In relation to the comment of Ahiakpor "When one appreciates that the "poor worker" would
be worse off in the absence of such an opportunity to work, it gets one to think
differently about the employer.  Many a life and property have been destroyed, especially
in the Third World, because too many people have failed to think about or interpret
carefully such choice situations.
  
The problem is, that without such a choice, the poor worker would not be a "poor worker"
at all. Maybe it would be a person living under a palm tree in Bali, but I have a question
to ask: who is poorer between somebody paid 3.50 $ per hour who has to commute from Queens
to Manhattan and put up with all that is implied by living in a first world country
implies and, let's say, somebody who for not earning the same amount of money can be
leaving under a palm tree, eating coconuts?
  
One should also consider that, maybe many  poor workers would have not needed the choice
of being paid 3 dollars per hour, had we not needed to have them emlpoyed for 3 dollars
per hour to keep running economies.
  
Chiara Baroni