I though this was a really interesting point. A lot of the jobs (ie, servers) that are trying to hire right now are *especially* unpleasant when they are short staffed.
The only thing that makes sense to me is that people believe that there are psycho-social benefits to work, but poor people are *unaware* of them.
I don't think that makes much sense.
Some folks are pointing out that another possibility is that people are present-biased, and may not be willing to pay the sort term costs of working, even if the long-term benefits are strong.
Saying "incentives matter" doesn't have to imply anything negative about people living in poverty. In general, the idea that people are very sharp and goal-oriented (which is what I generally understand 'incentives matter' to mean) is good.
That said, I think this language is often sort of crudely appropriated and used in a misleading way.
This is particularly the case with discussions of welfare reform, where people use this kind of language to make the exact opposite claim that "incentives matter" should tell us.
A big problem with #2 is that the aggregate data is messy enough that it is easy to paint any picture you want. Was 1990-era increases in labor participation due to:
1- Continued secular trends 2- Welfare reform 3- A hot business cycle 4- EITC expansion