Hacker News Reader

Comment by harimau777 | Hacker News Reader

Companies paying for perks and spouses not having to work both sound like good things to me.

I know of an airport, a bunch of hunting and fishing lodges, teams of housekeepers, etc. that basically allowed the executives of a fortune 500 company to live a pretty amazing life as if they owned an estate without actually paying for any of it.

As soon as marginal tax rates came down, these things got eliminated -- it was far more efficient to just pay people.

Likewise, smart people tend to marry other smart people. If one does well, the other got taxed at 90%. Guess what actually happened? She didn't work. Huge huge loss for the economy.

>Huge loss for the economy

That’s fine. It’s okay for humans to choose to live their one and only life in a way that doesn’t directly benefit “the economy.”

If your husband works and hits the 50+% bracket, and you are younger and make less... You either have to make 3x what your nanny does before you even keep a dollar- any less and you are paying to work.

This is incredibly disheartening friends have complained about being involuntary housewives bc it would cost them too much to go to work

The net might be less than the cost of a nanny at first, but kids do not need nannies, generally, when they go to school. If the spouse choosing to stay at home would prefer not to set their career back the 5-8 years (depending on how many kids) then that would still be worth it in the long run, salary wise.

These offerings have a very obvious catch: They give you all these nice perks and take care of your family so you have more time for the company. They effectively buy you and your time.

This was summer camp and hunting camp for the executives. If you read the man in the gray flannel suit, you'll be surprised by how a lot of white collar execs didn't work that hard. Things moved a lot slower

Reply on news.ycombinator.com