You're implying that all workers have low skills or no skills, and even for those that are in that category, that this makes them undeserving of economic stability. If a venture capitalist wants to take huge risks to attempt to become one of the powerful few, that's their choice, but just because he/she has chosen that career, it doesn't mean they should have a right to control the lives of those who are simply trying to live their lives in economic stability.
It makes the worker deserving of the pay his skill and negotiating power can earn him. It does not mean his pay should be tied to the pay of the person taking all the risk or providing the skill and brainpower that makes the company profitable. And no company is controlling the lives of anyone. They are free to quit and start their own business any time they want.
The individual does not simply have the ability to create economic stability. They can be as "responsible for themselves" as possible, but that doesn't mean the state of the economy isn't going to screw them over.
They can create their own personal economic stability and guess what nothing can or should be a guarantee. That is why in the constitution it says pursuit of happiness and not just happiness
As I've stated in earlier posts, a worker will be more pleased with a company that provides them with paid leave, and a happy worker creates a productive worker.
Than that should be the companies decision if they want to provide it or not. It is not the governments job to tell businesses how to increase productivity
As I've stated in earlier posts, a worker will be more pleased with a company that provides them with paid leave, and a happy worker creates a productive worker. And firstly, I'm not a liberal, and I fail to understand the obsession of pretty much every conservative or libertarian here to include that word in their posts as though it's inherently an evil ideology. And secondly, it's not "do whatever you want and someone else pays for it." That not only shows a lack of understanding of liberalism, but of the entire left as a whole.
than it should be up to the company if they want to provide maternity leave. It is not the governments job to tell a company how to increase productivity.
And it most definitely letting people do what ever they want (having a baby) and making someone else ( the company) pay for it while that employ is at home providing nothing to the company.
The basic idea here is that the current state of income inequality is totally unacceptable and something needs to be done about it. But no matter how many efforts at redistribution are enacted, minus the total abolition of capitalism, which I do not support, the rich will always still be in some fashion ahead of the poor. There's some illusion here that the left props up the poor and persecutes the rich with the goal of reversing the roles; that is simply not true. And paid parental leave, along with the other things I support as rights, or whatever you want, as you like to call it, is the basic needs necessary for life. It's not about rewarding the lazy and punishing the successful; quite the opposite.