On the face of it, the idea that it's somehow worse to be given food than to starve is kindof ridiculous.
I mean, sure, it's easy to setup negative incentives if you setup a welfare system and you aren't paying attention, but that's really a different sort of issue... and one that can be solved by looking at those negative incentives. (the earned income tax credit is a good place to start if you want to look at real-world attempts to amelerate the negative incentives that come with "you lose all benefits if you earn more than X dollars" style need-based plans. I'm just bringing it up because it's a real-world attempt to solve that problem and because there is real-world research on it.)
An imaginary way to deal with those negative incentives is Milton Friedman's "negative income tax" or even the 'basic income' people are on about.
But point being, the negative incentives are a thing that you have to watch for with welfare programs... but they don't negate the good done by, you know, allowing poor children to access medical care, food and education.
The counter-argument is that these jobs are sucking out many hours of taking drugs (incl. alcohol), watching TV and falling into depression, since many can't really handle being idle.
I tend to be more optimistic and think that the problems arise by our current model of unemployment rather than the idleness by itself, but I can't pretend I know the answer.
What is the ultimate, fundamental and irreducible, difference between welfare and government provided services? Like the military, or like pensions? Or, in the UK, like the NHS?
