Aside: Many HN readers may remember that Basecamp's drama from 2 years ago [1] made mention of "paternalism" and how they planned to end the practice within the

Aside: Many HN readers may remember that Basecamp's drama from 2 years ago [1] made mention of "paternalism" and how they planned to end the practice within their benefit structure. I recall the phrasing to be a source of confusion and argument. I think there were still a lot of folks (myself included) who saw this as a form of societal absenteeism in an economy with challenges that are often not easily overcome with simply more money at an individual level. I do, however, think this is a dicey area where companies can spend more efficiently on some paternalistic benefits rather than flatly increasing salary (which may have fewer tax incentives). This needs to be balanced with the fact that US corporations are not legally incentivized to maximize employee happiness, they're incentivized to maximize profit and without a legal entity around worker benefit, this form of paternalism can feel cheap or dystopian with callbacks to "company stores" and jumping through hoops and checking boxes to maximize your salary. [1]: https://world.hey.com/jason/changes-at-basecamp-7f32afc5o https://world.hey.com/jason/changes-at-basecamp-7f32afc5o