4 ms·

Oh absolutely. Ra ra ra. On the other side: Let's pay people based on how many dependents they have. Why does a single programmer with no children need any mone

Oh absolutely. Ra ra ra. On the other side: Let's pay people based on how many dependents they have. Why does a single programmer with no children need any money? Or any time off from work? Clearly people who have children should get first preference about using paid time off? /s No, equality means everyone gets treated equally regardless of how much or how little family obligation they have. If someone has 12 children, that was their choice. Equal pay for equal work cuts both ways. Edit: This is another reason where a universal basic income could help. Sure, it won't be enough for an apartment in West Village in Manhattan but at least now we can tell anyone who lives there but can't afford to live there to simply get out and go a little further or better just move. Why is it wrong for people to be priced out of a neighborhood? I don't see anything wrong with it. I am so mad at cheap populism with slogans like "family first" or "children first". Say no to that. Another thing this brings me to is we should absolutely bring an end to elected representatives by district in our legislature. If there are enough people who benefit from rent collection in an area, they will continue to support legislation that allows them to continue collecting such rent (in this case it'd be suppressing new property development if you're a property owner or rent control if you are lucky enough to have a rent control apartment). Elected representatives who only need to answer to a particular district is a horrible idea and we should do everything we can to bring it to an end.

mikeash 11y ago
By all means, pay people equally. But if a professional in their 30s isn't making enough to raise a family, they're not paid well. If you pay your firefighters like that, they're going to leave for other cities which do pay enough to raise a family. It's not that people with families should be paid more, it's just that making enough to live by yourself isn't a good benchmark for pay. People without families will make way more than they need, but that's just how things go; there's a reason DINK means "lots of disposable income."
- newjersey 11y ago
  Thank you. I wish more people thought like you do. As far as firefighters leaving for other towns, I'm not so worried. I'm more worried about others who make even less like others have also commented. If a 100k firefighter can't make things work, how is the elementary school teacher making ends meet? I know raising salaries sounds easy but we need to cut costs. That's the real answer. And cutting costs means getting rid of inefficiencies. It will be hard because a part of every dollar wasted good to someones pocket and they'll fight to keep it that way.

mikeash 11y ago

By all means, pay people equally. But if a professional in their 30s isn't making enough to raise a family, they're not paid well. If you pay your firefighters like that, they're going to leave for other cities which do pay enough to raise a family. It's not that people with families should be paid more, it's just that making enough to live by yourself isn't a good benchmark for pay. People without families will make way more than they need, but that's just how things go; there's a reason DINK means "lots of disposable income."

newjersey 11y ago
Thank you. I wish more people thought like you do. As far as firefighters leaving for other towns, I'm not so worried. I'm more worried about others who make even less like others have also commented. If a 100k firefighter can't make things work, how is the elementary school teacher making ends meet? I know raising salaries sounds easy but we need to cut costs. That's the real answer. And cutting costs means getting rid of inefficiencies. It will be hard because a part of every dollar wasted good to someones pocket and they'll fight to keep it that way.