Stop supporting married couples with single workers' salaries

Karen Johnson's legislative attempt to deny benefits to unmarried couples raises several interesting questions. One, as the Wildcat's Feb. 19 editorial suggested, is whether or not we should recognize same-sex marriages. Another, which has been unaddressed to date, is: Should we offer such benefits at all?

By the logic of the free market, employees should be compensated according to their value to the employer. In practice, this means that payment should vary with the difficulty of the work, the special talent or training necessary to perform it and the employee's experience.

Providing spouse-and-family benefits flies in the face of this logic. Two employees can work the same hours at the same job with the same level of skill and experience, providing the same value to the employer; yet one receives more than the other simply because the first has a spouse or children.

A more sensible approach would be to eliminate all such benefits and to compensate employees with money and money alone. Workers who'd chosen to burden themselves with dependents would be free to spend their salaries on life insurance, daycare and the myriad other burdens the proprietor of a family must bear.

Those, who through better taste or sense, had remained single would be equally free to spend their money on themselves.

Whether Johnson's bill passes or fails, single and child-free workers will continue to subsidize those with partners and dependents. Only complete elimination of the current benefit system will ensure that all employees are compensated equally and without regard to their lifestyles.

William Flack
Undeclared undergraduate