Businesses have no obligation to hire anyone full-time.
You're right, they don't have an obligation. However, if the government gives them the incentive to hire people full time instead of part time, they will do it.
They do so because the employee is valued and they don't want to lose the individual to someone who will give them a full-time job.
This is true but in a more abstract way than you might realize.
The most common reason employers make a position full time is because it requires the skills or abilities of someone who will probably be seeking full time work. If they make it part time, they'll get people who will do as you suggest - they will leave for another position that is full time when one becomes available to them. So in a broad sense, they make the position full time so they don't have a merry-go-round of employees at a position where they want some stability. In more rare instances it could have to do with the individual rather than the position itself, but that's not as common as simply wanting stability at the position itself.
Under the current administration, only a fool would hire a non-skilled worker for anything more than 29 hours per week.
Precisely my point. The government needs to provide incentives to hire full time workers and take away incentives for hiring part time workers or making existing workers part time.
Perhaps you're the one who has little understanding about how business works, how capitalism works, how the real world works.
I have a deep understanding of business and economics and you have shown you have little knowledge of the same. The absurdity of you claiming the opposite suggests either you're more clueless on these issues than I ever imagined and/or you are simply issuing a childish retort of "no I'm not, you are". Either way it is a pointless statement on your part.
Your economic theories may look good on paper,
My theories work in actual practice as well when placed within the proper framework (and every theory only works in actual practice when it is within the proper framework).
do you wonder why socialism has not quite "caught on" as a predominant economic framework in the world?
I've gone over this before. I'm not going to waste the time trying to give you an Economics 101 course on why capitalism has taken hold in America and other countries despite it being a more flawed system than socialism.
In a nutshell: Both systems have their flaws, but capitalism allows those with power (i.e. wealth) to keep what they have and use it to gain an even greater advantage over time, while socialism levels the playing field a bit more. Those with power (again, wealth) don't want the playing field to be more level, so they set up a system to keep themselves in power. They convince those without power (again, wealth) that this system is the best one because if the vast majority of people who don't have power (wealth) were to ever figure out they were being hosed and rise up against the wealthy, then the wealthy wouldn't be able to make their system function any longer, because it only functions so long as the common people are content doing the majority of the work while the wealthy make the majority of the money.
Again, that's a nutshell analysis only, for your education. If you want to debate the finer points, you'd need to discuss those, and I seriously doubt you can do that since you've shown you don't even know what they are to begin with.
Honestly, I don't mean to sound arrogant or put you down with any of this. It's just painfully obvious this isn't a debate worth having if you don't understand the economics behind it on at least the simplest of levels.