[SkyBelow]

>No. We live a society of free will and choices. It's not reasonable for me to expect that _any_ job will allow me to live _any_ kind of lifestyle.

I think reasonable can agree on this. The difficulty is deciding where to draw the line at, now that we have established there exists some line.

>It is reasonable for me to expect that a full-time job should allow me to have a roof over my head, food to eat, etc. I should make a living wage. There are examples of independent organisations that calculate what a living wage is and what constitues a living wage.

But these have certain assumptions built in. A living wage for a single adult with no kids is quite different than a living wage for an adult with 2 kids. So how many kids should be calculated in? Aren't we saying that if a person has greater than what ever number of kids we allow for, aren't we condemning them to being forced to live at an unlivable wage? We could define it to take into account something like number of kids, but then we have now officially begun discriminated on family status and will likely have a number of unintended consequences.

I'm not asking for an answer to this question, but instead a way to justify an answer. A method of proving instead of a specific proof.