Companies are not charities. Giving out benefits to people not producing value is very bad for them.
These are people that have already produced significant value for a company, so the notion that this is "charity" is really pushing it.
Given that many countries are having serious economic problems because of low birth rates, there is a strong need to encourage people to have children; ensuring that they don't go broke and lose their jobs as a result of having kids and properly taking care of them is not a knee jerk reaction, it has a very important economic function.
Extending a lot of benefits to men will just "equalize" the reluctance to hire.
...and the market should correct for this by reducing wages by exactly the amount necessary to cover the lost productivity.
While we're on the topic of higher order effects: removing these benefits from women would cause an increase in wages, as well as a disincentive to have children. That disincentive to have children has a real economic cost, and I'm not seeing any effects that would tend to offset that.
I would question whether this is really a knee-jerk reaction - to me, it seems to have many of the qualities of useful government intervention, in that nobody would be likely to offer it on their own, but it has positive value to the overall economy if everyone does it (in other words, the second order population growth benefits are spread throughout the country, so there's no direct incentive for an individual company to do their part to spend money to cause them, a typical prisoner's dilemma situation).
These are people that have already produced significant value for a company, so the notion that this is "charity" is really pushing it.
Given that many countries are having serious economic problems because of low birth rates, there is a strong need to encourage people to have children; ensuring that they don't go broke and lose their jobs as a result of having kids and properly taking care of them is not a knee jerk reaction, it has a very important economic function.
Extending a lot of benefits to men will just "equalize" the reluctance to hire.
...and the market should correct for this by reducing wages by exactly the amount necessary to cover the lost productivity.
While we're on the topic of higher order effects: removing these benefits from women would cause an increase in wages, as well as a disincentive to have children. That disincentive to have children has a real economic cost, and I'm not seeing any effects that would tend to offset that.
I would question whether this is really a knee-jerk reaction - to me, it seems to have many of the qualities of useful government intervention, in that nobody would be likely to offer it on their own, but it has positive value to the overall economy if everyone does it (in other words, the second order population growth benefits are spread throughout the country, so there's no direct incentive for an individual company to do their part to spend money to cause them, a typical prisoner's dilemma situation).