Commentary: Republicans have a warped sense of work ethic

Republicans have a math problem. Their top priority upon assuming control of the House, Senate and White House in January will be to extend the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 that is due to expire late next year plus on top of implementing whatever tax promises President-elect Donald Trump made on the campaign trail that they’d like to make good on. (Remember no taxes on tips? Or no taxes on Social Security benefits?)

But doing so would cost an estimated $4 trillion to $5 trillion over the following 10 years. And this at a time when the U.S. is already running trillion-dollar budget deficits!

So, it shouldn’t be a surprise that Republicans are again starting to talk about expanding work requirements for recipients of some government aid. The Washington Post reported last month that there is likely to be additional work requirements for recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, and Medicaid. This is after work requirements tied to SNAP (better known as food stamps) were expanded as part of the 2023 bill that raised the nation’s debt ceiling.

There have been so many credible studies showing work requirements are ineffective that even Republicans must know that such policies are borderline cruel. Work requirements don’t increase work but are actually a benefit cut by another name – and one that saves the government a minuscule amount of money while perpetuating the notion that is what's wrong with lower-income Americans is their work ethic.

Work requirements have been attached to food stamps since the 1970s and able-bodied adults without dependents work requirements (known by the clunky acronym ABAWDs) since 1997. The former applies to beneficiaries between the ages of 16 and 59 and the latter to those between the ages of 19 and 54 who are neither disabled nor caring for dependent children. The ABAWD requirements are much stricter than those for food stamps, requiring 80 hours a month of work or training and no credit for searching for work.

The ABAWD work requirement was waived during the Great Recession and later reinstated by states, allowing economists to understand the effect through its staggered reintroduction. The data clearly showed that work requirements caused fewer people to be enrolled in SNAP but not for reasons you might think, such as gainful employment or higher earnings.

Instead, work requirements inflict a heavy administrative burden on individuals, demanding the constant submission of paperwork as proof of work. Recipients often become discouraged or simply err and benefits stop. The Brookings Institute has a summary of the evidence, and the Congressional Budget Office has a similar assessment (though it adds that work supports such as subsidized child care are more effective at increasing employment).

There’s some irony to all this. The incoming Trump administration has made a show of promising to make government more efficient while simultaneously pursuing a policy that makes accessing government benefits so complicated and onerous that eligible individuals willingly forgo help. That’s where Republicans probably think the savings will come from: Encouraging disenrollment. But the money at stake is so small it’s not even worth mentioning. The entire SNAP program only costs around $100 billion a year. (As a reference, half of SNAP beneficiaries are either children — 40% — or over 65 - 10%).

Republicans would no doubt counter that it’s not just about the cost savings, but the integrity of programs, making sure they are reaching people in actual need. People who can work, should work, and policy can reinforce that with the threat of sanction.

Forget taxes, enrollment effects, onerous paperwork and consider this critical question: How does the economy produce individuals who can work but qualify for food support? Applying Republican logic, such individuals are not motivated. They get food support, so they don’t have to work or, rather, work more. In other words, policy is needed to address what essentially amounts to a character flaw.

It’s tidy, if divorced from the reality of the labor market, which boasts the largest share of low-wage workers relative to peer countries in the OECD. Those low-wage jobs, especially in the service sector, are marked by unpredictable schedules that can upend families. The Shift Project, a research group that studies the service sector, found that two-thirds of shift workers had a scheduling change within an hour of their shift starting and that 80% have little to no control over their schedule. It is common to not know a work schedule even a week in advance and the majority do not know their schedule two weeks in advance.

The ABAWD requirement is for 80 hours of work each month, a bar that many low-wage workers with a job can’t guarantee meeting. Also, research has shown that given the age, gender, and educational attainment of SNAP recipients, these are the type of jobs they tend to hold. Lack of certainty in work scheduling accelerates turnover, which may help explain why only half of SNAP beneficiaries without disabilities or dependents are working and 85% have worked in the past year. Their jobs are unstable.

Sure, Congress can keep coming up with policies requiring people to work, but it’ll be fruitless unless they put as much effort into requiring that work to be more beneficial for people. There are some bare minimums to pursue.

— Despite requiring workers to prove they worked, employers are not required to provide a pay stub. Make them.

— It’s been 19 years since Congress voted to raise the federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 an hour. It’s way past time for an increase.

— One in four private sector workers doesn’t have a paid sick day, but for the lowest wage workers, it’s 40%. Mandate paid sick days for all workers.

— Congress could directly regulate shift scheduling, such as requiring minimum notice of schedules.

None of these proposals would add to the budget deficit, but if lawmakers are willing to spend a little money, they could fund enforcement of wages paid and hours worked, as well as hire inspectors to prevent wage theft. Or, they could make the deficit balloon even further and add a $4 trillion tax cut to the $8 trillion in tax cuts they’ve passed over the past 24 years and continue to point fingers at low-income Americans for not working hard enough.

_____

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Kathryn Anne Edwards is a labor economist and independent policy consultant.

_____