8 ms·

Strong disagree on letting the founders personal situation count for the salary to be taken off the table. Having kids or not is a personal decision Having kid

Strong disagree on letting the founders personal situation count for the salary to be taken off the table. Having kids or not is a personal decision Having kids is a factual part of many people's lives, not an arbitrary personal decision that can be erased at startup time. A person with kids simply has higher living expenses. Of course, if you feel that strongly about it, you can choose to only found companies with single people but that needlessly reduces your pool of potential founders who are talented, experienced, disciplined, of great character and compatible personalities. Otherwise, the issue of varied expenses can be balanced via 2 approaches: a) All cofounders take salary equal to the amount required by the one with highest expenses and agree on the resulting consequences (smaller operating budget, higher urgency towards independence via profitability/ funding, etc). b) Equal salary nominally assigned but the founders with less expenses agree to loan the startup the "excess" portion of their salaries. This can be structured and recorded as deferred compensation/loan agreement payable upon achieving X financial milestone, e.g. when revenue hits a certain level or target amount of funding is received.

k__ 9y ago
I didn't choose "to not have kids" so I could pay more for the kids of other people, if I wanted to pay for kids, I would have got some myself. :D
- mooreds 9y ago
  As I mentioned in other comments I think this would serve as a valid filter. You'll either not work with founders with kids, or only with founders who have enough money they can take the smaller salary. And that may be fine for your startup. But you are limiting your talent pool, and should make sure that is worth the trade-off.
- jaxn 9y ago
  Then don’t start a company with people who do have kids. That is fully within your control.
  - temac 9y ago
    This is not what we are discussing about. Your answer is plain false dichotomy. We were discussing about the fairness of that situation.
    - jaxn 9y ago
      No, we are discussing resentment.
- Geekette 9y ago
  As long as you disclose your views upfront, rather than partnering with seething resentment because your cofounder has kids. Such people and even others without kids who also abhor such a perspective would like to know upfront so they can partner with someone else. Bottomline, if you're comfortable holding this view because unlike most people, you actually have many potential partners with the necessary industry skills that have no kids and have the qualities I listed above and share your views, good for you. Otherwise, not starting a company or having it prematurely fail because you picked wrong partners partly by skipping better ones because they had kids seems ridiculous.
  - temac 9y ago
    I guess he would not resent that his cofounder has kids, but rather because he just would be kind of paying (even more than usual) for those kids; why exactly?
    - k__ 9y ago
      Yes, I don't have a problem with kids and I think work life balance is very important. I also think that society should help parents with tax cuts, but this lets the whole country pay for it, not just me, because I just happen to work with a parent. What would be next? Paying me less because I live in a shared flat? Because I don't own a car? I didn't make these decisions to have more money to throw it away, but to spend it on stuff I care about.
  - phamilton 9y ago
    Agree. The first thing I would discuss with a cofounder is my financial requirements. I'm not going to quit my job and draw a $100k salary (in SF) to start a company. I wouldn't be able to pay my mortgage, even on the most aggressive of budgets. So the decision for the cofounder becomes whether they want me involved. And my decision is whether the company will likely be successful with that burn rate. A single cofounder taking the same salary as me might push that burn rate over the edge. In which case, we just say no and move on.
    - 9y ago
- Spooky23 9y ago
  If you’re committed to ignoring the needs and wants of a business partner, why do you want to be their business partner? It seems like a dickhead attitude that bodes poorly for the future of a business enterprise.
  - Retra 9y ago
    The need for an equitable salary is just as legitimate as the need to care for children. I have a family to care for even if they are not listed as dependencies. I also have a future family to prepare for that I might want to get a leg up on. Or maybe I want to forego children because I'd rather save up to start something more meaningful to me later. Just because you have an immediate need that is evidenced by children doesn't mean others don't have equally legitimate needs.
    - Spooky23 9y ago
      I didn’t say that children trump all. It’s a negotiation point. Getting what you need/want may cost you. My point is that if your “partner” is going to take an extreme, aggressive stance on such a thing, that’s a red flag.
  - k__ 9y ago
    The question is not about their needs, but about their gives.
  - hartator 9y ago
    If I choose to not have kids to have a better carreer, why should I compensate for my co-founder?
    - sidlls 9y ago
      Why do you consider a cofounder to be an adversary?
- bluetwo 9y ago
  I agree. This is why the government gives people with kids a $4,500/kid break on their taxes.
temac 9y ago
Are employees paid more (in a given company) just because they have children? It might not be even legal to ask them in some jurisdictions, during recrutement and salary negotiation. Most of the time employees are not paid more just for that reason. Should they? Maybe a little (well in lots of civilised countries they might already have tax cuts, but so do the founders), but throwing them 10k$ more per child for that would seems quite insane. Adding that kind of special treatment for founders on top of all they already have seems kind of unfair. The argument about the lack of responsibility because children cannot be cancelled at startup time is very curious. Absolutely everybody knows that children come with costs, some are monetary, some are about other factors. You can not retrospectively pretend that those costs shall be privately covered by others beyond all the social organisation already agreed on (tax reductions), just because of status. Yes those costs can not be erased at startup time; asking for others to erase some of them -- well if everybody involved agrees why not, but on my side I will never see that as fair without serious compensations (distribution of shares for ex.) And what about ANY other costly choices that can not be easily cancelled at startup time? Should alimony for their ex-spouses be paid for by others too? If they have a horse they are bounded to and would be horrified to the suggestion of abandoning it, should the recurring costs it involves be covered by others too? Founders do not live in an alternate universe were all common laws and wealth distribution are to be renegotiated in private: those questions are important but should be applied for everybody, and actually they have been debated and there are important cases where the society have decided that doing this or that would be good. If this is actually not enough in some cases, that should be changed.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  All of these things are part of a negotiation. If your demands mean that you’re not going to enter into business with you unless I sell my horse and fubar my family, I’m going to walk. Hopefully you don’t need me or have enough cash to buy out whatever I bring in. Otherwise, you’re fucked for want of a few thousand dollars.
- hatchnyc 9y ago
  > Are employees paid more (in a given company) just because they have children? Very often the answer is yes from my observation, particularly for fathers.
foobiekr 9y ago
In my experience the employees without kids tend to work longer hours and put in more effort and cultural time. So from that perspective perhaps the founder with children should acknowledge that their total input will be lower due to obligations competing for time and energy and should take a lower salary. After all, what is the commodity the company is buying when they pay a salary and equity?

k__ 9y ago

I didn't choose "to not have kids" so I could pay more for the kids of other people, if I wanted to pay for kids, I would have got some myself. :D

mooreds 9y ago
As I mentioned in other comments I think this would serve as a valid filter. You'll either not work with founders with kids, or only with founders who have enough money they can take the smaller salary. And that may be fine for your startup. But you are limiting your talent pool, and should make sure that is worth the trade-off.
jaxn 9y ago
Then don’t start a company with people who do have kids. That is fully within your control.
- temac 9y ago
  This is not what we are discussing about. Your answer is plain false dichotomy. We were discussing about the fairness of that situation.
  - jaxn 9y ago
    No, we are discussing resentment.
Geekette 9y ago
As long as you disclose your views upfront, rather than partnering with seething resentment because your cofounder has kids. Such people and even others without kids who also abhor such a perspective would like to know upfront so they can partner with someone else. Bottomline, if you're comfortable holding this view because unlike most people, you actually have many potential partners with the necessary industry skills that have no kids and have the qualities I listed above and share your views, good for you. Otherwise, not starting a company or having it prematurely fail because you picked wrong partners partly by skipping better ones because they had kids seems ridiculous.
- temac 9y ago
  I guess he would not resent that his cofounder has kids, but rather because he just would be kind of paying (even more than usual) for those kids; why exactly?
  - k__ 9y ago
    Yes, I don't have a problem with kids and I think work life balance is very important. I also think that society should help parents with tax cuts, but this lets the whole country pay for it, not just me, because I just happen to work with a parent. What would be next? Paying me less because I live in a shared flat? Because I don't own a car? I didn't make these decisions to have more money to throw it away, but to spend it on stuff I care about.
- phamilton 9y ago
  Agree. The first thing I would discuss with a cofounder is my financial requirements. I'm not going to quit my job and draw a $100k salary (in SF) to start a company. I wouldn't be able to pay my mortgage, even on the most aggressive of budgets. So the decision for the cofounder becomes whether they want me involved. And my decision is whether the company will likely be successful with that burn rate. A single cofounder taking the same salary as me might push that burn rate over the edge. In which case, we just say no and move on.
  - 9y ago
Spooky23 9y ago
If you’re committed to ignoring the needs and wants of a business partner, why do you want to be their business partner? It seems like a dickhead attitude that bodes poorly for the future of a business enterprise.
- Retra 9y ago
  The need for an equitable salary is just as legitimate as the need to care for children. I have a family to care for even if they are not listed as dependencies. I also have a future family to prepare for that I might want to get a leg up on. Or maybe I want to forego children because I'd rather save up to start something more meaningful to me later. Just because you have an immediate need that is evidenced by children doesn't mean others don't have equally legitimate needs.
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    I didn’t say that children trump all. It’s a negotiation point. Getting what you need/want may cost you. My point is that if your “partner” is going to take an extreme, aggressive stance on such a thing, that’s a red flag.
- k__ 9y ago
  The question is not about their needs, but about their gives.
- hartator 9y ago
  If I choose to not have kids to have a better carreer, why should I compensate for my co-founder?
  - sidlls 9y ago
    Why do you consider a cofounder to be an adversary?
bluetwo 9y ago
I agree. This is why the government gives people with kids a $4,500/kid break on their taxes.

temac 9y ago

Are employees paid more (in a given company) just because they have children? It might not be even legal to ask them in some jurisdictions, during recrutement and salary negotiation. Most of the time employees are not paid more just for that reason. Should they? Maybe a little (well in lots of civilised countries they might already have tax cuts, but so do the founders), but throwing them 10k$ more per child for that would seems quite insane. Adding that kind of special treatment for founders on top of all they already have seems kind of unfair. The argument about the lack of responsibility because children cannot be cancelled at startup time is very curious. Absolutely everybody knows that children come with costs, some are monetary, some are about other factors. You can not retrospectively pretend that those costs shall be privately covered by others beyond all the social organisation already agreed on (tax reductions), just because of status. Yes those costs can not be erased at startup time; asking for others to erase some of them -- well if everybody involved agrees why not, but on my side I will never see that as fair without serious compensations (distribution of shares for ex.) And what about ANY other costly choices that can not be easily cancelled at startup time? Should alimony for their ex-spouses be paid for by others too? If they have a horse they are bounded to and would be horrified to the suggestion of abandoning it, should the recurring costs it involves be covered by others too? Founders do not live in an alternate universe were all common laws and wealth distribution are to be renegotiated in private: those questions are important but should be applied for everybody, and actually they have been debated and there are important cases where the society have decided that doing this or that would be good. If this is actually not enough in some cases, that should be changed.

Spooky23 9y ago
All of these things are part of a negotiation. If your demands mean that you’re not going to enter into business with you unless I sell my horse and fubar my family, I’m going to walk. Hopefully you don’t need me or have enough cash to buy out whatever I bring in. Otherwise, you’re fucked for want of a few thousand dollars.
hatchnyc 9y ago
> Are employees paid more (in a given company) just because they have children? Very often the answer is yes from my observation, particularly for fathers.

foobiekr 9y ago

In my experience the employees without kids tend to work longer hours and put in more effort and cultural time. So from that perspective perhaps the founder with children should acknowledge that their total input will be lower due to obligations competing for time and energy and should take a lower salary. After all, what is the commodity the company is buying when they pay a salary and equity?