Originally Posted by danielpalos

All I am asking for is a discussion. You are welcome to help me find any flaws in the scenario.

Simply paying less motivated labor market participants to not provide labor input to the economy would make it easier for anyone actually wanting to work, to find work with less friction in that market and possibly with more motivated coworkers. As a moral incentive, anyone having a work ethic could pursue a form of Happiness by simply working and providing labor input to the economy for prevailing market based wages.

Why would anyone have a problem with making it easier for anyone wanting to provide labor input to the economy as a form of Happiness, moral, and work ethic; even if it at the cost of paying couch potatoes to do nothing to enable them to pursue it? Anyone wanting to provide labor input to the economy would be able to do so at market based rates.

With sufficient potential labor market participants opting to be couch potatoes, finding suitable work for those labor market participants willing to work, could be as easy as signing up with a temp. agency and getting called and asked if you want to work for market based wages. This would involve a sufficiently motivated labor market participant to gain the skill sets that command such a rate. It could be considered a market based incentive to work.

Ending our extra-constitutional drug war could fund that hypothetical with existing resources and could potentially lower our tax burden and cost of Government.