Is this a serious question?
Because adults have a right to produce things and trade with one another. Profit is an inevitable potential result of this.
There are plenty of things that society should allow that are not necessarily rights. I believe smoking marijuana should be legal, and I assume you do as well based on your lean, but that doesn't mean I believe it should be a right.
Because having that job in the first place is not a right.
But the person who holds that job needs it more than the corporation needs to bring in a large amount of profits.
Children have rights to be provided for by their legal guardian(s). The legal guardian has a responsibility to come up with the means. Current and prospective employers have no responsibility either way regarding the children, unless that was decided between the parties to be part of the employment contract.
So a corporation has no responsibility to society other than to bring in profits? This seems awfully dystopian to me, and would lead to the abuse of the working class in many ways if corporations in power have little or no responsibility to their workers or society as a whole.
No it won't. Employers would only choose to offer it if it gave them an advantage, such as better commitment and longevity from the employee.
That's my point. Not everyone is going to want to offer paid parental leave, so it's going to discourage many businesses from offering it, and therefore make it harder for potential parents to find a job that offers it.
Anyone who has not secured the means to provide for a family SHOULD be discouraged from starting one.
But as I've stated earlier,
a low birth rate is going to lead to adverse effects on society, including a lower standard of living.
Therefore you think companies should be forced by government to do what does not make sense.
Well the company's interest is not the only thing at stake here.
Not if, as I said, it puts them at a disadvantage to getting fully benefitted jobs in the first place. Young workers are often desired because they demand less pay which is commensurate with their lesser experience. Forcing them to be paid more artificially tilts the scale in favor of older folks who are done having kids.
I can't imagine how political liberals are successful business people. It seems they believe wholeheartedly and unquestioningly that simply raising the price of something results in a corresponding increase in revenue. They just do not think about the negative demand side effects that come with arbitrarily raising something's price.
With the exception of those who are in their teens and those who are of retirement age, the company isn't going to be able to tell who is planning to have a child without explicitly asking them. And the majority of those of retirement age are likely in retirement anyway, and those who are younger are most likely going to be in school.
First nothing is free. Just say what you mean and admit you want others to pay for it. And if low income couples want to raise a family than they should get a better job or make sacrices in other areas not just force others to pay for their wants. I want a Ferrari should I be able to get that for free just because I want it.
It is free for the recipient. There's a difference between wanting to raise a child and wanting a Ferrari. The first one is going to increase the birth rate and have a positive effect on society. The other is not.
That is not controlling anyone. They are free to find another job our start their own any time they want. That is basically the definition of not being controlled. No one said it was going to be easy. You are right that there are geniuses who stay in poverty and it is usually a result of bad choices or lack of motivation. The majority of millionaires didn't inherent their money and there are thousands of new millionaires created every year so while brain power may not be an indicator of wealth brainpower combined with motivation are a pretty good one.
And is it going to be practical for them to drop everything and find another job and start a business? No. Obviously on the surface it doesn't appear to be control because you have the illusion of being able to do whatever you want, even though large corporations have more power and therefore more ability to choose than you do.
And wealth is not a measure of motivation either.
But it does give the ideas our country was founded on. And your plan to guarantee that is by taking more from the people who earned it to give to others. That is not how this country was designed.
So? Just because a document declaring our independence from Britain made a vague statement that could be interpreted multiple ways doesn't mean we need to follow it to the nth degree. Now if you were citing the constitution you might have an actual argument, albeit it'd still be a poor one.
It is not supposed to be the governments job to decide which companies are successful and which ones are not. If a company wants to offer it and incurr the increased expense while being able to attract better employees that is there right. It is not the place of government to tell companies how to run thier business. Besides what do you think these companies will do just accept less profits. Of course not they will just increase prices as if American made products are not to expensive as it is. Plus I am sure those low income families will love paying more for everything.
I'm not arguing for the government to declare some companies more successful than others; that's exactly what the free market does. And despite the high prices argument, countries with higher corporate tax rates, higher minimum wages, and more expansive welfare systems have lower poverty rates. It would seem as though giving more rights to the worker benefits them despite the occasional raise in prices that occurs.
I know how much work that it is to raise kids. I have a 6 YO and a 2 month old. And it doesn't matter what they are doing because what they are not doing is providing any use to the company that you want to force to pay them. Plus you said it was a nessicity of life. If that is true how do couples make it today without it not to mention what did they do in the past. Why again do you think making others pay for the things others want is morally right.
Yet you referred to those who desire to have paid parental leave via a mandate as lazy. You are implying that right now, no one is suffering because of lack of financial support while they raise a child. Many parents
do not make it in this day and age; that has been true throughout history. And you are also confusing wants with needs.
I noticed you never answered the part about what should happen if we go with the 16 month maternity leave and she gets pregnant again right away. Just how many years should this company have to pay for someone to live while getting nothing in return. I will just never understand the liberal desire to force others to pay for the choices of others. Why is expecting people to be responsible for themselves such a bad idea.
16 months paid parental leave for all parents per child, no exceptions. Birth control is not foolproof and many people do not want to have abortions. I don't understand your desire to label those in difficult situations as "irresponsible."