So? You performed what Daniel Kahneman has called "question substitution": replacing a difficult to answer question - "do welfare plans encourage exploitation" - with a simpler one: "are there people who exploit welfare systems".
> sounds like it's throwing any objectivity out of the window right at the beginning
Says the person who draws conclusions based on anecdotal evidence. My money is on the study with data, not the random internet person who actively looks for arguments supporting their existing beliefs.
It seems unlikely, and career suicide in any case.
My conclusion was that the welfare abuser stereotype absolutely does exist in reality and there are people who do become lazy because of welfare benefits on "1st world" countries.
Additionally, it was more of a huge scepticism than a "conclusion" and even that was supported by two additional arguments, not just that anecdotal evidence.
Almost half of the people who would be entitled to some benefits do not apply for them, due to various reasons such as social stigma, lack of knowledge or because they consider all the paperwork too much work. As a result, many people end up with more serious problems (debt, evictions, medical issues, social exclusion) that the state ultimately ends up paying for.
They found that abuse of the benefits exists, but is not very widespread.
[1]: http://yle.fi/uutiset/sosiaaliturvan_alikaytto_tulee_meille_...
Edit: fixed typo edit2: really fixed typo
If only there was a context within which I was using these words that made it blatantly obvious which of these uses applied here, like a link to a paper/article discussing if welfare programs made people lazy.
Also, you don't quite grasp what "anecdotal evidence" means in a scientific context.
Really? Please explain.
And what I meant was that the two questions are very, very close. Does alcohol encourage alcoholism?
I've seen people buy bottled water with food stamps, but it's crass to assume they don't have a good reason when we know nothing about their situation.
Until you explain, I think it's fair to give your acquaintances the benefit of the doubt.
Lack of negative behavioural effect from conditional handouts as low as $4 per household per month really doesn't tell you much about the effect of subsidies designed to permit an at least borderline-adequate Western standard of living.
They're trying to fix different issues with different sized budgets.