Malibu surfer problem

In political theory, the Malibu surfer problem is the prospect of an individual who can work but chooses not to do so, and instead leads a life of self-indulgence funded through some other available means of support. The phrase refers to an imagined resident of Malibu, California who chooses to surf rather than work.

The Malibu surfer problem is usually invoked in relation to at least two different situations:
*Persons of considerable personal wealth (especially those who inherited their fortunes rather than earning it) can live off the money produced by their investments without having to do any actual work.
*In modern welfare systems, which hand out money and other benefits to unemployed persons. See also "free rider problem".

Typically, discussions on the Malibu surfer problem in the context of welfare states are much more common than discussions of this problem in the context of the well-to-do.

Most welfare systems have mechanisms to prevent people from living off welfare benefits alone for a prolonged period. These include proving that recipients are searching for work, or workfare (being forced to do some form of work to be paid the money).

In general, the political Right tends to emphasize the Malibu surfer problem and use it as an argument for reducing or even abolishing welfare - typically for the purposes of reducing taxes. The political Left may counter this argument in a variety of ways:
*Some argue that it is better to suffer from the Malibu surfer problem than to let people starve. Individuals who receive no help may end up as homeless persons or criminals, creating far more of a social burden. Providing every citizen with income may give them more of a stake in society and thus reduce crime and vagrancy.

*Others argue that welfare for the unemployed is an inherent part of the human right to life, and that abolishing it would be immoral.
*In addition, a substantial proportion of homeless persons are mentally ill, and often practically unemployable. A similar argument may apply for alcoholism and drug addiction, because it could produce social and medical effects very similar to those of mental illness.
*Yet others argue that the effects of the Malibu surfer problem are in any case negligible, since most people would rather have a well-paying job than live just on the edge of poverty, which is often the case for recipients of welfare benefits.
*A "Malibu surfer" living from welfare can consume only very little, which means he uses less of the limited natural resources, whereas richer people might lead a lifestyle that contradicts ecological sustainability.
*Even people who do not work are still contributing to the economy by spending money, thus driving up demand for goods and services. This may create employment for others.

Further reading

* [http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html "In Praise of Idleness"] Bertrand Russell, (1932)