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