3 ms·

> X shouldn't get paid more just because they have children, sick or not. What is the moral basis for this claim? Do you also oppose welfare? > Y could have e

> X shouldn't get paid more just because they have children, sick or not. What is the moral basis for this claim? Do you also oppose welfare? > Y could have equal need for the money, and they oughtn't need to justify their cause against X's cause If Y has equal need for the money, then they can also make their case, privately. There's no reason for Y to even know about X's cause, because it's none of their business, which is more to my original point. The examples you provided are of a different category, because Y isn't facing insolvency if they don't make a donation.

thirdsun 10y ago
> > X shouldn't get paid more just because they have children, sick or not. > What is the moral basis for this claim? Do you also oppose welfare? Those are completely different issues and I think the above commenter is right. Kids, sickness, mortgages should be as relevant to an employer as my potential affinity for expensive cars, audio equipment or playing golf. Which is to say not at all. The employee's value to the company is the only thing matters in my opinion. Should you be paid less because you opted for cheap living space and your coworker bought a mansion he can't afford? Of course not. And don't get me wrong, I'm not indifferent to sick children - it's just that most other countries use social security systems like health care, financial child support, great public schools or welfare to deal with these issues. It is not the employer's responsibility to decide which misery is worthy to support.
colanderman 10y ago
> Do you also oppose welfare? Absolutely not. The distinction is one of objectivity. Programs like welfare, and policies such as tax deductions for dependents and charitable donations are objective. A boss's empathy is almost by definition subjective. Y should not be forced to "make a case" to the boss for the exact reason that by placing their needs at the boss's judgement, they also subject themselves to the boss's discrimination.

thirdsun 10y ago

> > X shouldn't get paid more just because they have children, sick or not. > What is the moral basis for this claim? Do you also oppose welfare? Those are completely different issues and I think the above commenter is right. Kids, sickness, mortgages should be as relevant to an employer as my potential affinity for expensive cars, audio equipment or playing golf. Which is to say not at all. The employee's value to the company is the only thing matters in my opinion. Should you be paid less because you opted for cheap living space and your coworker bought a mansion he can't afford? Of course not. And don't get me wrong, I'm not indifferent to sick children - it's just that most other countries use social security systems like health care, financial child support, great public schools or welfare to deal with these issues. It is not the employer's responsibility to decide which misery is worthy to support.

colanderman 10y ago

> Do you also oppose welfare? Absolutely not. The distinction is one of objectivity. Programs like welfare, and policies such as tax deductions for dependents and charitable donations are objective. A boss's empathy is almost by definition subjective. Y should not be forced to "make a case" to the boss for the exact reason that by placing their needs at the boss's judgement, they also subject themselves to the boss's discrimination.