That guy (girl?) is stupid as f*ck.
First, he puts the economy on a pedestal. This is ultimately what his argument is based on. That which helps the economy is 'good' and that which hurts the economy is 'bad'. Ergo, doing away with the system which supports lazy people is 'good'. This is his argument in sum.
And here is my counterargument.
A truly enlightened society does not put its economy on a pedestal and sacrifice desirable ways of life - without judging what this is to people - in the service of the economy. The economy is supposed to serve the people, not the other way around. And in whichever system people are happiest, then that system is superior. An appeal to no other value can be justified than that of total or near total happiness, and that does not equate to economic productivity necessarily by any means.
Of course this is not how it is. People exist to serve the economy in practice, and their happiness is given as much consideration as needed for them to serve their ultimate purpose (economic productivity).
That's all fine and well, and you can appeal to that reality, but don't couch it in 'enlightenment'. That's just ideology to justify making people's lives worse in order to increase competition and productivity in the service of a few who benefit.
An enlightened society caters to all its members equally. This doesn't mean Soviet Union communism...it means what it means. How one gets there is the next matter.