Right and Left on unemployment.

A few days ago I was talking to a friend about the differences between right and left. We were specifically talking about the jobless problem.
With a jobless rate of close to 10% in some European countries the problem really requires some sort of solution.

We both agreed that Right and Left want to reduce unemployment, but how do they want to do it?

The Right normally has the speech that no-one should make more money on unemployment benefits than working a low payed job.
The Left counters that unless the jobs pay good enough the unemployed should have the choice of not joining those jobs even though they keep the option to join.

The solution advocated by the Right tends to create a lot of low payed jobs through which people pass (or so the theory goes) on their way to a better job, never losing the motivation to work.

The solution advocated by the Left tends to increase the pressure on the job market to provide better jobs, therefore keeping the pressure on the companies to avoid depending on low-payed jobs for their viability, ultimately making them more competitive (or so the theory goes).

Both solutions have positive sides and negative sides:
Solution from the Left:
+ supports self-confidence of the person by not forcing them into a lower-payed job
+ increase pressure on the job market to provide better jobs with better pay
- allows people not to work for a limited period of time (2 years in many EU countries)
- causes a certain level of free-riding (not measured) of people that may not work for 2 years then work again, and then take 2 years off again, etc.

Solution from the Right:
+ supports the "work always" mentality never allowing anyone to "fall out" of the job market
+ supports lower salaries that allow to create a basis of cheap services
- underemployment: people that have a lot of knowledge that is not used in their lower-payed job
- affects a person's self-confidence with the possible consequence of that person not trying to find a better (higher-payed) job with the fear of being out of both the low-payed and the high-payed job. This is especially problematic for families that already have one of their income earners unemployed.

Which solution should one advocate?

I guess that depends on your background. If you have been taught that people have to be "pushed" to the right solution and that if they get money for nothing they will become lazy, in this case you would probably choose the solution from the Right.

If you believe that people should be protected from being degraded in their job-career (unless they want to - there is that option anyway), and that the pressure should be on the entrepreneurs to provide good enough jobs, in this case you would probably choose the solution from the Left.

I myself find the solution from the left more Humanistic, even if I do recognize it's deficiencies and agree that a Humanistic-biased balance should be found.

What do you think? Why would you choose either one of these solutions or even another one?