Welfare as we currently know it is more expensive than a simple and market friendly at-will unemployment scheme that conforms to our social contract (constitution, and specifically the 9A in regards to at-will employment in states that have at-will employment).
and how is that. It will be welfare no matter what you want to call it and will be subject to the same inefficiencies and graft as the current methods of welfare face.

Paying less efficient labor market participants to be couch potatoes helps the employment sector of the labor market in that the more efficient labor market participants will be actively seeking employment.
How is this. I suggest simply not paying them saves everybody money. If they choose to not work, then they get what they give.

No one has any problems with some of the largest agribusinesses in the world asking for a public handout. Why do those same people balk at paying fellow human beings to pursue art, education, or happiness; if they can benefit from better labor market conditions if they choose to provide labor input to the economy?
Subsidies are very different than what you suggest and for different reasons. It is incorrect to compare the two. Not that I totally support subsidies but that is another situation altogether.

Is it more holy and moral to let people stay in third world economic conditions in our first world economy?[
Granted, this is far from a perfect nation but the bottom line is, no work, no pay. Anything less would be creating a nation of welfare.

if people want to get paid, they get to work.

Since all states (in one regard or another) are employment at will, the employer can chose who to hire and who to retain NOW. They do not have to continue to employ a deadbeat simply because they have hired them.



Paying less efficient labor market participants to be couch potatoes helps the employment sector of the labor market in that the more efficient labor market participants will be actively seeking employment.
And how is this? The less efficient will be couch potatoes simply by the laws of supply and demand. If there are better employee possibilities out there, the employer will hire them and divest themselves of the less efficient employees they currently employ.


The one thing you fail to address. Many of the homeless (males to a much greater degree than females) choose to be homeless and live in third world conditions. They do not wish to apply themselves and they do not wish to comply with the rules in place to recieve assistance. Paying this class of person would serve absolutely no benefit to society. There would be no gain but actually a loss to expendable cash for the remainder of society. It wold cost additional money to support a program as you suggest which would require greater taxes on those working which means less disposable income for those paying for your system.

So, should we understand that your great endevour to alter society to benefit only those that choose to not work indicates that you yourself are homeless or unemployed?