On the contrary, "every man for himself" belongs in the XIX century. In essence, you're advocating that weaker individuals should be trampled under feet.
Then you're not making sense. Do you want to be able to fire pregnant women, or do you want to be able to refuse them employment after they return? That would be a horrible thing to do, perhaps it's good that you're not an employer then ;-)
You misunderstand. Taking care of people is not my responsibilty. It's the state's responisbility. That's why we pay all the taxes and social security.
A business - especially a small business - isn't a place for altruism. I just can't afford hiring people to help them get along with their lives. A business is a business, not social welfare itself. It pays for welfare, but it _is_ not welfare.
I stated exactly what I want. I want to be able to decide on my own, who I hire, who I do not hire. It is as simple as this. They CAN create regulations that FORCE me, but then I choose NOT to do business.
I also suggest other means of helping underpriviliged people to obtain jobs. Such as making me pay LESS if I employ them. That would make sense, in business terms too.
But he's hyperbolising, too. An illegal freelancer for a quarter the price is no competition for a legitimate business. Most business clients will not even consider paying black cash in an envelope, and the illegal freelancer will also lose out on social insurance.
See! The net salary and the total cost of employment are the sole interesting figures when comparing internationally, the gross salary is a largely arbitrary figure between those two.
But they do. The philosophy of the system is the same, just the details, the macroeconomic variables are different. Hopefully they will even out in several decades. The Netherlands are a good example of what we are trying to achieve. (I live in Lithuania, a country with a similar GDP (PPP) per capita to Hungary.)
