And employees are not charities for their employers! If you can't afford the staff needed for a given task, perhaps you should pivot to something else.
How is paying employees to sit at home not working anything other than charity/
They are not sitting at home doing nothing, they are raising children. Helping them to do that is companies' share of investment into the workforce of tomorrow. Your utilitarian "fair" worldview doesn't account for the fact that having kids is insanely profitable to the economy. In modern economies, every kid is worth at least a million bucks over lifetime.
If you choose not to have kids and not contribute in this way, then who's going to foot the $1M or $2M bill for you?
I live a very frugle life, my expenses are low, I have no kids, I dont take expensive vacations, drive a fancy car, etc...
So should that mean I do not get time off, or high raises, etc simply because my "needs" are not the same as a co-worker?
Why should a co-workers personal life choices (i.e the choice to have 1 or more children) be a factor in the terms of their employment?
I think employment policies should be agnostic to the personal life choices and situations of employee's infact the employer should not even know if you have kids or not, let alone provide you with "extra" because you do
Sounds like you would support a policy of income based on your personal expenses. Should the programmer with 5 kids make more than the programmer with no kids simply because the programmer with kids has more expenses?
