4 ms·

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.

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.