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.
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.