I vote yea! Many public assistance participants DO work, some of them work more than one job. The problem is that their jobs don't provide them with enough income to meet their needs, much less build up a nest egg to meet unexpected expenses such as car repairs. They live so close to the margins, from crisis to crisis, that one unexpected event starts a tailspin. For example, a single mom with a low paying job pays a huge percentage of her income to keep a roof over her head. If the car she uses to get to work breaks down, she has to choose between repairing her car so she can get to work, or paying her rent and utilities. If she doesn't repair the car, she may lose the job. If she repairs the car, she may lose her housing. If she has no benefits, a case of the flu puts the family in crisis again. There is never enough funding for child care, another huge issue for low income families. If you only make $2000 per month, but your child care costs $1400 per month, the remainder isn't enough to pay for basic needs such as rent and utilities. The problem with subsidized wage programs is that it presumes that companies need to be "paid" to hire people on welfare, and this is just not true. Most public assistance participants have no problem getting jobs, but for reasons such as those I listed, they wind up quitting or losing those jobs. If subsidized wages encourage companies to retain employees as they work toward stability, then I am in favor.