I'm baffled. Do you not see the normative vs descriptive claim here?

The reality is that requiring benefits imposes a cost, and employers manage that cost by limiting who qualifies. So yes, this hurt many workers - and disproportionately impacted disadvantaged people who didn't make the full-time cliff.

Ignoring increntives is actually shaking your fist at the sky.

Then can we agree on a government funded safety net for the sake of labor mobility? ;)

Typically the real disagreement here is over whether workers should get benefits at all.

EDIT: can we get another `vouch` or two for groundzeros2015's currently [dead] reply? It's well-argued and an olive branch and deserves to be visible.