>Another way of looking at this would be: a job in McDonalds is not supposed to be a means of supporting the family of four. Supposed by whom? McDonalds will s

>Another way of looking at this would be: a job in McDonalds is not supposed to be a means of supporting the family of four. Supposed by whom? McDonalds will suggest it's best their jobs be seen as side gigs for teenagers because that's the explanation that best supports their profit margins. The reality is that families of four will have to be supported by McDonalds wages if no other jobs are available for the individual in question. Another way of looking at it is: what percentage of citizens do you think society should artificially inhibit from being able to support children? Is it 5%? 20%?