This assumes there is a workforce with openings to join. That is becoming an increasingly more difficult problem for many people. It also assumes that it is goo

This assumes there is a workforce with openings to join. That is becoming an increasingly more difficult problem for many people. It also assumes that it is good for everyone to join the workforce—which itself intrinsically ignores reality, in which there are simply not enough jobs available to reach 100% employment. There is an odd mental hang up, especially in the US, that invariably and automatically views people who receive social benefits in a viscerally negative light, demonizing them in the public sphere and consciousness. This is, to me, an odd choice versus choosing to recognize as a social positive that there are benefits that can be designed and operated correctly to ensure we do not allow people to fall below a minimum living standard. If we want to realize a society in which every able-bodied member is employed in the workforce, I do not believe we can do so without significantly altering the expectation of full-time employment as a standard. I also seriously doubt we can achieve full employment without realigning the world of business and work toward achieving social incentives first, instead of profit incentives.