19世纪初马尔萨斯派保守主义对社会保险的批判和芝加哥学派20世纪70年代的批判之间的重大区别在于，芝加哥学派的批判有���样一个要点：为“相称的”穷人提供公共支持，在他们开始自立根生时撤掉支持，这样做会破坏激励，不可能形成好的结果。
The big difference between the Malthusian conservative critics of social insurance in the early nineteenth century and the Chicago critics of the 1970’s is that the Chicago critics had a point: Providing public support to the “worthy” poor, and then removing it when they began to stand on their own feet, poisoned incentives and was unlikely to lead to good outcomes.