next »

[threadkiller]

Wow.  I had no idea just how strongly some people believe that childless faculty members are 2nd class citizens.  Why should faculty members with children and families be compensated more than a single childless person?  A childcare benefit and a family healthcare benefit are not cheap.  When you add up the total compensation between the two groups, the childless are being dramatically discriminated against.

Ok, if you don't have to subsidize my childcare, then as LarryC pointed out, I don't have to subsidize your triple bypass...or your physical therapy, or even your antibiotics for that sinus infection...I am healthy, my kids and spouse are healthy...why should I have to pay for your health problems???

[allbutfoundajob]

Ok, if you don't have to subsidize my childcare, then as LarryC pointed out, I don't have to subsidize your triple bypass...or your physical therapy, or even your antibiotics for that sinus infection...I am healthy, my kids and spouse are healthy...why should I have to pay for your health problems???
[/quote]


Why shouldn't benefits be cafeteria style?  For example, why not have total compensation be $x and then people can choose which benefits they want to pay for and which they do not want to pay for.  But no, those with kids have some type of superiority complex and believe they deserve to be compensated more than faculty without kids.

[dolljepopp]

Or let's just ship all children of to an island somewhere until they are eighteen and can pay tuition to support our salaries.  Noisy, germ-spreading, dirt-eating, squirming little pre-humans, who needs them?

allbut, I doubt I'll ever have children, but if I do, I desperately hope they do not end up in your classroom.

[allbutfoundajob]

Or let's just ship all children of to an island somewhere until they are eighteen and can pay tuition to support our salaries.  Noisy, germ-spreading, dirt-eating, squirming little pre-humans, who needs them?

allbut, I doubt I'll ever have children, but if I do, I desperately hope they do not end up in your classroom.

So in your mind, because I think faculty should be compensated equally, wether they have children or not, I therefore want to have all kids shipped to an island.  Talk about jumping to conclusions.   If your child had the same level of reasoning skills you just displayed, I would hope your child was not in my class

Why is the belief that the childless are less worthy than those with children so prominent in our culture?

[threadkiller]

Ok, if you don't have to subsidize my childcare, then as LarryC pointed out, I don't have to subsidize your triple bypass...or your physical therapy, or even your antibiotics for that sinus infection...I am healthy, my kids and spouse are healthy...why should I have to pay for your health problems???

Why shouldn't benefits be cafeteria style?  For example, why not have total compensation be $x and then people can choose which benefits they want to pay for and which they do not want to pay for.  But no, those with kids have some type of superiority complex and believe they deserve to be compensated more than faculty without kids.
[/quote]

Oooohhh...is this just for the university or can we extend it to the country as a whole?  Can I earmark my tax dollars for say, education but not Iraq?  Could I further specify that some of my money can go for defense but not any for any military initiative sponsored by the current administration???

[sylvie]

There will never be equal compensation in this society!  It's impossible and ridiculous.  The university provides MANY services to a varied group of people:

a health clinic
a workout gym
subsidized housing for married students
a writing center for students who have comma issues
a computer lab for students who have no computer
a shuttle bus for students or faculty with no car
a library
emergency phones
safety lighting along the walkways to the dorms
wireless internet
etc.

Do you ask to be compensated for each and every service of which you do not partake?

[dolljepopp]

I don't think the childless are less worthy. 

Deliberate hyperbole aside, in a society in which we are interdependent -- because there is no such thing as a self-made person -- we all "pay" for things that effect/help other people more than ourselves (schools, roads, national parks, subsidies to the airline industry, flood walls, tornado shelters, etc.)

I've no problem with the idea of cafeteria benefits systems.  If they can work in a university economic environment, great.

But this "the heck with you d***ed breeders suckling at the teat of my pay/benefits package" notion?  Well, on behalf of my possible future moron children, I am, at the very least, dismayed by the selfishness of it. 

[allbutfoundajob]

I don't think the childless are less worthy. 

Deliberate hyperbole aside, in a society in which we are interdependent -- because there is no such thing as a self-made person -- we all "pay" for things that effect/help other people more than ourselves (schools, roads, national parks, subsidies to the airline industry, flood walls, tornado shelters, etc.)

I've no problem with the idea of cafeteria benefits systems.  If they can work in a university economic environment, great.

But this "the heck with you d***ed breeders suckling at the teat of my pay package" notion?  Well, on behalf of my possible future moron children, I am, at the very least, dismayed by the selfishness of it. 

I am curious why you are mixing common goods that arise from taxation with benefits provided by an employer.  Those are two very different constructs.


Do you think women are selfish when they want to be compensated the same as men?
Do you think blacks are selfish when they want to be compensated the same as whites?
Then why do you think the childless are selfish when they want to be compensated the same as those with children?

[threadkiller]

Or let's just ship all children of to an island somewhere until they are eighteen and can pay tuition to support our salaries.  Noisy, germ-spreading, dirt-eating, squirming little pre-humans, who needs them?

allbut, I doubt I'll ever have children, but if I do, I desperately hope they do not end up in your classroom.

So in your mind, because I think faculty should be compensated equally, wether they have children or not, I therefore want to have all kids shipped to an island.  Talk about jumping to conclusions.   If your child had the same level of reasoning skills you just displayed, I would hope your child was not in my class

Why is the belief that the childless are less worthy than those with children so prominent in our culture?

Think of it this way: subsidized childcare actually does benefit the childless.  It allows your colleagues to be more productive and engaged in the classroom.  This in turn attracts more majors and enhances the prestige of your department.  The more majors and prestige=more resources, which means you, oh childless one, get more funding and money.

[threadkiller]

Do you think women are selfish when they want to be compensated the same as men?
Do you think blacks are selfish when they want to be compensated the same as whites?
Then why do you think the childless are selfish when they want to be compensated the same as those with children?

Ok, let me spell this out for you: being a woman or being black is a permanent status.  Being childless is not.

[megmurray]

I can understand the frustration of childless people not wanting to subsidize childcare.  However, as many have stated, Universities provide many benefits to their employees that are targeted only to a specific group.  For example, I don't take advantage of  smoking cessation programs, mental health programs, employee assistance programs, evening speakers, the fitness center, or even the health insurance because my coverage is better under my spouse.  So why should I pay for all of these things if I am not going to use them?  Because they are for the greater good of the university and its employees. They reduce time off and increase productivity and, most importantly *allow the university to attract the most qualified employees*.  If you have ever been on a 2 year waiting list for daycare, childcare is a benefit that faculty and staff, who happen to be parents, will see as an important benefit.  

Doctormommy,  I was a bit disappointed in how quickly you dismissed the financial issue for the loss of women in academic science.  I can understand how, because you have a stay-at-home spouse, that paying 1/2 your salary to daycare is not a concern for you, but it is for many, many of us.  For women whose salary covers precious little over daycare, it adds fuel to the fire of stay-at-home vs. work issue.  Why should they work crazy hours, deal with the stress, have someone else raise their kids AND have little to show for it financially?  I was in a playgroup with 2 women science PhDs who both had PD and good publishing records, yet decided that it was not worth it to work.  

I am not sure that I am really arguing for higher salaries, just that providing safe, quality daycare that we can actually get into, would make academia more attractive to women with children or those who are hoping to, regardless of the discipline.  Meg

[allbutfoundajob]

Think of it this way: subsidized childcare actually does benefit the childless.  It allows your colleagues to be more productive and engaged in the classroom.  This in turn attracts more majors and enhances the prestige of your department.  The more majors and prestige=more resources, which means you, oh childless one, get more funding and money.

1.  Why do you assume I am childless?  Do only childless people think that those with children and those without children should be compensated equally?

2.  Think of it this way: paying childless faculty more than those with children does benefit those faculty who have children.  It allows your colleagues without childrent to take better vacations and as a result be more productive and engaged in the classroom....  This is just as rational as what you proposed.

[acrimone]

Why shouldn't benefits be cafeteria style?  For example, why not have total compensation be $x and then people can choose which benefits they want to pay for and which they do not want to pay for.  But no, those with kids have some type of superiority complex and believe they deserve to be compensated more than faculty without kids.

A huge part of this is the moral hazard problem.  It's the same reason that, say, landslide insurance doesn't exist -- the only people who would pay for it are people whose houses are on hillsides, and the insurance companies can't collect enough from those people to pay for the risk.

There just isn't enough demand.

The problem with a lot of public goods, though, is that even though there isn't enough demand (economically speaking) to fund something, when someone needs something (say, an emergency room) they really, really really really need it.  Sure, maybe you don't use the road that goes over the mountains.  But when you need to get out of your area because of a chemical spill, all of the sudden you REALLY REALLY need it.

So we build roads, and provide emergency medical care, etc., on a communally funded basis because otherwise the stuff would never get built, would never get provided.  It's the same thing with public education.

[allbutfoundajob]

I can understand the frustration of childless people not wanting to subsidize childcare.  However, as many have stated, Universities provide many benefits to their employees that are targeted only to a specific group. 

It is not a matter of subsidization, it is a matter of looking at the relative compensation rates.  Take two faculty members who are at the same point in their career and have both done equally well at their jobs, one is childless and has no significant other, the second faculty member is married and has two kids.
Can you honestly look the childless faculty member in the eye and say you are worth $20,000 (or whatever number the family healthcare benefit is plus the daycare expense for two kids) less than the faculty member with a family?  Why is it that the faculty member with a family should be compensated more?  Why is it that the faculty member with a family should not have his or her take home pay reduced so that the total compensation package between the two equivalent faculty members is the same?
I for one could not look a childless faculty member in the eye and say that he or she is a less valued member of the faculty (which undeniably true due to the difference in compensation).

[allbutfoundajob]

The problem with a lot of public goods, though, is that even though there isn't enough demand (economically speaking) to fund something, when someone needs something (say, an emergency room) they really, really really really need it.  Sure, maybe you don't use the road that goes over the mountains.  But when you need to get out of your area because of a chemical spill, all of the sudden you REALLY REALLY need it.

So we build roads, and provide emergency medical care, etc., on a communally funded basis because otherwise the stuff would never get built, would never get provided.  It's the same thing with public education.

I completely agree when it comes to public and common goods provided by a government from taxes.  However, this is not that situation.  This is a case where people are arguing that the childless are less worthy and should receive less compensation than a person with a child.