Do you agree?

[^_^ 5,021]

[Teddy B 17,252]

I would say they both apply, depends on the person.

If a person refuses work at low pay because gov't assistance pays more for that person to provide for his/her family, I would say it is morally correct to do so.

And ofcourse, there will always be lazy people.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Teddy B

[kytwell 179]

It depends on what you consider a "livable" wage is. In my area, with 2 people working, earning a combined 60k a year or just one working making 45k( no daycare expense and less fuel money) with 2 kids, a modest house and 2 cars; they could make it easily. NYC, NJ or Cali they most likely wouldn't be able to make it with that money.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Start somewhere, and prove your worth. Then hold the boss up for a raise. This is why I hate unions - they are anti-American. Salaries should be based on individual productivity, not just breathing common air. Let the market set wages, not the commie unions. Employers should be able to hire and fire at will, for a negotiable wage. Employees can come and go, and negotiate a fair salary, employers should have the same option.

Not every job in the US should be like the useless bureaucrats that are just sucking up all the air without producing anything. Look at the Defense Department. They even hire contractors to suck even more air, because evidently, Pentagon employees can't suck fast enough.