He makes a distinction between welfare (handouts) and income. He believes that in many situations welfare needs to be diminished and income increased. He holds that situations that do not do this are not long-term solutions, and a program of prosperity that involves putting more people on welfare so that the remainder may have a higher income is not a good thing.
Do you prefer the government making decisions, and creating mechanisms and processes that lead to people with no income but surviving on welfare?
"it requires decisions, programmes, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income,"
Who makes the decisions? Who creates the programmes? And what are the mechanisms and processes specifically geared toward a "better distribution of income?"
In case you still have doubts about the socialism inherent in his message, he specifically eschews
"attempting to increase profits by reducing the work force [sic]"
So might well have Pius X written of the disappearing workforce in the buggy whip trade, or the disappearing workforce created by Henry Ford's massive use of component/assembly design. Never mind that such a "disappearance" made motor vehicles accessible to the middle class, while hand-made cars had been nothing more than a rich man's toy. [And never mind that Marx, Engels, and Lenin wrote often of the same sort of nonsense.]
Reduction in force is part of the way capitalism works.
Period.
It gives rise to better efficiencies, cheaper products with higher quality, and new ideas and technologies as the money once wasted on protecting an obsolete methodology is freed to fund creativity. The remedy for a lost job is a new job, and the remedy to socialist claptrap is to reject it and stop making excuses for it.
Had the Pope merely wanted to make a point about the virtue of charity against the backdrop of amoral free market economics, he need not have spoken derisively about "trickle down economics" (there is no such thing) nor described those who believe in free economies as the best vehicle for compassionate treatment of the disadvantaged as "crude" and "naive." You can't pick and choose what's in here so that you can ignore the parts of the message you don't like. It says what it says.