> This is a nice to have, but will absolutely not help a man 25 years into a career to find an equivalent salary to support his family and maintain his quality of life in a completely different field.

These skills are useful in any field. Equivalent salary may be optimistic, but it's still drastically better than zero slary.

> No, this cannot possibly be the case, because all those listed job requirements sacrifice the body. At the age of 25 years in a career, it wouldn't be possible to be able to start again in any labor intensive work- the body is no longer there.

The man is at least decently well built: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/05/28/us/28lordstown-A1...

What you're writing is also contradicted by the article. His job at the automobile plant was also physically demanding, "The truth was, he never really liked the work. He found it boring and physically demanding. He worked in the paint shop, wearing two sets of gloves, big plastic boots and a full body apron, while he wielded a sanding tool that smoothed the primer on the surface of the cars. Every night he came home drenched and exhausted."

> Moving actually causes one to lose residency status, which means a lot of necessary social benefits are no longer available (in order to prevent people from simply moving somewhere with better state benefits). An example that people would be most familiar with would be in state vs out of state tuition. If another state had better benefits, there would be little to say that they would be able to have access fo [sic] them. If anything, Mr & Ms March would probably have to wait several years before they have to begin the several years long fight again to secure benefits for their daughter.

Tuition is an exception, as it's a very high cost (often tens of thousands of taxpayer subsidy) over the course of four years. Another commenter made the same point, but did not provide evidence for this to be true when asked. If you can find identify documentation on such policies that explain that states discriminate on the basis of residency for disability services, by all means provide it. But until then, I am not inclined to trust these unsubstantiated claims.

Even if this were true, this represents a couple years of overhead cost that could still pay off in the long run. Even at minimum wage, employment would bring in probably $10k a year at least. This could offset loss of services for two years.

> It would be more accurate to say that a man who put 25 years into a career no longer has access to this career, has a wife and a dependent daughter, who may be trapped due to fighting a system that holds tons of bureaucracy to avoid fraud, who can no longer sacrifice his body, and is completely out of options in maintaining his quality of life, which he had built up carefully over 25 years.

This is contradicted by the article. You say that he is physically not capable of demanding work, but the job that he lost (and would have continued working in) was physically demanding. You say that he is out of options, when he does not seem to be considering the options of moving or working in a different field. The article explains that these other opportunities do exist, "Hundreds of workers have already transferred. His nephew packed up his family and moved to Flint. The alternative, working on natural gas wells in Pennsylvania, paid him $13 an hour, about half what he was making at G.M." $13/hr is close to twice Pennsylvania's minimum wage. It's not a terrible job, and it'd at least put some money in the bank and diversify his skills.

At best, you're taking an overly pessimistic view of the situation. At worst, you're tying to rationalize the thinking that if the current opportunities aren't as good as the ones that existed in the past it's better just stay unemployed.