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't buy it. I don'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.

And the people that would sit at home watching jeopardy all day regardless -- would you really want to employ them? This probably won'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's probably 5-10% of the population that most companies look at and go "yeah, we probably don't need that".

I'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't have enough food, it's because the food doesn't make it to the people that need it. Our biggest societal health problem is that people are getting too fat.

The whole "you need to work for the food you eat" system is based on a context that hasn't existed in first world countries for quite a while.