What an absurd, and incredibly disingenuous thing to say. Water's good for you - in fact if you don't have it you die. So let's throw you in a huge pool and see how you like it!
Stop putting words in OP's mouth, and argue against his argument instead of twisting it into an easy straw man.
It might be the case that the balance in Hungary is off as the author of the article claims, but that claim was buried in a one-sided rant against the cost of accessing the labour pool.
The point of my post was to even the scales, to remind everyone that it costs a lot of money to employ people, because creating employable people costs a lot of money. The CS college graduates we want to interview as potential employees of our dot-com startups don't materialize out of thin air. As cheesy as it sounds, previous generations invested in their future; we have to do the same.
A business simply can not hire when the cost of an employee exceeds the benefits, and if it can't make do without employees, it will simply go out of business. It doesn't matter at that point how much it cost to "create employable people" (itself a terribly loaded formulation, but moving on), because society has priced itself right out of the market, apparently.
Something a lot of people seem to forget is that if you want to use businesses as a piggy bank to fund social ambitions, you have to let some money actually flow into the piggy bank. It is not simply a given that money will be there.
Then why not triple the existing benefits? Why not multiply them by 10 even? If it's an unalloyed good, then why are we being so stingy with the good stuff?
If you account for only one side of the ledger, you can make anything look good. (Or bad.) Unfortunately, reality checks both sides. Wrapping it in a social justice narrative may make it easier to obscure the ledger to other humans but it doesn't fool reality for one Plank instant.