Unfortunately, as usual no-one replies to what was written but instead go full strawman on a single point because it is easier.
For instance: "You keep claiming there is a moral problem with giving people enough of a basic stipend to actually live out of the gutter."
I have never suggested this...
"... and using that as justification to either browbeat the recipients of minimum-quality-of-life benefits"
Or that.
"A morality that treats work as virtuous for its own sake"
And neither have I that...
Interesting how people have also latched on my mentioning morals and ignored everything else.
Oh, can you reframe? Maybe I'm reading wrong too (sorry if I did).
Meanwhile, I noticed a slight detail which both sides may have missed? : Job-finding rates were equal with the treatment and control group. Which makes sense in a high-trust society actually.