RE: Unconditional Basic Income as Paid Family Leave
I'm less opposed to this particular idea than I am the core principles behind it.
Just because every other country is doing something does not make it a good idea. The US is on top for a reason. Part of that reason is the relatively free market economy and business friendly regulatory system.
Some employers (namely those hiring skilled workers) should take care of their employees. Their reputation and their business model depends on it. Others, (those hiring unskilled workers) should not realistically be expected to provide the same level of pay or care. Why should I go through all the work of gaining training and expertise to provide greater value for an employer when I can just flip burgers or check people out at the grocery store for the same gain?
A free market economy provides a place for the upper class and lower class alike. The result is that even the poor living in a rich free market system are better off than the poor in a heavily regulated socialist system.
So if you want this, you can get it. But you're going about it the wrong way. You need free market solutions to incentivize employers to do what you want, not place mandates on them. Look at services like glassdoor.com which is doing a fantastic job of holding employers accountable the free market way with ratings and reviews.
Not everyone will be able to work for a 5 star employer. Not every employer will care to become a 5 star employer. If you want a good job with good pay and good benefits you have to have the skills required to get it.
As an employer myself I can tell you - when deciding between two equally qualified candidates, one who may require extra leave and one who won't, I'm going to choose the one who won't. Because why wouldn't I?
What right do you have to decide what a candidate may or may not do? She may be a lesbian, she may be infertile, she may just not want children. You have no right to ask if any of these are true, and she is under absolutely no obligation to tell you whether any of these do or do not apply.
Furthermore, chances are she'll work harder than the man, just to appear as good. And you'll probably pay her less.
Another way you could look at this is, she deserves a job she's qualified for.You may be her best chance to get one. The man she's competing against stands an excellent chance of getting hired elsewhere. The lady you just turned down will go on to another interview, where chances are she'll meet a bigger arsehole who will turn her down in favour of a less qualified man.
Trust me, I'm a doctor.
Catweasel.
Exactly. I'm not saying it's fair. I'm saying it becomes less fair when you place a regulatory burden and incentive for hiring one person over another. It's not a matter of whether I'm an asshole or not, it's simple math. I am buying a person's time and effort for money. One candidate will give me more time and effort, the other less. If the time and effort of both are otherwise equally valuable and will cost the same, why would I take the one who is more likely to give me less?
I'm not a heartless person, actually quite the opposite. I donate to charity, I give to homeless, I help people where I can. But math is math and statistics are statistics. Men require less maternity leave than women, and maternity leave is a burden on the business. If I'm choosing between two candidates, it's no more heartless to turn down one candidate over another. A person of equal value is being turned down either way. It's not my fault that things are the way they are.
Further, it's not a matter of what I will do. It's a matter of what everyone will do, or what people will do more often than not. You'll probably still be able to find a job as a pregnant woman, but it will be just that little bit more difficult.
If you hire only men who don't have or plan to have families your pool of talent is significantly diminished. And there are probably those you wish to hire who have a problem with this policy.
On a utilitarian basis alone I think your model will produce poorer results. I won't try to argue the ethics of the position since you are proposing that ethics don't have a place in this equation. People however, do have values that come into play when deciding what makes a company a better employer.
Then there's the argument that diversity tracks positively with greater profits. I buy that argument since a diverse workforce is likelier to understand the needs of a greater range of customers.
So again, I'm not saying you hire certain people based on a single factor alone. I'm saying that all the factors weigh together. It probably won't affect the decision 95% of the time. But that 5% that it DOES matter means that the workforce will be majority males, even if by a slight margin.
You're not making it impossible for a certain demographic to find a job, but you are making it slightly harder.