Actually, you (they) kinda do want to incentivise not working. The idea is that, currently, "not working" is dis-incentivised to such a degree that it creates

Actually, you (they) kinda do want to incentivise not working. The idea is that, currently, "not working" is dis-incentivised to such a degree that it creates more problems than it solves. Consider: - For currently unemployed people: are they lacking in motivation, or in ability? - For people who legitimately cannot find employment: is it moral to expose them to policies aimed at punishing 'freeloaders'? - Considering existing work-requirements even for basic assistance with food and housing: is it correct to say these operate from a model of human motivation where people stop trying as soon as they can afford the basic necessities of life? - Do you stop trying as soon as you know you have enough food and a roof over your head for the foreseeable future? - Do you know anybody who does that? - If people are forced into jobs with the thread of starvation or homelessness, what are the trade-offs they are required to make? I. e. to what degree is this forcing short-termism, and hindering their ability to invest time into, for example, education? - To what degree does the looming threat of starvation compromise the position of low-income workers in negotiations with employers? - Consider some model citizen from the lower middle class that you can think of: maybe a factory worker from the midwest, or an accountant's clerk in Houston, whatever... They have been gainfully employed for all their (adult) life, and will be for the foreseeable future. Question: How much needless anxiety is that person possibly experiencing, because they are just some random economic events away from complete destitution? - To what degree could society profit by mitigating some of the risks associated with attempting something new?