You can't have it all in life. That's worth remembering when you consider an issue like mandating paid family leave.

Think about the economy and employment. What most people want is a robust job market. Competition among employers keeps wages high. It gives employees more opportunities for advancement. If their current company doesn't have a promotion opportunity available, another might.

This has all sorts of ancillary benefits. Families are more likely to be able to afford homes. That can help create and strengthen communities. Children who aren't living in poverty do better in school. Employed individuals contribute more tax revenue to state and local governments.

Now, think about what creates a strong job market. It isn't central planning. The last century is littered with countries ruined by that conceit that the government knows best. Sustainable job growth requires entrepreneurship. People see a need in the market and seek to fill it. Absent government interference, business owners make money by convincing other people to buy their product. Put another way, they make money by making people's lives better.

This is why class warfare arguments fall flat. Bill Gates isn't rich because he robbed the middle class. He's fabulously wealthy because of how much value he created for others. Many people's jobs depend on Microsoft products, like Excel. Those people benefit far more than the amount the company earns on each piece of software.

But there's a natural human tendency to want more. Some think things would be even better if there were a robust job market and government-mandated perks like paid family leave. Medium-sized companies and larger would be required to offer 12 weeks of paid leave under Assembly Bill 388. The leave could be used for things like the birth of a child or caring for a sick family member. Private employers would be responsible for paying the employee their full wage if he earns up to 110 percent of average weekly pay in Nevada. Higher paid employees would earn 60 percent of their wages up to a cap.

The appeal of this policy is obvious. And many companies already offer generous family leave packages. But for some businesses it would be an onerous regulation. It could prevent some companies from expanding or moving to Nevada. It could cause some to close.

That desirable thing -- time off with one's family -- would undermine the most important thing in the economy -- a robust job market.

Especially with the economic uncertainty facing the state, Nevada should not be putting additional burdens on employers.