— “Never tell anyone that you need money to feed your family.”
— Yes, there’s a common phrase you often hear from employees: “I need money to feed my family.” Some say it at a job interview, others — in conversations with colleagues or a manager when discussing salary. At first glance, it’s an ordinary phrase, but it carries very important meaning and serious consequences.
I’ve had quite a few employees in my business who said exactly that.
Let’s break down a concrete example. There are two sales managers. Both met their quota and come to the manager for their money. The manager replies: “I’ll pay a bit later.” And one of them says: “I need money to feed my family, so please pay urgently.” What’s the problem here? If both did the same work, they should be paid not because someone has a family, children, or obligations, but because they fulfilled the agreement. When a person adds personal circumstances, they put themselves in a weak position.
Today we’ll examine exactly why you mustn’t do that — neither from the standpoint of personal development, nor from the standpoint of behavior in the social and business world. On the one hand, why you mustn’t do it from the perspective of your own growth; on the other — why you mustn’t do it if you don’t want to lose a certain firmness in the social world and let people use you. Because when a manager hears such a phrase, they gain an opportunity to manipulate the person. They already know which pressure points to press.
There are two directions in which this situation should be considered.
- The first — inner development. Why it’s dangerous to think this way, how it halts growth and deprives you of opportunities.
- The second — social. In the real world, especially in business, such mindsets make you look weaker in the eyes of partners and colleagues.
And this concerns not only “boss–subordinate” relations. The same construct appears between business partners. One tells the other: “I need to pull money out of the business because I have to feed my family.” At that moment he already loses, because business is built for profit and success, not for someone’s personal needs.
Let’s return to the example with two employees. They agreed that they would be paid for 100 sales. When someone says: “Pay me, I need to feed my family,” he violates the original agreement. The deal was simple: make 100 sales — get the money. Everything else is emotional manipulation that only gets in the way. Now let’s imagine the manager. Why should he pay one earlier than the other just because someone has a family? And if the other person was born into a wealthy family and doesn’t need money — does that mean he shouldn’t be paid? Of course not. Payment should depend on the work, not on personal circumstances. Everything else is a breach of agreement and a play on pity.
Today we’ll analyze why people say this phrase at all. Of course, there are real situations in which a person truly needs money to support a family, pay for housing, food, school. But even then, it’s important to understand that this is a path into weakness.
I recall a case: I had a sales director with a salary of $5–10,000. And a partner said: “He needs to be paid $7,000 because he has such family expenses.” That is, “I need to feed my family” turns into “my standard of expenses is such-and-such.” But there are managers who spend, say, $2,000 on themselves and think it’s strange: I get by on $2,000, and you need $7,000 to feed your family. Although it’s perfectly normal that maybe even $7,000 isn’t enough for him to feed his family. Maybe $70,000 isn’t enough to feed his family. But this number starts raising a huge number of questions.
A similar story plays out with business partners. People create a company for profit and growth, and then one suddenly says: “We urgently need to pull money out, I have a family.” The second develops an internal conflict: after all, the goal of business is development, not solving a partner’s personal financial problems. From this, quarrels and resentments begin. Someone bought his wife a ring, someone went on vacation, someone has 15 children, and another has none. This causes an enormous number of problems.
— So a person in a victim position says: “I’m in a tough situation, I’m poor and unhappy.” And where there is a victim, there is always a persecutor. You could say that’s the essence here. Two questions arise.
First: can you do the opposite — use family as a source of strength and motivation, like you do, for example, when children are not a burden but energy?
And second: what about those who are already in a victim position, who truly can’t quit their job because they need to feed their children? How can they move into a stronger state?
— You’ve outlined two important parts. The first is personal development. When a person says, “I need to feed my family, pay the rent, solve problems,” they stop developing — they degenerate.
And the second question shows how to make the right decisions in the social world, in a social environment, in order to gain good advantage. This is not a question of manipulation; it’s a question of the social world. We live in a world of cruel games, lies, deception, and people rarely are in a state of truly hearing each other and understanding the situation.
As a manager, I often speak in different companies: no matter how adequate and kind a person I may be, no matter how humanely I treat people — with all these aspects I always observe where we are. And if we agreed with people that I pay money for results, then if the person didn’t show that result, and he comes and asks how he will feed his family — that’s a completely different construct. In this situation I can say: “You lost, you’re definitely not earning the money,” just as I can donate money to him as charity, lend him money, or offer him a different job. But it shouldn’t be tied to the first situation in business.
💡You put it very correctly: why live from the victim position if you can live from the position of strength? Say to yourself: “I have children, a family, dreams, needs — and that’s great. That’s a source of my energy, not weakness. I’ll simply work, develop, and realize myself — together with all my circumstances.” This is a strong position. It’s harder, but it gives stability.
I have four children, and I always say that each new child never created financial difficulties for me. I never thought: “I’ll have a child only if I can provide for him.” In different cultures, the opinion is widespread that you first need to get on your feet, earn money, build a career, and only then have children — there’s no understanding that you can do these things in parallel. Just as a child can be born at 18, so can one be born at 40. Someone will say it’s late, someone will say it’s early, someone — “I’m not ready yet,” and so on. People endlessly create a huge number of rules. But can you live in such a way that you can have a child at any moment, if your strength allows, in terms of health, your responsibility, your sense of life? And could it be that you constantly change jobs, that at 40 you might have one job, at 20 — another, and at 60 — a completely new profession in which you calmly settle and live? That’s normal. Life does not end with the choice of the first job.
Returning to the topic of how many children: I never had a situation in which a new child created a particular financial burden for me. There’s a certain rationality. If I earn X and have one child, I earn that same X with two children — I just won’t buy a toy once a month, but once every two months, for example. I understand someone will say: “We don’t have enough, we earn $200 a month.”
A different story again — different reasons, different circumstances. In spiritual teachings there’s a good explanation: the greatest change in your life happens when you have a child. That changes your map, your life. The birth of a second child changes it again. A third — changes it again. You can’t even guess how exactly it will unfold, what and where will start to move. The question is the inner impulse.
Someone waits and says: “I need to get on my feet to have a child.” And someone calmly gives birth at 18. Honestly, I wouldn’t want to change my life, but I would be absolutely happy if my wife and I had married at 18 and started having children from 18. I would genuinely be glad. I’m not one of those who believes life must first be “rearranged for oneself.” I don’t see a problem in that. Someone will say it’s unreasonable and they’ll later divorce. What are you talking about? How many people get married at 40 and divorce six months later? I wouldn’t be surprised if there are no fewer of those — and maybe even more — than those who marry at 18 and divorce six months later.
The world creates a lot of constraints and complications. The difficulty is not that you had a child. I have four children, and I endlessly hear: “Oh, four kids — that must be hard” — 99 out of 100 say that, both those who have four and those who don’t. “Oh, we know how hard it is — little kids.” Polina and I say: “You definitely don’t know how we live. You don’t understand.” And for me it’s happiness. I’m glad I have children, and honestly, I’m not in a hurry for them to grow up — they will grow up anyway. A child comes and wakes you up at night, and you think: “Don’t wake me, I have work tomorrow.” I remember, a couple of years ago a child came at night, and I said to Polina: “I look at the eldest — she’s already 14, she hugs us less, may not come to the kitchen. Let’s allow all the kids to sleep with us anytime, regardless of whether we have to get up early or not, whether it’s hard or not — because this will end.” This is happiness. This is work. But I can’t say this work is easier or harder than loneliness. Being alone, for example, for 40 years — that’s also huge work, very difficult. It’s a big job — to live through all this and remain in it.
💡That’s why it’s important to understand: having children and needing to pay bills is not weakness, but a natural approach to life. It’s about mindset: thinking about expenses or thinking about income. This is a well-known topic. The difference is fundamental: to think about how much you spend, and to think about how much you want to earn.
Before moving on to the second question, I want to note: a person often deceives themselves. They say: “I absolutely must receive this money because I need to feed my family.” In 90% of cases when I’ve heard such conversations, people could reduce their expenses: rent a simpler apartment, cut back on spending for vacations, clothes, food, restaurants, entertainment. They could reduce expenses, but they say: “No, I won’t do that.” In most such cases, cutting expenses is possible, but the person refuses.
When I hear this as a manager, I get a strange feeling. I know many business owners who either don’t spend money on themselves or are used to a restrained lifestyle, and they don’t understand you. They think: “Why are you such a spendthrift? We worked 40 years to earn money, and you, even if you raised billions — drive a Toyota or an Audi A4 and hold steady.” They might say: “The time will come — we’ll see, we’ll decide, now we need to work.” Such a person doesn’t spend, and they look at you like an unknown phenomenon: “Where did you come from? Under what circumstances do you live like that?”
— That’s not the healthiest position either.
— Yes, it’s not healthy. But if you encounter such people, you need to understand: there are many of them. Moreover, those who spend on themselves in business often believe that only they can spend, and you — cannot. “We earned it, and if I want to be generous — I’ll pay.” This is especially pronounced in the Russian-speaking environment. This chain of ideas works automatically, it’s deeply rooted, it’s constantly “broadcast” to you: “If you don’t study — it will be bad in university,” “If you don’t do this — it will be bad in life.” The teacher at school says this, you listen and think: “And where did you study? You have problems too.” The son drinks, someone divorced — where is the pattern? A person senses deception: looks at parents, neighbors, grandparents — and sees inconsistency. A false construction begins.
When it comes to how to behave correctly with an employer — this matters: any employer or partner who hears “I need money to feed my family” will enter a manipulative game from two sides.
- On the one hand, they can take advantage of the situation and “sit on your head,” squeeze out the maximum.
- On the other — they can become “merciful” and forget about the business, which is also manipulation. They have rules: if they’re not the owner of the company, they also have a boss, and they are not entitled to make exceptional decisions. Only if the employment contract explicitly states: “In case of family problems, salary is paid regardless of anything” — then it will be so. Can such a contract exist? It can. Then put it in writing.
But many don’t have such “alignment” — and this causes allergy among other employees: why was one person paid though they didn’t complete the work, and I wasn’t paid because I “can wait”? Why is one decision made for someone and not for another? If you want to make a separate arrangement, come and say: “I owe you money; I can’t pay now, but I will pay later,” — and document it as a loan: interest-bearing or interest-free, with a promissory note or another agreement. Only this way — a combination of agreements.
What should a person do when coming to a manager? Under no circumstances should you broadcast the phrase “I need to feed my family” as a basis for payment. Always rely on your original agreement. There is room for maneuver — many schemes and strategies. You can always negotiate as correctly as possible at work. I help many people negotiate in partnerships, with employees and with management. There are many psychological techniques, and mostly they are exactly psychological techniques.
One of the key techniques is never to enter the victim position. Don’t show that you have some external reason that is “better” than someone else’s reason. “You must pay me today because tonight I’m buying a Louis Vuitton suitcase for $10,000” — such a construction is no different in its inner logic. Interestingly, it can push the manager into an inadequate field of perception: they will think, where do you get such demands, why do you allow yourself that. Perhaps it will make them think. I’m not saying you should do this, but it’s an example: to lead the interlocutor into an unusual line of reasoning. However, this too is a form of manipulation.
Manipulation in a company works against you and against your inner development. The phrase will start being used by others. The husband will come home and say: “They didn’t pay me,” the wife replies: “But you have to feed the kids!” But you can say it differently: “They pay me not because I need to feed the kids, but because I do the work.” And honestly admit: “I failed to earn 5,000; I wasn’t paid 5,000 — I didn’t do it.” That is the only correct answer.
— So you’re taking control of the situation back?
— Definitely. You’re taking control back to yourself. At the very least, you explain the truth to your wife, husband, mother, grandmother or friend — what’s happening. Not to say: “I did the work, they didn’t pay me because the business has problems now” — that’s inadequate. They’ll say to you: “But you have to feed the family.” But family is a standard part of life, and your task is to enter into the perception of life adequately.
Why is this important? Because when a hurricane, a tsunami, wars, currency collapse, stock crashes, the emergence of artificial intelligence, and job changes happen — you relate to these events adequately, not looking for an external culprit. “I should be paid for the work where I’m supposed to do marketing, and I wasn’t paid because I need to feed my family” — this is the same mechanism: in troubles, someone else is always to blame, but not you. You begin to seek the cause outside yourself.
Is it possible that another person is to blame for the trouble? Of course, it happens. For example, an earthquake — we’re not to blame for it. You can end up in Los Altos Hills at the moment of an earthquake — that’s not our choice. But even then we switch on adequacy: “It’s an earthquake now — we take steps 1, 2, 3…,” and we don’t sit and blame everyone else: “It’s your fault, you brought me here,” etc.
A person needs to learn — and for a modern person this is difficult — not only to take responsibility, but to correctly understand causes and effects, who is responsible for what and how the world is arranged. The world is arranged so that a boss can say: “You’re fired,” may not pay a salary, the law can be changed, money can be debited from a bank account by someone else’s decision. In the morning they come up with a law — you wake up and there is no money. There are many such examples. Remember Cyprus — everyone woke up and there was no money. Or a brokerage where the money was — bankruptcy. It seemed it shouldn’t have gone bankrupt, but it did.
I often return to the topic of promises: people lie, constantly change their words. What do we do then? We deceive ourselves as well. A person deceives themselves when they agree — “I work under such conditions” — and then comes and says: “You owe me money because I need to feed my family.”