WWYD

[soonerfan]

If it meant less dependency on government aid, then yes, absolutely. When you say it is for $200 after a reduction in aid, that means you will actually make more, but have to be more responsible for paying for your own food/utilities/day care/whatever the aid reduction is. If the opportunity was not ideal, I would continue seeking out new ways to bring in more money, but I would not pass up the chance for work.

[weaverk]

Originally Posted by soonerfan If it meant less dependency on government aid, then yes, absolutely. When you say it is for $200 after a reduction in aid, that means you will actually make more, but have to be more responsible for paying for your own food/utilities/day care/whatever the aid reduction is. If the opportunity was not ideal, I would continue seeking out new ways to bring in more money, but I would not pass up the chance for work.

This. We could all say we make less per hour if we figured in what we make over any assistance we would get if we weren't working, but that isnt how i would look at it. Assistance is there for people who cannot work, not for those that choose not to in my opinion. I'm sure others think differently, but if you are coming out ahead with the job, then you take it and keep trying to do better.

[misskira]

Originally Posted by soonerfan If it meant less dependency on government aid, then yes, absolutely. When you say it is for $200 after a reduction in aid, that means you will actually make more, but have to be more responsible for paying for your own food/utilities/day care/whatever the aid reduction is. If the opportunity was not ideal, I would continue seeking out new ways to bring in more money, but I would not pass up the chance for work.

Agreed.

[kimb96]

Originally Posted by soonerfan If it meant less dependency on government aid, then yes, absolutely. When you say it is for $200 after a reduction in aid, that means you will actually make more, but have to be more responsible for paying for your own food/utilities/day care/whatever the aid reduction is. If the opportunity was not ideal, I would continue seeking out new ways to bring in more money, but I would not pass up the chance for work.

This.

[raymark]

If I needed the money & did not currently have a job that paid more then yes, I would do what it takes to provide for my children & maintain my home.

[qsefthuko]

Are you factoring everything in? Food from eating out when you are too tired to cook. Co pay. If I went back to work when my second was a baby we could have gotten off of assistance. Problem was we wouldn't have had enough money to pay for health care for our kids. My son had a seizure disorder. We couldn't afford to lose the medical coverage. Later when we could afford the insurance premiums we wouldn't have been able to afford the deductable nor all the copays for his medication nor his monthly specialist visits. IF we could come up with the money for that we still had to come up with gas money and car repairs to get him to his doctors who were 60 miles away.

An extra $200 a month would have left us teetering on the brink of disaster. One hospital stay could have found us with choosing between paying medical bills and paying rent.

[drabekgirl]

To me its not worth my time to only make 2.50/hr unless it wasn't using gas, good looking clothing, etc. I used to work more than 1 pt job and I was bring home 0 from one job b/c the it paid for the sitter for the other job so I quit the one job. I've quit jobs because I wasn't making enough money after gas to make it worth it to keep buying the uniforms for the job.
U'd have to weigh in the cost also on your family as well. We worked it out with the 2nd job I quit to have DH be home with the children when I went to work, it made sense at the time. But 3 years later and no raises, higher costs of gas, and an 8y/o telling me he wanted to die, it was an easy decision. that was at a second pt job.

My most ongoing through it all, I make the most money its closest to our home and the hours are flexible enough to work around the boy's schedule so I can be home with them on snow days and days when they aren't in school. And if I needed to they could come to work with me. But I make $10/hr - $4 a day for gas - $60 a year in uniforms that I can write off. And now that 8y/o is now 9 and confident in himself.

[crystaldawn_23]

I voted no... but I think I'd be a maybe as well.

I often sell things on ebay or facebook and put a lot of time and energy into those "sales." We would be fine without that extra but it's something that I like to do.

My dh works doing freelance work and maintains a blog that takes up way more of his time than he's willing to admit. He makes about $300 a mo doing that and although that is not a lot per hour... He LOVES it and it makes him feel like he's making a difference when sometimes his regular job leaves him feeling defeated.

[Belle]

Yes, I would work the extra hours to get off assistance. I wouldn't count a loss of benefits as a deduction in pay. Just like now I don't calculate our household income based on what we could be making if my husband didn't have a job or had a lower paying job.

[Hungry Caterpillar]

Originally Posted by soonerfan If it meant less dependency on government aid, then yes, absolutely. When you say it is for $200 after a reduction in aid, that means you will actually make more, but have to be more responsible for paying for your own food/utilities/day care/whatever the aid reduction is. If the opportunity was not ideal, I would continue seeking out new ways to bring in more money, but I would not pass up the chance for work.

Yes, that.

I don't understand when people say that the "extra" amount above the deduction in aid "isn't worth their time" or is too paltry of an amount. Any amount over the wash-out amount with assistance should be an acceptable amount worth your time.