>>>>>>> If you work 40hours a week you should be able to afford these things. Today you can not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Depends what your skill is.
>>>>>>Some jobs weren't ever meant to be a "career".
>>>>>
>>>>>So your belief is that just because you have a full time job doesn't mean it should pay enough to live off of? Or am I mistaken here?
>>>>
>>>>Right.
>>>>It depends on your skill set.
>>>>.
>>>
>>>Well then we have a fundamental disagreement. It's not possible for everyone to have a job with a high level skill set or even go to college. Personally I don't think it's right to toss these people under the bus, they should be able to survive on their full-time job's income. Companies (and society) have a responsibility to ensure that their workers earn enough to live on. If a firm can’t pay its workers enough to live on, then it isn’t a viable business, because it is dependent on wage subsidies.
>>.
>>
>>They're responsible for your well being?
>>They're responsible for your welfare?
>>Really? That would be nice.
>>.
>
>If a company is paying its workers so little that they qualify for and need public assistance, then we, the taxpayers, are subsidizing that company. Sometimes, we may choose to do that because the company is doing something we really need and no one else is willing to do it. But if that's not the case and the company is making a profit, then shouldn't we be asking why that's okay?
>
>Tamar
.

I guess encouraging people to acquire a skill, or learing a trade, doesn't work anymore in today's society.... it's too preachy
It's much easier to demand "someone owes me a living".

People who have never run a business, telling others how to run their business.... that's rich.