I never claimed a comparison, I judge stated that I am conflicted on the matter.
I think the reason for mech's confusion on the confliction is because of the following:
1. When choosing a job, one looks at the total compensation package, if the job has lower pay, but higher job security, and the existence of a defined benefit retirement plan (pension), one might make the choice to forgo a different job with a higher salary, but a defined contribution retirement plan. In both cases, both the plan/job supplier and the employee understand and agree on the contract arrangements, and understand the trade-off therein.
2. In welfare, no contract is in place, and the outlay is in response to factors beyond the payers control, additionally, the payer in this case also doesn't have a defined tradeoff--what is the consequence to IT (and not it's taxpayers) for promising such a benefit?
3. In the first case, those ultimately responsible (shareholders/owners) for the financial outlay have direct control over whether or not to offer such a benefit, even the "elected" corporate officials have a vested interest in an appropriate contract...too little benefits, and it is difficult to hire and maintain production/profit, too many benefits and both profitability and production cannot be simultaneously achieved due to the limits on how many (more expensive now) people can be hired. In the case of government welfare benefits, such consequences and economic incentive/disincentives do not really exist.
4. In the first case, those that gain the benefit are those with the most invested in providing for it's economics (years in service atnthe lower pay, thereby allowing for higher "production"), while in the second, those receiving the benefits are the LEAST invested in providing for it's economics (as by definition, those receiving government transfers are not the ones paying taxes).
Overall it's a matter of receiving a benefit DUE TO providing a service at some opportunity cost in order to receive it, vs receiving a benefit while providing no service or opportunity cost to yourself that is "repaid"...so there is a major difference. While I think defined benefit plans do not have their place in the vast majority of cases (due to the prevalence and advantages in mobility of defined contribution plans) I think the military is one where it does have a place as it encourages an experienced force structure. However, I think welfare does not have it's place (in it's current form) is a major economic disincentive and should be radically reduced. The two are fundamentally different, and thus I think that is why the confusion on the confliction