“You Can’t Teach People to Be Industrious—Either They Have It or They Don’t”
Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Truth Social, Gettr, Twitter, Youtube
According to government statistics, the unemployment rate stands at 4.3%—a level often considered close to full employment. Yet many jobs remain unfilled, with employers struggling to find willing workers. At the same time, the homeless population continues to grow, increasing week by week and year by year. This apparent contradiction raises a fundamental question: why is this happening?
Part of the answer, as suggested in the headline, lies in human behavior. Some individuals simply lack the drive to work. Beyond that, however, there is a growing population struggling with addiction—whether to alcohol, drugs, or opioids—rendering many effectively unemployable. At a broader level, our national moral compass appears to be under strain, and in some cases, has been set aside altogether.
There is also a cultural dimension. Some individuals have become dependent on government assistance, receiving benefits without participating in the workforce. In parallel, we have seen a shift in public attitudes toward behaviors that were once widely discouraged. For example, many states have legalized marijuana, often describing it as benign despite its mind-altering effects. Meanwhile, organized religion is frequently criticized as outdated or repressive, further eroding traditional moral frameworks.
This shift aligns with what the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan described as “defining deviancy down”—the process by which conduct once considered unacceptable gradually becomes normalized. Legal scholar Mark Levin has echoed a similar concern, arguing that a free and civilized society requires shared moral purposes, constraints, and responsibilities.
Compounding these concerns is the perception of unequal justice. In recent years, high-ranking public officials have been accused of wrongdoing without facing meaningful consequences. This fuels the belief in a two-tiered system of justice—one for the powerful, and another for ordinary citizens.
Family structure also plays a significant role. In the 1950s and early 1960s, out-of-wedlock births accounted for roughly 5% of all births. Today, that figure has risen dramatically, reaching approximately 40% overall, and significantly higher in some communities. This trend is often cited as a contributing factor to poverty, crime, and social instability. Critics argue that policies originating with the 1965 War on Poverty unintentionally incentivized family fragmentation by tying benefits to household structure, thereby discouraging the presence of a father in the home.
Public policy, therefore, deserves careful reconsideration. Rather than fostering dependency, government programs should aim to provide a “hand up” rather than a “handout.” Wherever possible, individuals should be encouraged to work, develop skills, and achieve self-sufficiency. A system that rewards idleness risks undermining both personal dignity and societal well-being.
There will always be poverty, and there will always be individuals who choose not to work. That is an enduring aspect of human nature. The goal, however, should be to make such outcomes the exception—not the norm. Government should function as a safety net for those in genuine need, not as a permanent substitute for personal responsibility.
