Citizens argue that since work usually brings significantly higher income than benefits and social insurance, the best way to eliminate child poverty is to provide more work. Then reduced benefits and social security can motivate people to try harder to take any unhealthy job.
The logic in the reasoning is flawed on several points.
1. Everyone cannot take a job due to health reasons. These are dependent on benefits and social security so that their children and themselves do not end up in poverty.
2. The government wants an equilibrium unemployment rate of 5% to hold down wages and keep workers subdued. When there is a shortage of jobs, people care less about good pay and good pay conditions, the citizens reason.
3. Due to the constant migration of jobs abroad to countries with slave-like working conditions and the constant streamlining and automation that constantly reduces the need for labor, we now even have an unemployment rate higher than 5%.
4. If the unemployed and those on sick leave have a tolerable financial standard, they can consume and maintain the consumption of goods and services. This and not starvation policy creates or maintains jobs.
There is thus a lack of jobs for everyone and many are too ill to compete for those that exist. Then high contributions and generous social insurance are necessary to keep child poverty and all other poverty at bay.