You'd be presuming the rules behind social programs are logical, they are not, they are designed by committee and as such can be haphazard and often illogical.
The same can be said about labour laws, including minimum wage; by that argument, any discussion on policy change is irrelevant.
And some social programs do paint a better picture, such as the EITC[1].
Besides, my argument is more general than whatever US social programs happen to be in place, since I'm not even from the US or living there.
So until the safety net is more logical and lets you work without putting you in a worse position, then it's rational to simply not allow jobs that don't pay a living wage.
And maybe I would agree with you if I was a labour legislator but had no power on safety net policies. But since my (and, I assume, your) power to change any of them is the same, I don't see how is that relevant.
The same can be said about labour laws, including minimum wage; by that argument, any discussion on policy change is irrelevant.
And some social programs do paint a better picture, such as the EITC[1].
Besides, my argument is more general than whatever US social programs happen to be in place, since I'm not even from the US or living there.
So until the safety net is more logical and lets you work without putting you in a worse position, then it's rational to simply not allow jobs that don't pay a living wage.
And maybe I would agree with you if I was a labour legislator but had no power on safety net policies. But since my (and, I assume, your) power to change any of them is the same, I don't see how is that relevant.