Is “Brad,” the gamer, the new welfare queen?

Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders recently released a video calling for work requirements for those receiving government benefits. To make her point, she featured a young, seemingly able-bodied man at home playing video games. He’s clearly not working — he can’t even be bothered to reach for a potato chip — but he’s collecting benefits.

How far we’ve come. It is no longer single mothers who politicians portray as leeches on the state; instead it is jobless young men.

The ad signifies the emergence of a new political and cultural stereotype, and it’s sparked a backlash from those who feel Brad is being picked on. But it also highlights a serious economic challenge. The proportion of men who are either employed or seeking employment has been in decline for decades. This is especially troubling when it comes to young men, who are missing out on the critical skill-building years that are the foundations of future success.

Sanders is right that we need a plan to draw them back into the workforce and unlock the economic potential they represent, but whether more work requirements would help is another question.

The population of a country that offers benefits to some of its citizens is bound to feel not all are worthy recipients. Black single mothers were targeted in the 1980s and 1990s for allegedly taking advantage of the system, building on the myth of the “welfare queen” that President Ronald Reagan popularized. This was never fair. Black women had higher rates of employment than other women then, and they still do.

The bipartisan welfare reforms of 1996 focused on the idea that welfare, as it was designed, reduced the incentives to work and kept people out of the labor force. They instituted more stringent requirements on who got government benefits, including limits on how long those could be received and work or training requirements for 50% of beneficiaries.

The reforms were considered successful in that they lowered poverty, increased work for lower-skilled Americans, reduced high school dropout rates and may have lowered addiction rates. Very poor single mothers may, however, have fallen further behind, and there is some evidence that the changes may have increased crime and addiction among their male children.

These are different times, and the problem Sanders is highlighting is clear in the data.

Women still have lower overall rates of workforce participation, but they are gaining on men across age groups. The proportion of men aged 25 to 34 who are in jobs or seeking employment never fully recovered from the financial crisis: It was at 89.3% in September from as high as 93.9% in early 2000. Women, in comparison, are participating at higher rates than back then.

Almost all the new jobs in the last few years have gone to women, because they are overrepresented in professions related to healthcare, such as nursing, that are doing most of the hiring. Men are also less likely to be in college, and graduates have better job prospects.

Conservatives blame government benefits, which 64% of men outside the workforce received, according to a 2018 report. About half had a disability, roughly 40% received disability benefits and 38% were on food stamps. Some of these men also receive Medicaid or insurance subsidies. These statistics may still understate government reliance, because many non-working men rely on family members who receive benefits.

Sanders is calling for a welfare-to-work requirement for the young and healthy. But it’s not clear how much more juice we can get from such programs, since the 1990s reforms were already fairly effective.

One place to start is disability insurance. The number of people claiming disability has grown over the years along with declining male labor force participation (women are also contributing to the growth in claims). It has become a way for some people to get around work requirements. While the disability program has not seen widespread reform in decades, the number of people receiving benefits started to fall in the 2010s after it became harder to access them. One study found that better work options for men could explain much of this decline, which suggests that a healthy labor market is important.

Liberals blame Brad’s situation on a lack of good jobs, though men have remained out of the workforce in sizeable numbers despite the disability changes of the 2010s and the very low jobless rate of recent years. It is true, however, that low overall unemployment masks the less vigorous labor market prospects men face. Here, policy can make a difference.

Permitting reform would increase construction jobs. Fewer restrictions on gig work may also help, since flexible hours may lower barriers to entry. Men say they don’t have the skills that employers prize, pointing to the need for better vocational training and apprenticeships in secondary school.

But this is not just a matter of better jobs. There are also social issues at work. Yes, video games could be a factor. Research has found technology makes staying at home more compelling and may decrease motivation. Increased drug use may also discourage working. This suggests changing incentives around benefits can be important, but the government needs to be more creative than it was in the 1990s.

Brad may be the new political symbol of a person not pulling their weight and taking from hard-working Americans. But there are serious reasons why he is not working, and this time, it will take more than welfare reform to get him back to work.

_____

This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Allison Schrager is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering economics. A senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, she is author of “Worth the Risk: The Seven Myths That Keep Us From Taking the Chances We Need to Take."

_____

©2026 Bloomberg L.P. Visit bloomberg.com/opinion. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.