Here's an analogy to how unemployment insurance helps individuals in a vacuum but because it hurts the overall market, it hurts individuals more than it helps.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...yee_theft.html

TLDR: every patron being given free stuff from employee theft benefits from it. However, employee theft comes from employers, and some of those patrons are themselves employers, which means they are hurt more by an economy with employee theft than one without. Additionally some of the patrons are employees, which means they are employed by employers who have a finite amount they can pay their employees, which means the patrons receive lower compensations and are hurt more by an economy with employee theft than one without. Furthermore, some of the patrons are unemployed, and they desire employment from a potential employer, which means that employee theft hurts their chances at finding this employment since employers have higher costs and cannot hire as many employees.

If you are a patron that receives something from employee theft, you benefit in that isolated instance. But since you exist in an economy with employee theft, you are harmed by its existence more than you are benefited. Likewise and by the same elements, if you receive unemployment insurance, you benefit in that isolated instance. But since you exist in an economy with the deteriorating productivity of unemployment insurance, you are harmed by its existence more than you are benefited. These are still true even though at any point you can say "But I would benefit by having this thing!"

Economics is not unlike physics, where the micro and macro behave differently.