I don't think my employer should give me paid leave to go to India for a couple of months. That's ridiculous. Similarly would-be parents should save up the cash ahead of time and go on unpaid leave or quit their jobs upon the birth of the child.
Same as anyone else that wants to stop working to focus on something expensive and time-consuming in their personal lives.
We don’t know what conditions are sufficient to improve humanity’s lot, but, like it or not, we do know that having and raising children is a necessary one. It is also the only such useful contribution that most people are capable of making. Ergo, enlightened/progressive[1] policies will spend most prescriptive effort in at least encouraging people to raise the children that they already have and at least not discouraging them from having as many as they can raise well.
Basic research and public invention also seem to be necessary conditions for “capital-P” Progress[2], but since far fewer people are capable of such contribution, it would be a mistake to provide equal subsidy. Indeed, given the comical brevity of human lifetimes, it might even be kind of evil.
Finally, it’s easy to forget that the actual purpose of business is to do whatever the owner wants[3]. If I am an enlightened owner, it seems obvious that I should help people raise kids (for the benefit of humanity), even though it makes my individual life marginally less enjoyable. On the other hand, allowing anyone to take off work to go and pursue some personal interest also makes my life marginally less enjoyable, but since there is no clear societal benefit, I should, at best, remain neutral; and that’s why we childless people are usually and justly screwed.
[1] Keep in mind that The Enlightenment was literally about using reason to improve humanity.
If I am an enlightened owner, it seems obvious that I should help people raise kids (for the benefit of humanity), even though it makes my individual life marginally less enjoyable.
Indeed. And I don't think it contradicts what you say, to suggest that it could make your life more enjoyable in the longer term. Those kids are your future customers, employees, and neighbors. And, their parents are an economic and political force to be reckoned with.
Paid leave is actually just a life insurance plan, similar to health insurance. It exists because we don't have government programs in USA, and the economy depends on general social stability and continuity. Social Security is a similar example that is government run in USA. When you get old you might rely on it.
Now I understand, and I noticed that the article is talking about paid leave. Still, paid or unpaid, it's negotiable. A person who wants to stop working could presumably do so, but a lot of workers find it desirable to balance career and family.
Neither my spouse nor I had paid leave. We both banked cash and vacation days. She took unpaid leave, and I burned up my vacation time. I didn't quit my job per se, but did rearrange my job situation to accommodate the needs of an expanded family: I got myself promoted, took a few months off my second job, and designed a new product for my side business.
I don't think my employer should give me paid leave to go to India for a couple of months. That's ridiculous. Similarly would-be parents should save up the cash ahead of time and go on unpaid leave or quit their jobs upon the birth of the child.
Same as anyone else that wants to stop working to focus on something expensive and time-consuming in their personal lives.