I don't get it. Subsidizing someone's living is okay, but subsidizing someone's living, and then that person deciding to earn a little more money is not okay because profit is involved?
>And are you arguing we simply must pay the costs for people to exist? I agree given not existing is very highly undesirable.
Yes? If you don't want them to starve, then obviously somebody as to pay the cost to keep those people afloat.
>Employed people, getting a subsidy so their employer enjoys greater profit makes sense how? Should a for profit enterprise earn it? Why is our help required?
Would society be better off if those "Employed people, getting a subsidy" were unemployed instead? They'll still get the subsidy. If anything, they'll get more subsidy because welfare tends to be means tested. If anything the "for profit enterprise" has a negative effect on the amount of subsidy that needs to be paid.
> What I am not OK with is so damn many people underpaid and struggling hard with assistance
Underpaid? Maybe they're being paid fairly given the market conditions, and that prevailing wage isn't enough to sustain someone's first world existence so some sort of subsidy has to make up the rest.
> despite arguably too much labor otherwise.
can you reword this? I'm not understanding what you mean by this.