7 ms·

Subsidizing childcare is also "more money", but only for some workers. If the others don't notice or don't care that they're getting paid less for the same wor

by jp57 2y ago

Subsidizing childcare is also "more money", but only for some workers. If the others don't notice or don't care that they're getting paid less for the same work that's great for the company. I am in favor of flexible work arrangements, and I have no idea if those have costs to the company, or how much more you'd need to pay the workers to accept the less flexible arrangements.

grecy 2y ago
For the people that want the childcare, it’s better than more money, because it’s tax free
- golergka 2y ago
  Can company provide a choice for employees where they can either get facilities or a raise?
  - bell-cot 2y ago
    IANAL, but I'll bet the answer is "yes-ish, in most-ish circumstances and jurisdictions, if the company is willing to pay enough lawyers & taxes & stuff. (If $Company is not big global retailer like IKEA, then things would probably be far simpler.)
  - QuarterReptile 2y ago
    In the US, and presumably elsewhere, no way. My wife tried to negotiate a higher salary in exchange for forgoing health insurance a few times, to no avail.
    - bombcar 2y ago
      Individually it usually doesn't work unless you're at a level where there is "only one of you" - think C-level exec. But collectively it can work; the company may talk to the union and offer either X benefit which costs $Y or $Y applied to salaries.
      - dmurray 2y ago
        It won't save as much as you might expect, though, because the insurance provider also knows that the people opting out of the scheme would have (on average) cost the provider less to provide healthcare for.
    - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
      I’m pretty sure it isn’t up to the company, they have to provide health insurance if certain criteria are met, it doesn’t matter if your partner already has health insurance.
    - grecy 2y ago
      > In the US, and presumably elsewhere In every other developed country everyone has healthcare, irrelevant of job - even people that don't have a job. Healthcare is not tied to your job, it is a basic human right. So this discussion makes no sense outside the US.
- quietbritishjim 2y ago
  I suppose that depends on location. In the UK, it would count as a benefit in kind, and is taxable in exactly same way as regular income.
  - em-bee 2y ago
    depends on the form, amount and also income: https://www.litrg.org.uk/benefits/childcare/employer-supported-childcare https://www.litrg.org.uk/benefits/childcare/employer-support... workplace nurseries are tax free as is any child care for lower incomes. other benefits are tax free up to a certain amount.
- mashlol 2y ago
  It's better for the company - they can pay less and the employee gets the same equivalent amount in their pocket. E.g. if the company were going to pay $2k extra but it would be taxed $1k, they would have to pay $3k to get the equivalent "happiness" boost. The employee gets $2k / year either way. $2k tax free -> $2k in your pocket $3k + $1k tax -> $2k in your pocket
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  In the USA, you can get up to $5k or so without tax (it’s your money, but you can spend from a tax free account) to fund child care, which works out to almost half for one kid in a HCOL.
- consf 2y ago
  [dead]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
malfist 2y ago
Look, I'm a DINK, don't have kids, never plan to have kids, don't even like kids. But child care is important to both the parents and society. Not subsidizing child care often means one parent has to leave the workforce, and that's almost always worse off for everyone than if they were able to afford child care and can contribute
- from-nibly 2y ago
  Right, because raising kids isn't contributing to society.
  - 39896880 2y ago
    Contributing to the household income. It takes 2 incomes to live anywhere but BFE in the US.
    - QuarterReptile 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - bombcar 2y ago
        It usually takes two incomes to afford childcare! I know single-income families at various levels of income across the country; it is certainly possible almost anywhere - if you want it.
    - refurb 2y ago
      Yeah but a big part of that is because both parents work. You can buy double the house with 2 incomes instead of 1.
      - CalRobert 2y ago
        Sadly the main consequence of moving to two income families seems to be making everything cost twice as much.
      - 2y ago
amtamt 2y ago
Considered "valued" vs considered "useful" is probably the analogy that should be used here. Subsidizing childcare signals "we value you", while flat increae is signaling "you are useful to us", which can make a lot of impact on moral.
- KeplerBoy 2y ago
  Is there really a perceived difference on the employees side? If anything subsidized childcare feels like charity and I don't want charity, I want to be paid well for my work, so I can take care of my family.
  - amtamt 2y ago
    For some people there is no percieved differnce, some would think employer is trying to save on taxes, while for some (many?) there is a real percieved difference as being seen a member of family rather than a disposable hired hand. For an analogy, one can be given money instead of being invited to a social gathering. One might feel offended, while other may feel happier.
  - RestlessMind 2y ago
    > Is there really a perceived difference on the employees side? Only if we could generalize all the employees! I am sure there are some who feel better to have holiday gifts, holiday parties, token recognition rewards etc. And there would be some who just evaluate everything on the basis of cold hard numbers. A good company should have policies to cater to as many employees as possible.
- HelloNurse 2y ago
  The message of subsidized childcare is not generically "we value you", but "we want you to have children while you work for us", which for most employees is more important than money. Compare to companies that avoid hiring women to avoid dealing with maternity leave.
  - itsoktocry 2y ago
CalRobert 2y ago
It's weird, in some ways, that we offer benefits. Give people the money and let them use it how they like. When I lived in California I LOVED the parking cash-out law, it meant a few thousand more a year because I rode a bike to work and didn't need a parking spot. Although, one challenge with things like childcare is that if you applied this on a society-wide level you wind up with childless people having more money, thereby being better able to outbid parents for essentials like housing (this is why a housing scarcity is so insidious). Of course, whether that's a bad thing or not depends on perspective. I have two kids myself and despite living in Europe childcare was so expensive we dropped to one income.
- matsemann 2y ago
  Yup, I don't have kids myself, but like that my company offers benefits to parents. It keeps the company more diverse and more enjoyable for me as well in a sense. > It's weird, in some ways, that we offer benefits. In some cases it also makes economical sense. It can cost a company $1000 to give you a benefit, but to buy it yourself would cost $2000 (and the difference is even greater if the benefit isn't taxed at the same rate as cash would be). Or the $200 the company spends on beers for me each year, many would perhaps say that they'd rather have the $200 to spend as they please. But in a sense, I get more value than $200 by getting to know my co-workers better and having a better time every day at work.
  - CalRobert 2y ago
    Interesting, is this not taxed? In some places this sort of thing is taxed the same as "benefit in kind" or similar.
bcrosby95 2y ago
If the childcare is on site, then it's not just money, but also time. When a place I worked at had on site child care it saved me 30 minutes per day.
coldtea 2y ago
>Subsidizing childcare is also "more money", but only for some workers. If the others don't notice or don't care that they're getting paid less for the same work that's great for the company. Such an american thing to say. No, we don't mind having the company pay colleagues' children childcare on top of our (equal to theirs) salary. We'd hate to be in a society where such a petty mindset would be common, that would be living in some kind of social hell.

by jp57 2y ago

grecy 2y ago

For the people that want the childcare, it’s better than more money, because it’s tax free

golergka 2y ago
Can company provide a choice for employees where they can either get facilities or a raise?
- bell-cot 2y ago
  IANAL, but I'll bet the answer is "yes-ish, in most-ish circumstances and jurisdictions, if the company is willing to pay enough lawyers & taxes & stuff. (If $Company is not big global retailer like IKEA, then things would probably be far simpler.)
- QuarterReptile 2y ago
  In the US, and presumably elsewhere, no way. My wife tried to negotiate a higher salary in exchange for forgoing health insurance a few times, to no avail.
  - bombcar 2y ago
    Individually it usually doesn't work unless you're at a level where there is "only one of you" - think C-level exec. But collectively it can work; the company may talk to the union and offer either X benefit which costs $Y or $Y applied to salaries.
    - dmurray 2y ago
      It won't save as much as you might expect, though, because the insurance provider also knows that the people opting out of the scheme would have (on average) cost the provider less to provide healthcare for.
  - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    I’m pretty sure it isn’t up to the company, they have to provide health insurance if certain criteria are met, it doesn’t matter if your partner already has health insurance.
  - grecy 2y ago
    > In the US, and presumably elsewhere In every other developed country everyone has healthcare, irrelevant of job - even people that don't have a job. Healthcare is not tied to your job, it is a basic human right. So this discussion makes no sense outside the US.
quietbritishjim 2y ago
I suppose that depends on location. In the UK, it would count as a benefit in kind, and is taxable in exactly same way as regular income.
- em-bee 2y ago
  depends on the form, amount and also income: https://www.litrg.org.uk/benefits/childcare/employer-supported-childcare https://www.litrg.org.uk/benefits/childcare/employer-support... workplace nurseries are tax free as is any child care for lower incomes. other benefits are tax free up to a certain amount.
mashlol 2y ago
It's better for the company - they can pay less and the employee gets the same equivalent amount in their pocket. E.g. if the company were going to pay $2k extra but it would be taxed $1k, they would have to pay $3k to get the equivalent "happiness" boost. The employee gets $2k / year either way. $2k tax free -> $2k in your pocket $3k + $1k tax -> $2k in your pocket
seanmcdirmid 2y ago
In the USA, you can get up to $5k or so without tax (it’s your money, but you can spend from a tax free account) to fund child care, which works out to almost half for one kid in a HCOL.
consf 2y ago
[dead]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

malfist 2y ago

Look, I'm a DINK, don't have kids, never plan to have kids, don't even like kids. But child care is important to both the parents and society. Not subsidizing child care often means one parent has to leave the workforce, and that's almost always worse off for everyone than if they were able to afford child care and can contribute

from-nibly 2y ago
Right, because raising kids isn't contributing to society.
- 39896880 2y ago
  Contributing to the household income. It takes 2 incomes to live anywhere but BFE in the US.
  - QuarterReptile 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - bombcar 2y ago
      It usually takes two incomes to afford childcare! I know single-income families at various levels of income across the country; it is certainly possible almost anywhere - if you want it.
  - refurb 2y ago
    Yeah but a big part of that is because both parents work. You can buy double the house with 2 incomes instead of 1.
    - CalRobert 2y ago
      Sadly the main consequence of moving to two income families seems to be making everything cost twice as much.
    - 2y ago

amtamt 2y ago

Considered "valued" vs considered "useful" is probably the analogy that should be used here. Subsidizing childcare signals "we value you", while flat increae is signaling "you are useful to us", which can make a lot of impact on moral.

KeplerBoy 2y ago
Is there really a perceived difference on the employees side? If anything subsidized childcare feels like charity and I don't want charity, I want to be paid well for my work, so I can take care of my family.
- amtamt 2y ago
  For some people there is no percieved differnce, some would think employer is trying to save on taxes, while for some (many?) there is a real percieved difference as being seen a member of family rather than a disposable hired hand. For an analogy, one can be given money instead of being invited to a social gathering. One might feel offended, while other may feel happier.
- RestlessMind 2y ago
  > Is there really a perceived difference on the employees side? Only if we could generalize all the employees! I am sure there are some who feel better to have holiday gifts, holiday parties, token recognition rewards etc. And there would be some who just evaluate everything on the basis of cold hard numbers. A good company should have policies to cater to as many employees as possible.
HelloNurse 2y ago
The message of subsidized childcare is not generically "we value you", but "we want you to have children while you work for us", which for most employees is more important than money. Compare to companies that avoid hiring women to avoid dealing with maternity leave.
- itsoktocry 2y ago

CalRobert 2y ago

It's weird, in some ways, that we offer benefits. Give people the money and let them use it how they like. When I lived in California I LOVED the parking cash-out law, it meant a few thousand more a year because I rode a bike to work and didn't need a parking spot. Although, one challenge with things like childcare is that if you applied this on a society-wide level you wind up with childless people having more money, thereby being better able to outbid parents for essentials like housing (this is why a housing scarcity is so insidious). Of course, whether that's a bad thing or not depends on perspective. I have two kids myself and despite living in Europe childcare was so expensive we dropped to one income.

matsemann 2y ago
Yup, I don't have kids myself, but like that my company offers benefits to parents. It keeps the company more diverse and more enjoyable for me as well in a sense. > It's weird, in some ways, that we offer benefits. In some cases it also makes economical sense. It can cost a company $1000 to give you a benefit, but to buy it yourself would cost $2000 (and the difference is even greater if the benefit isn't taxed at the same rate as cash would be). Or the $200 the company spends on beers for me each year, many would perhaps say that they'd rather have the $200 to spend as they please. But in a sense, I get more value than $200 by getting to know my co-workers better and having a better time every day at work.
- CalRobert 2y ago
  Interesting, is this not taxed? In some places this sort of thing is taxed the same as "benefit in kind" or similar.

bcrosby95 2y ago

If the childcare is on site, then it's not just money, but also time. When a place I worked at had on site child care it saved me 30 minutes per day.

coldtea 2y ago

>Subsidizing childcare is also "more money", but only for some workers. If the others don't notice or don't care that they're getting paid less for the same work that's great for the company. Such an american thing to say. No, we don't mind having the company pay colleagues' children childcare on top of our (equal to theirs) salary. We'd hate to be in a society where such a petty mindset would be common, that would be living in some kind of social hell.