[firstlink]

> Oxide not only offers the best healthcare plans we could find, but we also pay 100% of monthly premiums – a significant benefit for those with dependents.

I confess I read TFA just to see when the other shoe would drop, and there it is: compensation varies depending on number of dependents. Yes it's hidden from the paycheck but insurance premiums are absolutely part of compensation. Yet the author openly praises this discriminatory compensation decision.

[CobrastanJorji]

If it turns out that they also offer a vision plan, are you going to describe it as discriminatory against the eagle-eyed? Or would you be mad if you find out that their healthcare covers women's reproductive health?

Healthcare in this country comes from employers, and so if you've got kids, you've mostly gotta get it from your employer, and everyone with kids needs healthcare for those kids. So if you cover healthcare for your employees, that includes their family. Good system? Hell no. But it's not a trick's trying to punish the folks without kids.

[don-code]

This is a fantastic example of _framing_ - how what's generally interpreted as a positive good can, with the right changes to presentation, be re-framed as a negative. The more classic framing example is a child tax credit (generally seen positively), which doesn't substantially differ from a childlessness tax in other ways than how it's framed.

For more information on that topic and how it's frequently used in arguments like these, I highly recommend _Thinking, Fast and Slow_ by Daniel Kahneman.

[tempestn]

I can't tell if this is satire. Are you suggesting that they should pay higher salaries to single people because they likely won't use the healthcare plan as much? Should younger and healthier people also be paid more?

[jedberg]

> Are you suggesting that they should pay higher salaries to single people because they likely won't use the healthcare plan as much

Netflix does. Or at least did. They set aside money for insurance, and paid out whatever you didn't use as cash. People with spouses could just opt for the cash.

[lowkey_]

As a founder, I honestly wouldn't have expected this to be legal. AFAIK, startups aren't allowed to co-mingle salary + healthcare benefits like that.

E.g. you're breaking the law if you reimburse someone's healthcare plan directly or allow them to expense a health expense, even if you classify that as additional income for them, as opposed to having a dedicated HSA account.

Do you have a source? I'd be super interested in how it works, and I definitely may be wrong on this (I hope I am).

[jedberg]

Why wouldn't it be legal? The allocate $10,000 pretax dollars per year for health care (this was 10 years ago, it's probably more now). You select whatever plan you want. They pay the premium. They then pay you the rest as taxed compensation.

It's legal for companies to pay your health plan with pre tax dollars. Basically they just set your salary a few bucks higher each month for whatever the difference is.

[xsmasher]

Some companies ONLY pay for the employee's health care premiums, and the premium for dependents comes out of their pocket.

In this case employee AND dependent premiums are paid by the company, so you could say that single people "get less." They get $500 worth of health insurance instead of the $1000 that other employees get.

(Not making a judgement on GP's argument, just adding context.)

[lowkey_]

How in the world is this discriminatory compensation?

Let's simplify and say that: everyone at the company, and their families, are entitled to 100% of monthly premiums covered.

Someone choosing not to use that benefit as much as someone else by having fewer dependents is not discrimination.

It's like saying "I don't have a gym membership, I'm not using the wellness benefit each month, this is discrimination and others are getting paid more than me!"

[BobbyJo]

I mean, this is about the employees feeling equal. That's the purpose. Would they feel more equal or less equal if the guy with 2 kids and a stay at home wife got a smaller paycheck than the 25 y/o with no dependents? Seems like you'd be giving up perceived equal (the whole purpose) just to be technically equal.

[ocdtrekkie]

The cost to the company differs, but the pay to the employee does not differ: They have healthcare and $191,227. Sure, that healthcare is "worth more" if you have more kids, but you can't benefit from it if you don't anyways.

[jedberg]

Even if you have three kids and a spouse, this still only translates to maybe 5-10% difference in total comp.

Where the real variation is is in the stock comp, which seems to be variable.

[chernevik]

Pretty small shoe.

[seattle_spring]

Some people unfortunately are career victims, looking at every possible corner of a situation for which to be offended.