Could you tell me the flaw in my analysis? Or are you merely asserting that because I lack a certain experience, I am therefore incapable of analyzing the problem using statistics and logical inference?

They must constantly show real proof they are looking for work and even with part-time jobs their assistance is immediately scaled back.

This is simply false. The vast majority of the poor are not looking for work, nor are they working. Nevertheless, they consume an average of $30k/year.

Did you even bother to read my link?

You aren't going to make assistance less attractive than a minimum wage job, it's impossible.

It's hardly impossible, but I agree that a lack of dignity is probably insufficient to push more than a few people over the threshold. That doesn't mean we should skew the incentives even more toward couch surfing and away from work than we already do.

Unfortunately for all involved, the poor are people too and to decide to make their lives as uncomfortable as possible in order to force them to get a job is maybe logical but certainly not a kindhearted thing to do.

Furthermore, it is likely that in many cases the very poor don't work because they are unable to -- mental illness is a commonly cited factor, but these days it's hard for anyone to get work -- particularly those lacking high school degrees, for instance. If someone cannot work for such a reason, then by attempting to punish them for not working you simply reduce their already-slim ability to contribute to society.

Edit: removed rudeness

The flaw in your analysis, and your linked article, is following the fallacy of Homo Economicus, which is "an arbitrary definition of man, as a being who inevitably does that by which he may obtain the greatest amount of necessaries, conveniences, and luxuries, with the smallest quantity of labour and physical self-denial with which they can be obtained." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus

In reality, humans rich and poor alike have many considerations of equal or greater importance than their utility function. For example, people not work full-time because they are in school, because they are practicing an art or craft, because they are taking care of family, because they have a wealthy benefactor, because they are employed in an illegal trade like drugs or prostitution, or because they are trying to break into a difficult industry like film.

Please go learn what a utility function is before claiming it doesn't apply. Everything you described is simply a part of a person's utility function.

If you wish to claim that the poor disproportionately prefer to gain other things than wealth (e.g., they prefer hobbies/long shots over work which might earn them $0-30k), you are agreeing with me.

You've implied that you believe the number of poor people not working is so high because we skew their motivation toward "couch surfing" through aid programs. I am arguing that many are in fact "working" on something besides a full-time job, and would not be convinced to adopt another lifestyle by minor disincentives in welfare. Aid to the poor is a social program, not an economic widget, and surveying the number of people in the program who are actively seeking self-sufficiency is an utterly worthless metric of its efficacy.

We seem to be in agreement. The poor don't work because they don't need to work in order to consume and instead prefer to engage in other (non-work) activities.

We also seem to agree that "a lack of dignity [or other minor disincentive] is probably insufficient to push more than a few people over the threshold [towards work]" (as I said a few posts up).

I'm always glad when I can convince others (including others with whom I share different values) of the correctness of my pet hypothesis. It suggests I'm on the right track.