4 ms·
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 a
by 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 agoAll 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.
- phamilton 9y ago> Are employees paid more (in a given company) just because they have children? In practice? Yes. Any financial obligation (debt, mortgage, family, etc) contributes to a negotiation floor.
- Geekette 9y agoContext for salary agreements for employees of established companies is fundamentally different and not applicable to a discussion of salaries for founders of a new company. The salary calculation mechanism and amounts cited in the post may be debatable but framing it as "special treatment for founders on top of all they already have" is strange because early startups are often characterized by what founders don't have: the security of market salary and benefits (e.g. healthcare), substantial savings (many plow it into the company), etc. There is no argument about "lack of responsibility because children cannot be cancelled" - I simply outline it being a common circumstance and recognizing it being a factor in higher living expenses that should be accounted for in salary calculations. It's also not about massive debate on common laws, wealth distribution or society input as you cite. It is simply about agreement between a couple of partners on the road to building a company. As already explained, the issue is negotiable in different ways and most importantly, you can self-select out if it's just unacceptable to you and you're satisfied limiting your pool of partners in this way.