You may not know if a single person is supporting a relative or a grandma with cancer. Nor should you. It’s a flawed argument and pay should be for performance. This doesn’t meant that there shouldn’t be accommodations to everyone’s needs. But those are not tied to pay.

> You may not know if a single person is supporting a relative or a grandma with cancer. Nor should you.

I see this as the core of the argument - paying people based on their needs requires you to invade their privacy in order to find out their needs. And not wanting your employer to invade your privacy would mean getting some baseline low pay because "you don't have any needs".

I think the core of the argument is that prices are not a function of the seller’s wants or needs.

If I go to the grocery store, I do not pay more for an apple from a farm owned by a family that has a sick grandma than from a farm owned by a family that does not have a sick grandma.

> You may not know if a single person is supporting a relative or a grandma with cancer.

In my role I know that and would also support that case as special.

This kind of thinking varies depending of where you live (at lease for most people and less for remote workers). My takeaway is: if you live in a country/state where this help is "embedded" within the system we can focus more in salary equivalence for the same job responsabilities but if you live in a place that put this pressure on the organization side the organization could have the awareness to take care of these issues. In HN we have people from all around the world and with different democratic and non-democratic systems.

> In my role I know that

How would you? Are you running an intelligence agency and it's part of your job as a boss to constantly monitor your employees?

I don't see how the location matters, really. A single person might need more money because they want to save up to start a family. Now you factor that in, and you pay them more, but they never find the right partner and don't start a family. Are you now going to ask them to return the money?

I'm a terrible example, but if you offered me to work the same (or, let's face it, often more) than someone for less money because they're married with children, I'd rather work somewhere where I'm not a second class citizen.

> How would you? Are you running an intelligence agency and it's part of your job as a boss to constantly monitor your employees?

No, I live in a culture where this matters arise. There are many discussions in this thread based on culture experience. I see for example privacy discussions, in some cultures/countries privacy is a must but at the same time contradictory with the private information that is flowing unregulated in multiple organizations.

So you wouldn't "know", you just assume that they'd be open about it and told you. But if they weren't (for a multitude of reasons), you'd make assumptions about their needs.

It seems like it's not the needs that matter, it's your assumptions about them.

I connect with people, you don't know me so you are making assumptions about myself and my culture.

I'm exchanging my work for money, and for equal work I'd expect equal money. I'm saying this as a parent.

Are you also willing to pay more for someone living alone and that therefore can't split the costs with a significant other?

And would I get a pay or benefit cut if my kids die? Oof.

This comment has few small typos that make it hard to understand.

But in the US, if an employer offers subsidized health/dental/vision insurance for partners/dependents, then the employer is already offering extra benefits to someone with spouse/kids.