3 ms·

What about "Equal pay for equal work"? Why should a company pay their single, infertile, gay, older, or otherwise childless employees less for doing the same jo

What about "Equal pay for equal work"? Why should a company pay their single, infertile, gay, older, or otherwise childless employees less for doing the same job? We've just gone full-circle from the 1950s notion that a married man should get a higher salary because he had a family to take care than a single man or a woman, only instead of it being a top-line higher salary now it's the same salary but with thousands of dollars in paid-leave, healthcare funding, childcare subsidies, etc. And don't pretend it's for "the good of society" or something - we don't give paid leave to do charity work with the poor or environmental cleanup or anything that would actually meaningfully improve the world.

avmich 7y ago
> Why should a company pay their single, infertile, gay, older, or otherwise childless employees less for doing the same job? Essentially for the same reason billionairs should pay wealth tax: these single infertile gays are using the benefits of living in society. This is, of course, a question deserving a more articulate answer.
javagram 7y ago
> we don't give paid leave to do charity work with the poor For what it’s worth, I’ve actually seen this done under the name VTO. Although the duration is much less than a family leave. Also, many of the people advocating for stuff like “equal pay for equal work” would move healthcare and childcare subsidies to the government level. You could then imagine you would be getting paid the same and these extra benefits for the good of society are being paid out of taxes. Of course, whether or not your company or the government pays for it, it comes from someone’s pocket eventually. But if people don’t have children, then there will be no one to take care of retirees in their old age, so there really is a compelling interest in the government fostering that...
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  > then there will be no one to take care of retirees in their old age, so there really is a compelling interest in the government fostering that... Some governments just open their borders with the hopes of being able to tax the heck out of the new arrivals to make up for the lower birth rates.
mantap 7y ago
I encourage you to imagine a world where nobody has babies. Sure the economy will be great for a while without that pesky maternity leave. But then it will crumble because it turns out that people get old and retire.
- marburg 7y ago
  From what I understand, the universe won't last forever, so someday we will be forced to stop having babies. In that sense, what you're describing is essentially a sunk cost. Although, it sounds like you'd prefer that your descendants pay that cost in your stead.

avmich 7y ago

> Why should a company pay their single, infertile, gay, older, or otherwise childless employees less for doing the same job? Essentially for the same reason billionairs should pay wealth tax: these single infertile gays are using the benefits of living in society. This is, of course, a question deserving a more articulate answer.

javagram 7y ago

> we don't give paid leave to do charity work with the poor For what it’s worth, I’ve actually seen this done under the name VTO. Although the duration is much less than a family leave. Also, many of the people advocating for stuff like “equal pay for equal work” would move healthcare and childcare subsidies to the government level. You could then imagine you would be getting paid the same and these extra benefits for the good of society are being paid out of taxes. Of course, whether or not your company or the government pays for it, it comes from someone’s pocket eventually. But if people don’t have children, then there will be no one to take care of retirees in their old age, so there really is a compelling interest in the government fostering that...

Fjolsvith 7y ago
> then there will be no one to take care of retirees in their old age, so there really is a compelling interest in the government fostering that... Some governments just open their borders with the hopes of being able to tax the heck out of the new arrivals to make up for the lower birth rates.

mantap 7y ago

I encourage you to imagine a world where nobody has babies. Sure the economy will be great for a while without that pesky maternity leave. But then it will crumble because it turns out that people get old and retire.

marburg 7y ago
From what I understand, the universe won't last forever, so someday we will be forced to stop having babies. In that sense, what you're describing is essentially a sunk cost. Although, it sounds like you'd prefer that your descendants pay that cost in your stead.