Economically speaking, I'm fairly certain finding a wife is more expensive than a $8/hr freelancer though.

I don't know if you're a rich guy planning to marry down in the social hierarchy, living in a culture where where women don't work or just a misogynist but this is generally false in the west. Dual incomes with a single household is very economical compared to life as a single.

See eg. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dinks.asp "A household in which there are two incomes and no children (either both partners are working or one has two incomes). DINKS are often the target of marketing efforts for luxury items such as expensive cars and vacations."

Except this if the wife can hear you working then it's probably not a dual income home.

Edit: Prior probabilities yada yada.

If your wife expects you to support her financially. Fortunately, such arrangements are no longer mandatory.

... or if she expects to date you and be impressed before marrying you...

Depends on what else you're getting out of the arrangement.

A wife is still more expensive

Really? Mine is profitable...

Really? What sort of margins are you getting for her per hour?

It's hard to make precise, depending on a whole host of factors. It's clearly positive, however, as our burn rate on just her salary is far lower than it would cost me alone to maintain my lifestyle.

Not to mention 50% equity :)

A spouse might already be a sunk cost.

That’s right, you are not going to get any one cheaper to change your adult diapers. HA!

And this, folks, is one of the reasons yc discourages single founders!

Interesting, is this legal? At first I thought it wouldn't be, but then I realized that an investor relationship might not be one of the relationships protected by workplace sexual harassment laws.

Er... "single founders" as in "only one founder", as opposed to "two founders or more".

Ohhhhh. I thought he meant. Well, you see what I thought he meant. Because of the sculptor and the wife and that stuff.

I believe it was meant to be a pun :)

Anti-discrimination laws do not apply to investors. In fact, in California, they don't even apply to independent contractors.

Interesting. I'm curious about the legality of a company putting all or most prospective employees through a 'trial run' as an independent contractor before hiring them. Ignoring feasibility of attracting talent in such a system, are there laws in place to prevent such practices being used to circumvent anti discrimination laws?

The point of a 1099 trial run is to make a hiring decision. That hiring decision is very much encumbered by CA anti-discrimination law.

@fourk I imagine that if a "trial run" candidate who outperformed his/her peers was denied employment, he or she would have grounds to sue for discrimination.

I think what is meant is apply the discrimination on the selection for the trial run.

Don't know if its legal but it would certainly be an asshole move.

Thank you!