[Vysero]

"Not everyone can move to optimize their relative adjusted income"--

Yes and not everyone can get married, and have a partner to share the load with either. So does that mean a bachelor and a married man should be paid different salaries?

Not everyone can find the time to run a side business. So should those who can be penalized?

You pay your employees what they are worth to the company and forget entirely about what they are and are not capable of doing outside of the company because it's really none of your business. If that means you can't find employees because you aren't willing to value an employee correctly than your company will fail, end of story.

[mrkurt]

Single and married folks with families get paid differently. We pay ~3-4x more for healthcare for people with families than individuals.

You've sort of dismissed my point, though. The dilemma is that salary choices create friction within companies. It's not as simple as "pay what it takes to get someone" and "it's none of your business" because it does, in fact, have repercussions on how well a company works.

[nmfisher]

> Single and married folks with families get paid differently. We pay ~3-4x more for healthcare for people with families than individuals.

They get paid differently, or they cost their employer differently?

[moljac024]

What's the difference?

[nmfisher]

“Gets paid more” means single employee makes $100k, employee with a family makes $150k.

“Costs the company more” means they are both paid a salary of $100k, but the healthcare insurance for the employer with a family costs $50k extra.

[mrkurt]

It costs the company more. It also provides value benefit to an employee with a family. I'm not sure that distinction really changes anything. :)

[Vysero]

An important distinction.