progressives need to worry about applicants for public aid being erroneously denied benefits, because the consequences of erroneous decisions would no longer be so dire. Rather than abandoning rejected applicants to their own devices, they would be guaranteed decent paid employment along with whatever support services they needed to succeed as members of the labour force. Even persons who could qualify for full disability pensions might prefer a guaranteed job under these circumstances – and the obligation placed on governments to secure the right to work for all persons would dictate that an appropriate job be furnished to such persons even if the accommodations required to do so would cost more than the disability pension. As this example illustrates, eligibility determinations also wouldn’t matter as much to conservatives. If the only question to be decided is whether a particular individual should be deemed eligible for a transfer benefit or instead offered a government-funded job, conservatives might prefer the cash aid option because it generally is cheaper on an individual basis.