[Garnet FalconDance]

Yep, yep. Good points by all.

Better paying jobs can be had in the city, any city. Budha was getting $16/hr roofing but had to drive over an hour to the shop and then sometimes to a different state to actually work. (And both states tax you in that situation. For several reasons, he quit that job (family-owner politics being foremost) and took one making $6/hr. BUT we have more money now than we did then. (Our wages have raised a little since). We both walk to work and run a small but growing business. No more vehicular wear and tear, insurance came down, etc. We live in a really small town (although we desperately want to move into the country on our own land and are saving up) and the house we rent, a 3 to 4 br story-and-a-half with a nice yard, only costs $200/month. Could we make a lot more money in or at least nearer a city (we're approx 65 mi from KCMO)? Most assuredly. But we would *have* to make the money to afford rent or a mortgage, higher utilities, etc.

Some people don't have much choice and some don't care to make the choice. That's fine. I know people who love living in an urban setting and paying what I consider ludicrous prices for precious little. Personally, I have better things to do with my meager dollars.

I've been one of those on the state dole---*while* I worked full time and had small children and went to college full time. It was a necessity at the time, not something I avidly sought. That's why the system is there...not to provide get-out-of-responsibility-free cards.

And Donut, if the man mows his neighbor's yard for an hour once a week and turns it in as legitimate employment, then he would not be counted as unemployed by that statement alone. Although one would hope he also mows many other yards for his paycheck.

[ 01-02-2004, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: Garnet FalconDance ]