The Ethicist and all the people who write into him are wretched.

The tone of this letter: "I'm a liberal and I have guilt... did I do the right thing" is emblematic of 75 percent of the people who write into him.

The other 25 percent are people who scolds for not having the liberal view on things. It's lovely.

I don't know what you expected the reaction to this to be, but I don't think "UPDATE: The gardener failed to show up a few times, and Jane “used that as an excuse” to find someone else for the job." Is irrelevant. If my gardener just fails to show up, I'm firing her too.

I'm with Joe, the liberal guilt is palpable. I don't know how we all know the person writing in is a liberal, we just do. The faux caring about the poor is probably the biggest tip-off.

Hey, put all the kids to work. Be good for them. That's the answer my mom/pop would have given. Too bad for me they didn't get to read columns like this. I was forced to grow up with stuff like a work ethic, responsibility, a job, etc. Going out to play was the treat, like the stuff in the middle of a Twinkie.

Larry, you had unfilled twinkies? harsh.

You have to love liberal "guilt."

Her mother will likely be relieved: having a 9-year-old “help out” all but guarantees the task will take longer.

Quite incorrect. This stems from liberalism's fallacial notion that child labor is worth nothing.

If the daughter is indeed a hindrance to the job, is the mother really so stupid that she doesn't say to the daughter, "Go sit down somewhere with a book"? No. The daughter is moving that wheelbarrow because it does help, even if just a little bit. The principle of comparative advantage tells us that the mother may be better at moving the wheelbarrow, but it's too high an opportunity cost to have her do the wheelbarrow when other things must be done (that the daughter probably cannot do at all).

Similarly, if there are "inexpensive day-care programs" in the town, wouldn't you think the mother would already put her kids in it? No doubt she can't afford it. The solution is for the liberal letter-writer to put her money where her mouth is (or where her conscience ought to be) and pay the gardener a higher wage. 'Tis to laugh, naturally. When did liberals ever want to do something voluntarily, or at least without making sure everyone else is forced to do the same?

Holy cow! Isn't this JUST the scenario liberals wave in front of everyone to justify everything from "free" healthcare to minimum wage increases?

A single mom without daycare...and the woman FIRES HER.

Where is the concern about her kids (what if they were sick and that is why she didn't show up)? Where is the demand that someone (other than the liberal at hand) "do something"?

This is the perfect example of liberal hypocrisy. They always demand that someone (else) take care of all those poor people so liberals can sleep at night.

Why would anyone feel guilty for being well off? Some people are poor, usually because they made poor choices in their life. That's just the way it is. The up side is people to do menial jobs for cheap. All the better. Besides, maybe the 9 year old daughter will grow up with an aversion to poverty and become a member of society that actually contributes. Cake was meant to be eaten and I say let the poor have their fill.

Why would anyone feel guilty for being well off? Some people are poor, usually because they made poor choices in their life. That's just the way it is. The up side is people to do menial jobs for cheap. All the better. Besides, maybe the 9 year old daughter will grow up with an aversion to poverty and become a member of society that actually contributes. Cake was meant to be eaten and I say let the poor have their fill.

My mom took me with her when she worked in summer school lunch programs in NYC. I helped her and the other lunchladies set the tables, stuff like that. Everyone was nice to me, and I got alone time with my mom. At one school the principal asked to meet me and told my mom to make sure I went to college. Mr. Driscoll changed my life, because he talked to me. I wasn't some abstraction of "the poor." I was Mrs. Maida's daughter.
Maybe the kid liked being with mom and digging in the dirt. Maybe the kid wanted to play with the other kids. Maybe the kid didn't know how to get a library card.
If Jane had worked in the NYC schools, I'd probably be washing pots now.

why is the assumption this women is a liberal. I think a wealthy republican conservative is just as likely to feel uncomfortable And more likely to feel guilt. Because their idealigical position is government does not help people in poverty.

Well Paul, a true conservative or libertarian would say to himself/herself, "Damn, I feel sorry for this person, so I'll give her a raise." Real charity is about helping each other out willingly, not paying taxes so government can do the dirty work of doling it out.

I remember when I was young and outgrew my little 20" BMX bike. We advertised it for $30, and a young father and his little boy came to look at it. My mom whispered to my dad, "Oh, they look poor, sell it for less." So my dad said to them, "Tell you what, how about $10?"

That is real compassion, whereas government would redistribute wealth so the father could afford the original asking price. That's partially why welfare is inherently inflationary.