4 ms·

Olson says it would be too complicated to pay people different wages based on household size ... also, it would be wildly unfair, and quite likely illegal.

GeneralMayhem 12y ago
Certainly illegal. Marital status is a protected class in the United States.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  "Marital status" is unrelated to "household size".
  - baddox 12y ago
    Apart from an extremely strong correlation.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
      - mikeyouse 12y ago
        For most financial purposes (ACA, Bankruptcy, etc.), "Household size" doesn't mean your number of roommates, it means the number of people you claim on your taxes.
- cperciva 12y ago
  In Canada we have a "disadvantaged group" rule, which basically says that discrimination is fine as long as you're discriminating in the right direction. I wasn't sure if the US had anything similar.
  - archgoon 12y ago
    Interesting; how does "disadvantaged group" status get determined? Is there a list; or would it be left to a judge's discretion? EDIT: Is this the law in question? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_equity_(Canada) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_equity_(Canada)
    - cperciva 12y ago
      Which groups qualify as "disadvantaged" is generally up to judges to decide, with the caveat that since Canada has a common law system (portions of Quebec law notwithstanding) these questions have pretty much all been resolved already. I was thinking mainly of the various human rights acts, but the principle applies across a wide variety of contexts. The federal government is constitutionally barred from creating laws which discriminate against aboriginals, for example, but is allowed to create laws which discriminate in favour of aboriginals since they are considered to be a disadvantaged group.
  - daurnimator 12y ago
    what is "the right direction"? That sounds very flexible to the whims of the politician or populist movement at the time.
    - jquery 12y ago
      It's the logical conclusion of the "blank slate" theory of human development. Everyone is the same, therefore any heterogeneity of outcome is equivalent to discrimination. These laws can then be justified under this premise as correcting imbalances, rather than creating imbalances.
  - forrestthewoods 12y ago
    In the United States there are Protected Classes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class Race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, pregnancy, citizenship, family, disability, veteran, genetics. Technically speaking discrimination is not illegal. Only discrimination along certain axes, such as those listed above, is. States may have additional protected groups on top of that list.
- lambda 12y ago
  Huh? Certainly illegal? Then how do you explain spouse and family health care benefits, the cost of which depends on the size of your family?
  - learc83 12y ago
    Because they are passing the cost of the insurance on to the employee. The employer isn't paying you less because you have a family, just charging you more because it costs more. Health insurance offered through your employer also costs more the older you get, but an employer can't just decided to pay you 10% less when you hit 50. Age is a protected class, but that has no impact on what an employer charges for health insurance.

GeneralMayhem 12y ago

Certainly illegal. Marital status is a protected class in the United States.

dragonwriter 12y ago
"Marital status" is unrelated to "household size".
- baddox 12y ago
  Apart from an extremely strong correlation.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - mikeyouse 12y ago
      For most financial purposes (ACA, Bankruptcy, etc.), "Household size" doesn't mean your number of roommates, it means the number of people you claim on your taxes.
cperciva 12y ago
In Canada we have a "disadvantaged group" rule, which basically says that discrimination is fine as long as you're discriminating in the right direction. I wasn't sure if the US had anything similar.
- archgoon 12y ago
  Interesting; how does "disadvantaged group" status get determined? Is there a list; or would it be left to a judge's discretion? EDIT: Is this the law in question? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_equity_(Canada) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_equity_(Canada)
  - cperciva 12y ago
    Which groups qualify as "disadvantaged" is generally up to judges to decide, with the caveat that since Canada has a common law system (portions of Quebec law notwithstanding) these questions have pretty much all been resolved already. I was thinking mainly of the various human rights acts, but the principle applies across a wide variety of contexts. The federal government is constitutionally barred from creating laws which discriminate against aboriginals, for example, but is allowed to create laws which discriminate in favour of aboriginals since they are considered to be a disadvantaged group.
- daurnimator 12y ago
  what is "the right direction"? That sounds very flexible to the whims of the politician or populist movement at the time.
  - jquery 12y ago
    It's the logical conclusion of the "blank slate" theory of human development. Everyone is the same, therefore any heterogeneity of outcome is equivalent to discrimination. These laws can then be justified under this premise as correcting imbalances, rather than creating imbalances.
- forrestthewoods 12y ago
  In the United States there are Protected Classes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class Race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, pregnancy, citizenship, family, disability, veteran, genetics. Technically speaking discrimination is not illegal. Only discrimination along certain axes, such as those listed above, is. States may have additional protected groups on top of that list.
lambda 12y ago
Huh? Certainly illegal? Then how do you explain spouse and family health care benefits, the cost of which depends on the size of your family?
- learc83 12y ago
  Because they are passing the cost of the insurance on to the employee. The employer isn't paying you less because you have a family, just charging you more because it costs more. Health insurance offered through your employer also costs more the older you get, but an employer can't just decided to pay you 10% less when you hit 50. Age is a protected class, but that has no impact on what an employer charges for health insurance.