That isn't how welfare works. You're actually presenting the "welfare queen" argument even if you're saying it's good, but it was bad because it wasn't true.
Welfare is good because people like being employed and supporting them gives them more time and resources to find a better job. It increases employment because of this. (this is search/matching theory.)
Conversely, the kind of non-working people who are poorest and most need support are children and the elderly, not early retirees.
Do you think that full employment is necessary in today's society? Note I did not use the word economy. I wonder if people who have "welfare queen" adjacent perspectives believe that people would not be happy in a situation where we have a smaller economy and a society where the average person isn't forced to compromise their values or submit themselves to abuse just to afford rent and food.
I think it's the only choice because entropy exists. "Everyone should be retired" doesn't work when you need sewage workers, or even sewage robot maintenance workers.
That said, you don't have to work 120 hours a week just because you're employed, and hours worked has also been trending down over time.
> the average person isn't forced to compromise their values or submit themselves to abuse just to afford rent and food.
This is what happens without full employment; full employment means you don't have to do this because it's hard to hire new people (they're all already employed) so it's easy to change jobs.
Just because you'd be uncomfortable working on sewers when you could be sitting on your couch watching TV doesn't mean we will run out of sewer workers.
Full employment comes with a whole host of other problems for the kind of economy we inhabit today -- a sure enough sign that things aren't working under the current paradigm. We need a change if something like 'full employment' is expected to be a positive thing.
Near-full employment and full employment are very different, in the same way that carrying a 95% full glass of water and a 100% full glass of water are very different.
The "cushion" of unemployed people, according to economists, is very important for staving off runaway effects that drive bad macroeconomic dynamics.
Welfare is good because people like being employed and supporting them gives them more time and resources to find a better job. It increases employment because of this. (this is search/matching theory.)
Conversely, the kind of non-working people who are poorest and most need support are children and the elderly, not early retirees.