I used to think the welfare system had a few bad apples.

Later, while working for a charity, I realized the truth.

Literally no one is immune to the character-destroying nature of entitlement programs.

> Literally no one is immune to the character-destroying nature of entitlement programs.

I personally know people who appear 'immune'. I find the issue is trauma, not 'character-destroying' - the uncertainty; the demoralizing nature; the experience living continually on a precipice, and seeing your kids, other dependants, and loved ones living that way. People are in a continual state of survival - of fight or flight, not of growth and health. Over a long term, that will injure anyone.

You can see the privileged atmosphere of HN in the comments, mostly from people with no contact with US welfare programs. It's like reading software development analysis from people who have no contact with that. (I have seen people on HN who do have experience, but they don't seem to be commenting.)

Destroying the character of those administering the programs?

How does an executive such as yourself find empathy and compassion for people who did not simply lift themselves up by their bootstraps?

A considerable part of this is the fact that in a society where utilizing these programs is stigmatized to the degree that the USA does, people who see themselves as honest tend to avoid utilizing them.

And even those who are less than honest, but have a sense of propriety, would understand that the correct, culturally approved time to engage in these activities is AFTER one acquires a significant amount of wealth, when entitlements are knighted to become "economic incentives".

Were you somehow exposed to a random sampling of welfare recipients through your work?

If no, how did you account for this sampling bias as you came to form your beliefs?