Ayn Rand wrote a match.com ad looking for a rich husband, before there was a match.com.
That said, what padna laid out isn't Randian, it is free market economics. It's telling that the default argument from one side always reverts to "we need welfare/unemployment/minimum wage," while no one on the other side is arguing to abolish those things. The minimum wage is a good thing, when chained to the economy (as padna laid out). Unemployment and welfare are good things, when they are used as a bridge between jobs (and not as a way to avoid employement/paying back into the system, as I laid out and you ignored). Welfare cannot be given out in perpetuity - it's fiscally unsustainable. To try to justify the ways in which it used like that is to to willfully ignore that there is a problem. The worst part of all, though, is that the way that welfare has been bastardized over the years has created a class of poverty that is passed down through generations. Poverty is no longer as transient an economic state as it once was, for the very reason you laid out previously. Why take a job that pays slightly higher for a lot more work right now, even though I would be honing a skill that can be leveraged for a higher salary as my skill increases? The welfare system, as it is applied today, encourages people to stay poor (for reasons you yourself laid out). To say "I care about the poor, so I support a system that keeps them poor" is ridiculous. To label others who see the gaping hole in your argument as "Randian" is as weak a counter-argument as calling you a Marxist would be.
But I don't have to call you Marxist. I just have to wait for reason to accidentally kick in and watch you refute your own arguments.