It's tricky though, if you work, marginal benefit from an extra unit of work is quite high.
If you're unemployed and on benefits, it tends to be zero and could even be negative, until you reach a full workweek and/or something above minimum wage.
For example, I know people who receive about $1k a month and don't work. If they worked 20 hours, they'd lose their entire $1k assistance and earn about $650 (at $7.5 minimum wage). If they work 40 hours, they earn about $1300, which ends up slightly above $1k after-tax. They effectively earn the same but now have full-time employment and need to pay someone to take care of the kids. Financially, she's better off saving $100 a month with a 15 hour discount-seeking occupation and taking care of her kids.
It really depends on the welfare system how all of this works, but there's this idea of the benefits/welfare cliff:
If you're unemployed and on benefits, it tends to be zero and could even be negative, until you reach a full workweek and/or something above minimum wage.
For example, I know people who receive about $1k a month and don't work. If they worked 20 hours, they'd lose their entire $1k assistance and earn about $650 (at $7.5 minimum wage). If they work 40 hours, they earn about $1300, which ends up slightly above $1k after-tax. They effectively earn the same but now have full-time employment and need to pay someone to take care of the kids. Financially, she's better off saving $100 a month with a 15 hour discount-seeking occupation and taking care of her kids.
It really depends on the welfare system how all of this works, but there's this idea of the benefits/welfare cliff:
http://www.learnliberty.org/blog/the-welfare-cliff-and-why-m...
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jul/20/benefits-cliff...