I think very few people want a 23-month employment gap on their resume if they can help it. Some people get discouraged and perhaps apply less vigorously than they should, but I don't think there are many people using the "guaranteed living wage" to slack off. I'm sure there are a few, but I doubt it's a sizable contingent.
The time over which an employment gap is a liability increases dramatically as a function of the size of the gap. At 0-3 months, it's near zero because that's a typical interval between jobs. At 3-6 months, it's about a year (which means it doesn't matter if you hold the next job for that long). At 6-12 months, it's about 2 years; at 12-24, it's 5 years or more. A 99-week employment gap is just too damaging for slacking off to make any economic sense.
Yes, actually. I think that most people who slack off do not want a life sentence to mediocrity. They take a couple years out of their careers, underestimating how difficult it will be to get back in the game.
There are a lot of people in Williamsburg (and, presumably, every other hipster enclave) who fit that bill. They're "trust fund kids", but most TF kids are only moderately wealthy ($1-3m) and will need to step it up in middle age if they want to keep up their lifestyles. They have no idea how hard it will be after 5-8 years of drug use, partying, and generally wasting whatever intellectual sharpness they had in college. They also have no concept of what it means (and how bad a position it is) to be competing with fresh 22-year-olds for entry level jobs after wasting nearly a decade.
Awfully simplistic & authoritative conclusion based on very little data.