This isn't a cut and dry argument either. That said, it's the reason that some unemployment compensation packages include or are dependent on job placement services and/or retraining efforts.

If you simply provide people with moderate passive income, the likelihood that they'll use it to update their skill set and change the direction of their career depends on a whole host of variables (satisfaction at previous jobs, age, industry, amount and type of education, union membership, other cultural factors.)

As such, I'd agree that for some people, income without retraining or mandatory placement services has a deleterious effect, but this is in no way a universal phenomena.

The detroit auto worker is pretty much the poster child for the problem you cite. This is because they tend to be on the wrong side of every variable I mentioned (low satisfaction, high age, salaried employment, a contract industry, relatively low formal education, higher vocational education, union members, and likely to be part of a generation that feels they are "owed" jobs.)

That said, their existence doesn't demonstrate that the programs are an overall drain, because they aren't representative of the average unemployed worker. They're skewed negatively in every dimension that matters.

Their existence does, however, reinforce the value of retraining services and mandatory placement efforts as part of a maximally effective unemployment compensation program.