Hi Jokoon - as mentioned I don't believe the thoughts I quoted, they are written by people worse than Nazis so don't take this too seriously. If we did take them seriously for a minute (even though they're obviously wrong) then perhaps they might respond like this to your points :

- If companies need me so much, they would be contacting me. If they don't, they can do without. Those are incentives too.

Firstly, this is written in absolutely perfect English, including the idiom "do without". You're a highly skilled intellectual worker, far above the average employed French person in terms of employability. You're talented even before we introduce the fact that you can code. While people might train to become a junior pastry chef in a few weeks (to use another recent thread), while learning on the job, it takes far more than a week or two to be able to program in a single language, let alone three of them, with one being the industrial language C++. You have a naturally very high wage, discounting the friction of being placed at a job, which is high.

You are correct when you say that employers have an 'incentive' to hire you, this is a good point and I want to reply to it, but here you are using the term 'incentive' a bit differently from the part I originally quoted, and it's a problem for thinking clearly about the argument that I originally quoted. So, in the part I quoted that says "people respond to incentives" it is very narrow, such as a bonus. What it means is that if a restaurant enacts a rule, "The waiter who upsells the most bottles of champagne, being at least 25 bottles, to parties of at least 5 in a given month will receive a $500 cash for (ANY explanation/justification)" this is an incentive. It doesn't matter what justification is put. What "people respond to incentives", in the very narrow sense, means, is that regardless of what the explanation/justification is, as a direct result of that policy, waiters will be selling more bottles of champagne. So, by enacting that policy, the bottles of champagne being sold to parties of 5 or more will increase. (It might have other effects: for example, perhaps Yelp reviews will start talking about waiters/waitresses becoming "very pushy" -- perhaps near the end of the month when one has sold nearly 25 bottles and needs to make it to 25. But it could also have an effect where near the end of the month a waiter will themselves personally invite a party to a bottle of champagne, paying out of pocket but not noting this, to win versus some other waiter. Both of these behavior changes are "people responding to incentives." The very existence of the rule that the waiter who upsells the most bottles of champagne, being at least 25, in a given month, will receive a $500 cash bonus will affect people's behavior. Even though it is literally part of every waiter's job every single day to upsell expensive beverages -- plus, since waiters in America are usually paid as a percentage tip, they already have even a financial incentive to upsell by themselves.)

So if we take this very narrow case of "incentive" -- perhaps let's call it "financial transaction rule" to make it very explicit -- for example "There is a financial transaction rule that in each month the server who has sold the most bottles of champagne to parties of at least 5, being at least 25 bottles in that month, will receive a financial transaction from the house of $500." It's just a rule. There's no "morality" there's no "what it's for."

If the government enacted the "financial transaction rule" that any person who ate foul-smelling food received a welfare payment, then as a direct result, some people would begin to eat foul-smelling foods. Even if it's not really worth it to them. Even if they don't like to do it. And even if it costs them more to do so in direct money. They are simply responding to the "financial transaction rule."

So, in this sense, the very existence of the "financial transaction rule" resulting in people such as yourself receiving disability payments while having to check a checkbox "I looked for a job this month" (even if it's not true and you sent zero resumes/CV's), will result in some employable people receiving those payments and not working. It's a simple direct consequence of the universal fact that people respond to "financial transaction rules".

I switched from using "incentive" to using "financial transaction rule" so I could address your broader point, that companies, too, have an incentive (let's call it 'motivating factor') to contact you.

We can make quite a simple analogy. So, I'm single at the moment, but take care of my body, have free time, some people find me humorous and I'm generally fun. I'm pretty picky about my girlfriends and often went years between one, and was in long-term relationships. I don't often have one-night stands or the sort. Now, I know for a fact that there are a lot of women who would find me interesting - I know this because when I take the inordinate amount of effort it takes to be in a position to interact with them, whether on dating sites, in some social circles, while going out, and so forth, I get positive feedback and after all connected with my previous long-term significant others this way. But the existence of this "motivating factor" on both sides (mine and theirs) is not enough to magically 'clear' the market. How could they contact me, if I'm not available anywhere?

Likewise, how could I contact them, if they had other things they were focusing on? If I would most of all like to be connected with women who place other things far above partying and going out and socializing, that makes it somewhat difficult to find them.

So the existence of a "motivating factor" is insufficient to make things happen on its own. Companies can't find you if you are not out there on the job market - as you said, you are not.

Finally, I wanted to address:

- And no, I don't get paid for my disability, I just get welfare like other unemployed people.

So I think I've discussed that it is a "financial transaction rule", and in this sense you do get paid. Now I want to just say that there's no moral aspect here. For example, if someone were a well-trained programmer but homeless (they could be very highly trained and really expert), the friction with placing them in a new job might be too high, even if they were sending in applications. Perhaps they don't have access to the Internet, cannot dress and smell cleanly for a single interview, perhaps cannot afford transportation across town to make an interview, may not have a charged cell phone, and many other problems.

So while the existence of a 'financial transaction rule' will change people's behaviors, still, society is making a correct choice by having some of these in place in certain cases. It's really not easy.

Perhaps if, rather than make you check a checkbox (lying) saying you've sent out applications, you were forced to send a screenshot of sent email applications, then in your case this may be enough for you to have started working. I can't say.

I can say for sure and with certainty that in your case you are qualified for a job, and I can say for sure and with certainty based on your post that you are meeting the requirements of a financial transaction rule, including checking the checkbox that you're looking for a job.

If I were the government, I would look at the interaction of both "motivating factors" (including reading, drawing, bettering yourself on your own time) and the "financial transaction rules". I don't think everyone should work 60-hour weeks as a corporate drone.

I don't think there's anything wrong with your lifestyle. I do think that working could be part of it, and that as you reported there is a financial transaction rule that you are meeting the requirements of.

I hope this explains everything in the thinking that I quoted earlier. It seems you are ready to make serious responses, I will read them carefully and think about and address anyhting you have to say about those matters.

Note: if you want to discuss the details of your disability I'm not really open to it and would just say that I agree with you and point out that Nazi's exterminated people with disabilities and that the thinking I quoted is from a neo-Nazi website and obviously wrong, so in that case this discussion is over.