8 ms·

I once had employer tell me that because I was single with no kids I did not "need" as much income as a co-worker with multiple kids... I noped out of that emp

I once had employer tell me that because I was single with no kids I did not "need" as much income as a co-worker with multiple kids... I noped out of that employment quickly

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
But you don't need as much money as your co-worker with multiple kids. This is true.
- kaashif 4y ago
  Paying people based on need rather than performance incentivises people to "need" more and stop focusing on performance. Paying on performance and taxing high earners seems like a better system than paying directly based on need.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
    You need to pay people to meet their basic needs. I know that some don't think this way but it happens one way or another. If people can't get their basic needs met, they will eventually break.
    - kaashif 4y ago
      I agree completely. If people cannot provide for themselves, the state should provide for them. I don't think it makes any sense for employers to be tasked with that, since all that does is provide a huge incentive for employers to discriminate against those who need more (and thus would cost more). To incentivise performance, employers should pay based on performance. If an employee cannot perform well enough to provide for themselves or their family, the state should help. None of this requires that employers directly decide pay based on whether you have a family. Requiring that results in the employer discriminating against parents and employees having a reduced incentive to produce.
- knorker 4y ago
  How do you know? Maybe I have a gambling debt to the mob. If I do then I need that money MUCH more than the co-worker with multiple kids. In both scenarios we put ourselves in that position. Maybe I have a health problem, and live in the US. Maybe I'm taking care of aging parents. Maybe I have a crippling mortgage. Too big a house. Live downtown, etc… etc… "You have no dependents and responsibilities so I'll pay you less" is basically age discrimination in addition to discrimination based on parental status. Both often illegal, and for good reason.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
    I think its obvious that not all needs are equal, but some in your list are legit, imo. Taking care of elderly parents -> you probably should get more money Health problem in the US -> you probably should get more money Crippling mortgage. This one depends a bit. Does your job require you to work at a specific location, and the location has a high cost of living. Then yes, you should get more money. Think of the "no dependents and responsibilities" as the base rate. And you get extra depending on your needs (as listed above). If you think this really crazy, consider that in the US, all of these things are tax deductible. Which means that its already normalized for people with such needs get more money (in the sense of more after-tax money). So why would getting a salary bonus be so wrong?
    - knorker 4y ago
      Well, i strongly disagree with all of that. Or at least that it should affect what your employer gives you. It's straight up discrimination, and some of it (e.g. based on parental status) usually illegal. Taking care of the sick, elderly, and children is a social issue, and belongs with the state. Not by illegal arbitrary discrimination. Also imagine how humiliating it would be for someone failing to conceive to see insult to injury that they don't get a bonus but their team mate does. Paying someone less for doing more work (i.e. not picking up from daycare) is incredibly disrespectful and demotivating. I hear all the time that someone asks for more money because they just got a new house. Like... What? Your employer is now responsible for you choosing to live beyond your means?
- shapefrog 4y ago
  I have a gambling, hooker and coke problem. Does that mean I get the co-workers bonus next year?
  - AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
    It does not, nor did I suggest it would. However, I would say that you deserve treatment options for those addictions.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  You have no way of knowing that, nor does the employer. Maybe I have health issues, maybe I want to go back to school myself to get a more advanced degree, maybe I need more for Retirement because I will not have any kids to take care of me when I am old, maybe 100000 other things However NONE of that is relevant to my wages, my wages and my co-workers wages should be set Solely and Exclusively to the value we bring to the organization. if I choose to have 5 kids, or choose to eat fast food for every meal meaning my cost of living is higher should have ZERO bearing on my wages.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
    > wages should be set Solely and Exclusively to the value we bring to the organization This isn't true now and has never been true. Otherwise frontline workers would make a lot more and CEOs would make a lot less. Wages already have skewed dynamics based on a bunch of arbitrary reasons. Saying that people with kids should get a bit more salary I don't think is that much more controversial than saying a permanent employee should get paid more than a someone from a temp agency that does the exact same work (and hence the same value to the organization).
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      >>This isn't true now and has never been true. Otherwise frontline workers would make a lot more and CEOs would make a lot less. Neither one of those statements follow each other. You may belive, and in some cases you may be correct that a CEO is of less value than frontline workers, but the prevailing narrative I see across the internet that workers bring "all the value" is also false >Wages already have skewed dynamics based on a bunch of arbitrary reasons. They are not really that arbitrary, pricing for wages are set largely by 3 factors 1. Market Demand for a given role 2. Number of people available to fill a given role 3. Amount of revenue a company can generate from a given role Wage pricing is a balance of all 3 factors,
- broadwaylamb 4y ago
  I didn't realize companies are charities now. A couple makes a private and typically self-serving decision to have children, therefore we ought to pay them more regardless of performance.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
    It may be self-serving, but without those kids how does civilization keep happening? See comment above.
    - broadwaylamb 4y ago
      As if people won't continue to procreate unless their employer gives them more money. The global population is increasing, so some form of civilization will carry on. The issue is that certain societies have lopsided demographics that will topple the fragile social structures they'd been relying on, a lot of that being the consequence of short-sided incentives like what you're suggesting.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
  Alright I'll make the case then. People who have kids have to put a bunch of their resources towards those kids: money, time, lost sleep, lost interactions with friends, and so on on. Nothing controversial here so far. Some view this as a choice of those people because they simply want to have kids, raise a family, and so on. But regardless of their intentions, there is a positive outcome for society in that there now exists a next generation that will keep society functioning. Those kids will grow up to be the doctors and farmers and so on that do all the things that need doing. These kids really are an investment in the future. People who don't have kids, but still grow old and live in society, say retired on purpose, or simply because their bodies and minds degraded to the point they can no longer work (happens to everybody), then those people are living in society that is functioning because of the time/money/resource investments of the people who had kids. The people who didn't have kids got a free ride because they didn't have to do any of that, but still get to see food in the grocery store that go there because other people had kids who then grew up and made that happen. It's fine if you don't want to have kids, but if you plan on being alive and in society in 20-30 years, then you are living off the investments of others. So why not let them have a bit more salary then you?
  - broadwaylamb 4y ago
    > So why not let them have a bit more salary then you? One can agree that child-rearing and domestic work are productive activities while still disagreeing with your proposal to inflate salaries. For instance, instead of what you're proposing, the state can treat these activities as an actual job and pay accordingly. This no longer conflates the issue by making other entities (private employers, tax code, etc) fill in the gaps on what society at large claims it values. Now, I'm not saying I endorse this solution, but rather that there's more to the discussion than how you're framing it. I don't agree with your logic that childless adults are free riders, and you omit many of the upsides to raising kids that childless adults willingly forgo, or the fact that childless adults often play vital roles in their families and communities that regular parents often don't have the bandwidth for. You also haven't really talked about the ecological impact of first-world nations having more kids and whether that's wise or sustainable. You act as if it's a priori a net good. Last, I'd argue that one of the benefits to having a sufficiently advanced society is that people are granted more agency to live as they see fit.
teekert 4y ago
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_abi...
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  Assuming an employer is the proper authority for deciding how much workers "need", and completely ignoring the conflict of interest.
  - weberer 4y ago
    Yeah, that's generally seen as one of the major problems with Marxism.
    - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
      The other was, working as little as possible, because you got paid the same, no matter what. Source: lived in a socialist country
      - medo-bear 4y ago
        also owned own home https://i.redd.it/vj4m7grzdyr41.png https://i.redd.it/vj4m7grzdyr41.png
        ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        Will someone please think of the landlords?
        ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        Back in socialist time, the government was the landlord for a huge percentage of that... they literally took peoples private houses away after WW2, and rented them out to people. Only after the split of yugoslavia, they sold the taxpayer paid and built apartments to then-current renters for peanuts.
least 4y ago
This is pretty much how it works in the military, except it's because you are single you don't need to get paid as much as people who are married, but since you're not married you also have plenty of time to stay later and do all the bullshit details. Oh, also if you're an E-5 or below you don't need to have your own home with real amenities like a stovetop. In case you were wondering why there's so much marriage and divorce in the military...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jermaustin1 4y ago
  You marry for the benefits, you divorce because of the rampant adultery and loneliness. Every military couple I have known has divorced, and in each case it was adultery that lead to that. On either side of the marriage. I never went into the armed forces, but I had considered the US NAVY even got my ASVAB and was told I would be assigned Navy Nuke, but on the drive home from the processing facility, the recruiter was bragging about all the sex I would be having around the world. He was saying that knowing that I was in a long term relationship. That really put me off joining.
  - O__________O 4y ago
    What’s even more strange is people trust the military to be loyal, but the amount of cheating relative to the general population in my opinion literally creates a culture that values cheats. To be fair, not aware of any military that’s managed to avoid the pattern and would honestly be curious to know of how any have avoided it.
    - jermaustin1 4y ago
      I've only known a single officer, but she said it was a lot less prevalent amongst officers than enlisted, still happens (she was in fact having an extramarital affair at the time - I found out later), but it is probably closer to the real world average. Maybe there is less need to marry before you are ready as an officer.
meheleventyone 4y ago
I mean this is the same as cost of living adjusted salaries. Same work, less pay just based on geographical location.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  It's not really based on location. It's based on competition. Location is one of the factors in salary competition.
  - spoiler 4y ago
    I understand the words, but not the meaning, sorry! Can you elaborate on what you mean? Like for example, companies outsource to third world countries all the time due to lower pay, how is that not based on location?
    - mjburgess 4y ago
      If you could pay someone in CapitalCity as much as SmallTown, a business would. It doesnt pay more because of some middle-manager's sense of fairness. Rather, no one would work for you in CapitalCity at SmallTown salaries. (One of the reasons is the higher cost of living, but that isnt what keeps the salary high, it's that there's no labour supply at SmallTown salaries.)
      - zarzavat 4y ago
        This is all a distinction without a difference. Salaries follow the labor market, which follows the cost of living. The cost of living is different in different places, because of differences in the labor market (demand side) or because of geographical reasons (supply side).
        mjburgess 4y ago
        It's not, because "location-based" pay will change if the market price of labour at that location changes. Location is a proxy variable; a distinction which makes all the difference, see for example, Detroit
cosmodisk 4y ago
Our managing director had some thoughts of this kind when we all gone remote and travel was no longer required. Needless to say the idea got shot down very quickly,but I'm sure there are plenty of of companies where these things more than float.
wslh 4y ago
I had this discussion as a boss and in favor of offering extra benefits with someone with kids with the same role and experience of someone without them. Interesting to discuss it further here in HN. I argue that at the same professional level it is not the same to have a full family that being solo.
- notimetorelax 4y ago
  You may not know if a single person is supporting a relative or a grandma with cancer. Nor should you. It’s a flawed argument and pay should be for performance. This doesn’t meant that there shouldn’t be accommodations to everyone’s needs. But those are not tied to pay.
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    > You may not know if a single person is supporting a relative or a grandma with cancer. Nor should you. I see this as the core of the argument - paying people based on their needs requires you to invade their privacy in order to find out their needs. And not wanting your employer to invade your privacy would mean getting some baseline low pay because "you don't have any needs".
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      I think the core of the argument is that prices are not a function of the seller’s wants or needs. If I go to the grocery store, I do not pay more for an apple from a farm owned by a family that has a sick grandma than from a farm owned by a family that does not have a sick grandma.
  - wslh 4y ago
    > You may not know if a single person is supporting a relative or a grandma with cancer. In my role I know that and would also support that case as special. This kind of thinking varies depending of where you live (at lease for most people and less for remote workers). My takeaway is: if you live in a country/state where this help is "embedded" within the system we can focus more in salary equivalence for the same job responsabilities but if you live in a place that put this pressure on the organization side the organization could have the awareness to take care of these issues. In HN we have people from all around the world and with different democratic and non-democratic systems.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lqet 4y ago
In Germany, public officials ("Beamte") are paid a bonus depending on (a) their marital status, (b) the number of kids they have and (c) whether their spouse is also a public official (you get less then to avoid receiving the children bonus 2 times). This has multiple reason: one feels a bit ancient as the states basically want their "Beamte" to live in an "orderly" family situation and thus encourage marriage and children. However, AFAIK, a major reason is to counter a disadvantage "Beamte" have regarding health care insurance. For historical reasons, they are not part of the public welfare system (or rather, they are in a different, older one). The state pays half of their medical expenses (if you are part of the public health care system as a "normal" employee, your employer pays half of the health care insurance). To cover the remaining 50%, Beamte need a private health care insurance. In the public health care system, your children and non-working spouse can be added to your health care insurance for free. With a private insurance, that is not possible - you have to pay for an additional insurance for each kid, and your spouse if he/she is not working. There is a calculator for the federal level here: https://oeffentlicher-dienst.info/c/t/rechner/beamte/bund?id=beamte-bund-2022 https://oeffentlicher-dienst.info/c/t/rechner/beamte/bund?id...
- luckylion 4y ago
  The Beihilfe covers 70% of children's medical cost IIRC, and the bonus is significantly higher than private insurance for children.
q-big 4y ago
> I once had employer tell me that because I was single with no kids I did not "need" as much income as a co-worker with multiple kids... Why not rather: you don't have such a time-intense hobby such as raising kids, so you deserve more income.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  Thanks to this attitude birth rates have collapsed in most of developed world and we have 2 pensioners for every child. Does that sound like a good plan, great for economy? Between this and climate catastrophy, neoliberals are creating a self-destructive civilisation
  - luckylion 4y ago
    Thanks to productivity gains in the last 100 years, that's not a problem. We have a solid amount of people not working, we don't have a shortage of workers in general, we're lacking high skill workers, and workers who are willing to do shitty jobs. We can solve the high skill issue with education, and the latter with better wages for e.g. elderly care and nursing.
  - q-big 4y ago
    > Thanks to this attitude birth rates have collapsed in most of developed world and we have 2 pensioners for every child. Rather thank the politicians who sold you a pyramid scheme as a pension system. > Between this and climate catastrophy, If you argue with climate catastrophe, you should rather argue for decreasing the number of people (which includes avoiding having children) to decrease the CO2 footprint.
    - rocknor 4y ago
      Reducing the population by having a low birth rate is good. But mathematically it cannot be so forever. To maintain a non-decreasing population you need 2 children per woman on average, doesn't matter if your country has 10^4 or 10^8 people. Immigration is only a temporary solution, it may not be a reliable solution by the end of the century. Global birth rates are falling and QoL is slowly improving, reducing the incentive to immigrate.
DoItToMe81 4y ago
Seems completely reasonable. Kids are expensive, and people should rewarded, not penalized for raising them.
- dagw 4y ago
  Kids are expensive, and people should rewarded, not penalized for raising them If we, as a society, believe that then surely those rewards should be paid by the government and not private employers.
- lo_zamoyski 4y ago
  1. It is good to have children per se. 2. Demographic decline per se is not in the interest of the state or society. 3. It is in the interest of the state to create incentives for marrying and having children and to support or defend a culture that is at least not hostile to family life and its flourishing. Does it follows that companies are obligated to pay a higher salary to someone with a family over someone who is single for the same work? If labor is the source of economic value, then it would seem that they are not since the married person with children is creating the same value. Of course, when employers do compete for employees, such candidates will have a greater need and incentive to choose the employer who does pay more, and companies, realizing that such people will find better offers more attractive, may provide benefits that specifically target such people (e.g., free daycare or whatever). Whether companies do this will depend on market conditions, for example.
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    > 2. Demographic decline per se is not in the interest of the state or society. Are we facing underpopulation?!
throwaway6734 4y ago
Employer provided health insurance is sort of like this when the company covers the plan instead of providing a stipend. Old people cost the company more.
refurb 4y ago
I once had a boss tell a coworker "It's better to be lower in the pay band for your role because your raises are bigger". Can you imagine how stupid that comment is?
- shapefrog 4y ago
  That is middle management tier thinking, unless you are one of the real deep thinkers at their level, you wouldnt understand.
  - refurb 4y ago
    The best part is I'm getting downvoted for calling it out. Apparently some people actually bought into it.
shapefrog 4y ago
I once had employer tell me that because I was single with no kids I was being let go as I didnt "need" to be employed as much as a co-worker with multiple kids...
Ekaros 4y ago
I wonder if this should be extended to married childless couples. As surely they need lot less money than single people. They housing is cheaper. They can buy in bulk, they can share so many things from cars to clothing and entertainment.
AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
out-of-ideas 4y ago
i've been told the same in tech; also biased towards being "young with no debt" - any excuse to not get a raise. best solution in this case is to leave. my first thoughts: hey maybe musky boi should try pay-transparency at twitter to get more to quit; what's another 1/7th and then saying no to the others that ask to the already all time low morale?

I once had employer tell me that because I was single with no kids I did not "need" as much income as a co-worker with multiple kids... I noped out of that employment quickly

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago

But you don't need as much money as your co-worker with multiple kids. This is true.

kaashif 4y ago
Paying people based on need rather than performance incentivises people to "need" more and stop focusing on performance. Paying on performance and taxing high earners seems like a better system than paying directly based on need.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
  You need to pay people to meet their basic needs. I know that some don't think this way but it happens one way or another. If people can't get their basic needs met, they will eventually break.
  - kaashif 4y ago
    I agree completely. If people cannot provide for themselves, the state should provide for them. I don't think it makes any sense for employers to be tasked with that, since all that does is provide a huge incentive for employers to discriminate against those who need more (and thus would cost more). To incentivise performance, employers should pay based on performance. If an employee cannot perform well enough to provide for themselves or their family, the state should help. None of this requires that employers directly decide pay based on whether you have a family. Requiring that results in the employer discriminating against parents and employees having a reduced incentive to produce.
knorker 4y ago
How do you know? Maybe I have a gambling debt to the mob. If I do then I need that money MUCH more than the co-worker with multiple kids. In both scenarios we put ourselves in that position. Maybe I have a health problem, and live in the US. Maybe I'm taking care of aging parents. Maybe I have a crippling mortgage. Too big a house. Live downtown, etc… etc… "You have no dependents and responsibilities so I'll pay you less" is basically age discrimination in addition to discrimination based on parental status. Both often illegal, and for good reason.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
  I think its obvious that not all needs are equal, but some in your list are legit, imo. Taking care of elderly parents -> you probably should get more money Health problem in the US -> you probably should get more money Crippling mortgage. This one depends a bit. Does your job require you to work at a specific location, and the location has a high cost of living. Then yes, you should get more money. Think of the "no dependents and responsibilities" as the base rate. And you get extra depending on your needs (as listed above). If you think this really crazy, consider that in the US, all of these things are tax deductible. Which means that its already normalized for people with such needs get more money (in the sense of more after-tax money). So why would getting a salary bonus be so wrong?
  - knorker 4y ago
    Well, i strongly disagree with all of that. Or at least that it should affect what your employer gives you. It's straight up discrimination, and some of it (e.g. based on parental status) usually illegal. Taking care of the sick, elderly, and children is a social issue, and belongs with the state. Not by illegal arbitrary discrimination. Also imagine how humiliating it would be for someone failing to conceive to see insult to injury that they don't get a bonus but their team mate does. Paying someone less for doing more work (i.e. not picking up from daycare) is incredibly disrespectful and demotivating. I hear all the time that someone asks for more money because they just got a new house. Like... What? Your employer is now responsible for you choosing to live beyond your means?
shapefrog 4y ago
I have a gambling, hooker and coke problem. Does that mean I get the co-workers bonus next year?
- AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
  It does not, nor did I suggest it would. However, I would say that you deserve treatment options for those addictions.
phpisthebest 4y ago
You have no way of knowing that, nor does the employer. Maybe I have health issues, maybe I want to go back to school myself to get a more advanced degree, maybe I need more for Retirement because I will not have any kids to take care of me when I am old, maybe 100000 other things However NONE of that is relevant to my wages, my wages and my co-workers wages should be set Solely and Exclusively to the value we bring to the organization. if I choose to have 5 kids, or choose to eat fast food for every meal meaning my cost of living is higher should have ZERO bearing on my wages.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
  > wages should be set Solely and Exclusively to the value we bring to the organization This isn't true now and has never been true. Otherwise frontline workers would make a lot more and CEOs would make a lot less. Wages already have skewed dynamics based on a bunch of arbitrary reasons. Saying that people with kids should get a bit more salary I don't think is that much more controversial than saying a permanent employee should get paid more than a someone from a temp agency that does the exact same work (and hence the same value to the organization).
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    >>This isn't true now and has never been true. Otherwise frontline workers would make a lot more and CEOs would make a lot less. Neither one of those statements follow each other. You may belive, and in some cases you may be correct that a CEO is of less value than frontline workers, but the prevailing narrative I see across the internet that workers bring "all the value" is also false >Wages already have skewed dynamics based on a bunch of arbitrary reasons. They are not really that arbitrary, pricing for wages are set largely by 3 factors 1. Market Demand for a given role 2. Number of people available to fill a given role 3. Amount of revenue a company can generate from a given role Wage pricing is a balance of all 3 factors,
broadwaylamb 4y ago
I didn't realize companies are charities now. A couple makes a private and typically self-serving decision to have children, therefore we ought to pay them more regardless of performance.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
  It may be self-serving, but without those kids how does civilization keep happening? See comment above.
  - broadwaylamb 4y ago
    As if people won't continue to procreate unless their employer gives them more money. The global population is increasing, so some form of civilization will carry on. The issue is that certain societies have lopsided demographics that will topple the fragile social structures they'd been relying on, a lot of that being the consequence of short-sided incentives like what you're suggesting.
Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
Alright I'll make the case then. People who have kids have to put a bunch of their resources towards those kids: money, time, lost sleep, lost interactions with friends, and so on on. Nothing controversial here so far. Some view this as a choice of those people because they simply want to have kids, raise a family, and so on. But regardless of their intentions, there is a positive outcome for society in that there now exists a next generation that will keep society functioning. Those kids will grow up to be the doctors and farmers and so on that do all the things that need doing. These kids really are an investment in the future. People who don't have kids, but still grow old and live in society, say retired on purpose, or simply because their bodies and minds degraded to the point they can no longer work (happens to everybody), then those people are living in society that is functioning because of the time/money/resource investments of the people who had kids. The people who didn't have kids got a free ride because they didn't have to do any of that, but still get to see food in the grocery store that go there because other people had kids who then grew up and made that happen. It's fine if you don't want to have kids, but if you plan on being alive and in society in 20-30 years, then you are living off the investments of others. So why not let them have a bit more salary then you?
- broadwaylamb 4y ago
  > So why not let them have a bit more salary then you? One can agree that child-rearing and domestic work are productive activities while still disagreeing with your proposal to inflate salaries. For instance, instead of what you're proposing, the state can treat these activities as an actual job and pay accordingly. This no longer conflates the issue by making other entities (private employers, tax code, etc) fill in the gaps on what society at large claims it values. Now, I'm not saying I endorse this solution, but rather that there's more to the discussion than how you're framing it. I don't agree with your logic that childless adults are free riders, and you omit many of the upsides to raising kids that childless adults willingly forgo, or the fact that childless adults often play vital roles in their families and communities that regular parents often don't have the bandwidth for. You also haven't really talked about the ecological impact of first-world nations having more kids and whether that's wise or sustainable. You act as if it's a priori a net good. Last, I'd argue that one of the benefits to having a sufficiently advanced society is that people are granted more agency to live as they see fit.

teekert 4y ago

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_abi...

bheadmaster 4y ago
Assuming an employer is the proper authority for deciding how much workers "need", and completely ignoring the conflict of interest.
- weberer 4y ago
  Yeah, that's generally seen as one of the major problems with Marxism.
  - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
    The other was, working as little as possible, because you got paid the same, no matter what. Source: lived in a socialist country
    - medo-bear 4y ago
      also owned own home https://i.redd.it/vj4m7grzdyr41.png https://i.redd.it/vj4m7grzdyr41.png
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        Will someone please think of the landlords?
        ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        Back in socialist time, the government was the landlord for a huge percentage of that... they literally took peoples private houses away after WW2, and rented them out to people. Only after the split of yugoslavia, they sold the taxpayer paid and built apartments to then-current renters for peanuts.

least 4y ago

This is pretty much how it works in the military, except it's because you are single you don't need to get paid as much as people who are married, but since you're not married you also have plenty of time to stay later and do all the bullshit details. Oh, also if you're an E-5 or below you don't need to have your own home with real amenities like a stovetop. In case you were wondering why there's so much marriage and divorce in the military...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jermaustin1 4y ago
You marry for the benefits, you divorce because of the rampant adultery and loneliness. Every military couple I have known has divorced, and in each case it was adultery that lead to that. On either side of the marriage. I never went into the armed forces, but I had considered the US NAVY even got my ASVAB and was told I would be assigned Navy Nuke, but on the drive home from the processing facility, the recruiter was bragging about all the sex I would be having around the world. He was saying that knowing that I was in a long term relationship. That really put me off joining.
- O__________O 4y ago
  What’s even more strange is people trust the military to be loyal, but the amount of cheating relative to the general population in my opinion literally creates a culture that values cheats. To be fair, not aware of any military that’s managed to avoid the pattern and would honestly be curious to know of how any have avoided it.
  - jermaustin1 4y ago
    I've only known a single officer, but she said it was a lot less prevalent amongst officers than enlisted, still happens (she was in fact having an extramarital affair at the time - I found out later), but it is probably closer to the real world average. Maybe there is less need to marry before you are ready as an officer.

meheleventyone 4y ago

I mean this is the same as cost of living adjusted salaries. Same work, less pay just based on geographical location.

robertlagrant 4y ago
It's not really based on location. It's based on competition. Location is one of the factors in salary competition.
- spoiler 4y ago
  I understand the words, but not the meaning, sorry! Can you elaborate on what you mean? Like for example, companies outsource to third world countries all the time due to lower pay, how is that not based on location?
  - mjburgess 4y ago
    If you could pay someone in CapitalCity as much as SmallTown, a business would. It doesnt pay more because of some middle-manager's sense of fairness. Rather, no one would work for you in CapitalCity at SmallTown salaries. (One of the reasons is the higher cost of living, but that isnt what keeps the salary high, it's that there's no labour supply at SmallTown salaries.)
    - zarzavat 4y ago
      This is all a distinction without a difference. Salaries follow the labor market, which follows the cost of living. The cost of living is different in different places, because of differences in the labor market (demand side) or because of geographical reasons (supply side).
      - mjburgess 4y ago
        It's not, because "location-based" pay will change if the market price of labour at that location changes. Location is a proxy variable; a distinction which makes all the difference, see for example, Detroit

cosmodisk 4y ago

Our managing director had some thoughts of this kind when we all gone remote and travel was no longer required. Needless to say the idea got shot down very quickly,but I'm sure there are plenty of of companies where these things more than float.

wslh 4y ago

I had this discussion as a boss and in favor of offering extra benefits with someone with kids with the same role and experience of someone without them. Interesting to discuss it further here in HN. I argue that at the same professional level it is not the same to have a full family that being solo.

notimetorelax 4y ago
You may not know if a single person is supporting a relative or a grandma with cancer. Nor should you. It’s a flawed argument and pay should be for performance. This doesn’t meant that there shouldn’t be accommodations to everyone’s needs. But those are not tied to pay.
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  > You may not know if a single person is supporting a relative or a grandma with cancer. Nor should you. I see this as the core of the argument - paying people based on their needs requires you to invade their privacy in order to find out their needs. And not wanting your employer to invade your privacy would mean getting some baseline low pay because "you don't have any needs".
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    I think the core of the argument is that prices are not a function of the seller’s wants or needs. If I go to the grocery store, I do not pay more for an apple from a farm owned by a family that has a sick grandma than from a farm owned by a family that does not have a sick grandma.
- wslh 4y ago
  > You may not know if a single person is supporting a relative or a grandma with cancer. In my role I know that and would also support that case as special. This kind of thinking varies depending of where you live (at lease for most people and less for remote workers). My takeaway is: if you live in a country/state where this help is "embedded" within the system we can focus more in salary equivalence for the same job responsabilities but if you live in a place that put this pressure on the organization side the organization could have the awareness to take care of these issues. In HN we have people from all around the world and with different democratic and non-democratic systems.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

lqet 4y ago

In Germany, public officials ("Beamte") are paid a bonus depending on (a) their marital status, (b) the number of kids they have and (c) whether their spouse is also a public official (you get less then to avoid receiving the children bonus 2 times). This has multiple reason: one feels a bit ancient as the states basically want their "Beamte" to live in an "orderly" family situation and thus encourage marriage and children. However, AFAIK, a major reason is to counter a disadvantage "Beamte" have regarding health care insurance. For historical reasons, they are not part of the public welfare system (or rather, they are in a different, older one). The state pays half of their medical expenses (if you are part of the public health care system as a "normal" employee, your employer pays half of the health care insurance). To cover the remaining 50%, Beamte need a private health care insurance. In the public health care system, your children and non-working spouse can be added to your health care insurance for free. With a private insurance, that is not possible - you have to pay for an additional insurance for each kid, and your spouse if he/she is not working. There is a calculator for the federal level here: https://oeffentlicher-dienst.info/c/t/rechner/beamte/bund?id=beamte-bund-2022 https://oeffentlicher-dienst.info/c/t/rechner/beamte/bund?id...

luckylion 4y ago
The Beihilfe covers 70% of children's medical cost IIRC, and the bonus is significantly higher than private insurance for children.

q-big 4y ago

> I once had employer tell me that because I was single with no kids I did not "need" as much income as a co-worker with multiple kids... Why not rather: you don't have such a time-intense hobby such as raising kids, so you deserve more income.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
Thanks to this attitude birth rates have collapsed in most of developed world and we have 2 pensioners for every child. Does that sound like a good plan, great for economy? Between this and climate catastrophy, neoliberals are creating a self-destructive civilisation
- luckylion 4y ago
  Thanks to productivity gains in the last 100 years, that's not a problem. We have a solid amount of people not working, we don't have a shortage of workers in general, we're lacking high skill workers, and workers who are willing to do shitty jobs. We can solve the high skill issue with education, and the latter with better wages for e.g. elderly care and nursing.
- q-big 4y ago
  > Thanks to this attitude birth rates have collapsed in most of developed world and we have 2 pensioners for every child. Rather thank the politicians who sold you a pyramid scheme as a pension system. > Between this and climate catastrophy, If you argue with climate catastrophe, you should rather argue for decreasing the number of people (which includes avoiding having children) to decrease the CO2 footprint.
  - rocknor 4y ago
    Reducing the population by having a low birth rate is good. But mathematically it cannot be so forever. To maintain a non-decreasing population you need 2 children per woman on average, doesn't matter if your country has 10^4 or 10^8 people. Immigration is only a temporary solution, it may not be a reliable solution by the end of the century. Global birth rates are falling and QoL is slowly improving, reducing the incentive to immigrate.

DoItToMe81 4y ago

Seems completely reasonable. Kids are expensive, and people should rewarded, not penalized for raising them.

dagw 4y ago
Kids are expensive, and people should rewarded, not penalized for raising them If we, as a society, believe that then surely those rewards should be paid by the government and not private employers.
lo_zamoyski 4y ago
1. It is good to have children per se. 2. Demographic decline per se is not in the interest of the state or society. 3. It is in the interest of the state to create incentives for marrying and having children and to support or defend a culture that is at least not hostile to family life and its flourishing. Does it follows that companies are obligated to pay a higher salary to someone with a family over someone who is single for the same work? If labor is the source of economic value, then it would seem that they are not since the married person with children is creating the same value. Of course, when employers do compete for employees, such candidates will have a greater need and incentive to choose the employer who does pay more, and companies, realizing that such people will find better offers more attractive, may provide benefits that specifically target such people (e.g., free daycare or whatever). Whether companies do this will depend on market conditions, for example.
- goodpoint 4y ago
  > 2. Demographic decline per se is not in the interest of the state or society. Are we facing underpopulation?!

throwaway6734 4y ago

Employer provided health insurance is sort of like this when the company covers the plan instead of providing a stipend. Old people cost the company more.

refurb 4y ago

I once had a boss tell a coworker "It's better to be lower in the pay band for your role because your raises are bigger". Can you imagine how stupid that comment is?

shapefrog 4y ago
That is middle management tier thinking, unless you are one of the real deep thinkers at their level, you wouldnt understand.
- refurb 4y ago
  The best part is I'm getting downvoted for calling it out. Apparently some people actually bought into it.

shapefrog 4y ago

I once had employer tell me that because I was single with no kids I was being let go as I didnt "need" to be employed as much as a co-worker with multiple kids...

Ekaros 4y ago

I wonder if this should be extended to married childless couples. As surely they need lot less money than single people. They housing is cheaper. They can buy in bulk, they can share so many things from cars to clothing and entertainment.

AlgorithmicTime 4y ago

out-of-ideas 4y ago

i've been told the same in tech; also biased towards being "young with no debt" - any excuse to not get a raise. best solution in this case is to leave. my first thoughts: hey maybe musky boi should try pay-transparency at twitter to get more to quit; what's another 1/7th and then saying no to the others that ask to the already all time low morale?