Your premise relies on the idea that without the (rather severe) consequence of becoming homeless, people will not be inclined to work. I just don&#x27;t buy it. I don&#x27;t think that if you remove the draconian consequences of not working a shitty job, that people will suddenly just sit at home and watch jeopardy all day.<p>And the people that would sit at home watching jeopardy all day regardless -- would you really want to employ them? This probably won&#x27;t be a well received idea, but not every person is actually economically useful, at least not in the current system. Unemployment is high because to a certain extent, there&#x27;s probably 5-10% of the population that most companies look at and go &quot;yeah, we probably don&#x27;t need that&quot;.<p>I&#x27;m not saying scarcity no longer exists, but the US government literally sets excess grain on fire to subsidize farmers. When people starve to death, its not because we don&#x27;t have enough food, it&#x27;s because the food doesn&#x27;t make it to the people that need it. Our biggest societal health problem is that people are getting too fat.<p>The whole &quot;you need to work for the food you eat&quot; system is based on a context that hasn&#x27;t existed in first world countries for quite a while.