The government shouldn’t be in the business of “motivating” anyone (that’s propaganda). Having a social safety net so we don’t have an army of homeless people has nothing to do with “reward”, it raises the quality of living for all of us.

I am a proponent of certain social safety nets, but I am not sure the feasibility of one of them being that you can live wherever you want. We already enforce a barrier at a country’s borders, but even within a country, what would mitigate the effects everyone wanting to live in the most desirable areas?

Perhaps the answer is to just keep going more dense, if one’s position is that within a country, anyone is allowed to live anywhere, either via their own means or government assistance. But I do not see that being politically popular with many, and I can envision a few feasibility concerns with that approach.

Another option is that the location where you get a social safety net is not guaranteed, and so desirable land is distributed according to one’s wealth (which I know is highly dependent on one’s ancestry).

Mixed income housing is a good thing and leads to healthier communities. We need more public housing, low income housing and density in all metros. I think London does a good job here. It’s expensive to buy, but they have vibrant communities with public housing mixed in and to the benefit of everyone, you don’t step in human excrement every time you walk outside (opposed to SF).

Being unmotivated, undriven is hand in glove with depression. Rewarding the mentally healthy while scorning the mentally ill doesn't strike me as "ideal."

Homeless people move to places with mild winters, because they don't see housing as an attainable goal. Maybe they'd move somewhere with free housing -- or maybe they'd assume that any such program wouldn't survive an election cycle, so would rather stay put than get their hopes up.