you make the assumption that this is acting in your own fiscal self-interest, and i think that isn't necessarily the case.  sure, she could make a little more money now, for another few months, and maybe find another job (or not).  or she could have a job that will pay her a little less money for the long term.  bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and such.  unemployment isn't forever.  it runs out, and sometimes it dies when it loses all its money.  my father was on unemployment for one month before his state ran out of money.<p>its intended purpose is to help you find a job.  you've found a job but you decline it not because it isn't a good job, not because it can't support your lifestyle, but specifically because the government pays you better to not have a job.  sounds like gaming to me.  do you consider mothers on welfare who have more children specifically to get more income to also not be gaming the system because the system is set up to help mothers with children?<p>no, taking a risk is not automatically irrational.  for someone with a good plan and the means, its fine.  if you have $1000 to spend, you can gamble with it and be fine.  if you have no money and take out a loan to gamble with, you're taking a big risk and might get some broken kneecaps.  if you're in the right position, a startup is a great idea.  not everyone is in the right position.