3 ms·

Yes, someone will have to pay: the person raising a child. If they can't afford to take time off to have the child, then they should seriously reconsider havi

Yes, someone will have to pay: the person raising a child. If they can't afford to take time off to have the child, then they should seriously reconsider having a family. Having a family involves major expenses that only increase as the children age. The employer side is that some employers will not be able to afford this luxury and will be unable to hire a temporary replacement. The result is decreased productivity, which hurts the economy. It should be the employers' choice if they want to offer that benefit. If it is such a benefit to the employer, then all employers will do it. As we continue to pile mandates on employers, you raise the cost of hiring. Economics 101 says if you raise the cost of something, you get less of it. More mandates=less jobs.

colmvp 12y ago
> Yes, someone will have to pay: the person raising a child. If they can't afford to take time off to have the child, then they should seriously reconsider having a family. Having a family involves major expenses that only increase as the children age. Agreed. My parents didn't have me until they raised enough money to take time off. Likewise, I don't plan on having a child (if any) until I have that cushion. Quite frankly, I don't begrudge the government or corporations for not providing such benefits. I don't consider it their responsibility.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  I did the same, but at the same time I don't begrudge others less fortunate financially to not be able to do so. Otherwise you get into a 'children are for the wealthy' situation which is for obvious reasons also not desirable.
PeterisP 12y ago
Governments obviously do understand that it's often a tradeoff between more jobs and better employment conditions. It's the right and duty of the government to try to maximize the wellbeing of their people - if they decide that the best way to maximize that wellbeing is by having less restrictions and thus a more active economy, then that's a valid option. if they decide that better working conditions will have a larger impact than the specific number of jobs lost, then that's a decision that they can and should make. The employer's choice is to check if they want to do business with the people, laws and infrastruture provided by the country, or go elsewhere; the people's choice is to evaluate if they (not the employers!) would benefit from a lower or higher cost or hiring.
Chinjut 12y ago
> The result is decreased productivity, which hurts the economy. The economy is an abstraction which we care about only to the extent that it tracks people's aggregate happiness. So if you're going to consider the harm to "productivity" on one side of the ledger, you ought to also consider on the other side of the ledger the harm to people's happiness caused by a world in which parenthood and sustained livelihood come into conflict. (And you ought to consider this not just to whatever extent happy employees are more productive employees, but rather because happiness is the fundamental goal to which productivity is a means, not vice versa)
xorcist 12y ago
That reasoning has been tried and the outcome wasn't good. See: France, Japan.

colmvp 12y ago

> Yes, someone will have to pay: the person raising a child. If they can't afford to take time off to have the child, then they should seriously reconsider having a family. Having a family involves major expenses that only increase as the children age. Agreed. My parents didn't have me until they raised enough money to take time off. Likewise, I don't plan on having a child (if any) until I have that cushion. Quite frankly, I don't begrudge the government or corporations for not providing such benefits. I don't consider it their responsibility.

jacquesm 12y ago
I did the same, but at the same time I don't begrudge others less fortunate financially to not be able to do so. Otherwise you get into a 'children are for the wealthy' situation which is for obvious reasons also not desirable.

PeterisP 12y ago

Governments obviously do understand that it's often a tradeoff between more jobs and better employment conditions. It's the right and duty of the government to try to maximize the wellbeing of their people - if they decide that the best way to maximize that wellbeing is by having less restrictions and thus a more active economy, then that's a valid option. if they decide that better working conditions will have a larger impact than the specific number of jobs lost, then that's a decision that they can and should make. The employer's choice is to check if they want to do business with the people, laws and infrastruture provided by the country, or go elsewhere; the people's choice is to evaluate if they (not the employers!) would benefit from a lower or higher cost or hiring.

Chinjut 12y ago

> The result is decreased productivity, which hurts the economy. The economy is an abstraction which we care about only to the extent that it tracks people's aggregate happiness. So if you're going to consider the harm to "productivity" on one side of the ledger, you ought to also consider on the other side of the ledger the harm to people's happiness caused by a world in which parenthood and sustained livelihood come into conflict. (And you ought to consider this not just to whatever extent happy employees are more productive employees, but rather because happiness is the fundamental goal to which productivity is a means, not vice versa)

xorcist 12y ago

That reasoning has been tried and the outcome wasn't good. See: France, Japan.