No, while government is on balance corrupt and focused on its own propagation most regulation is written to solve a problem. It's not irrelevant because it often does solve said problems.

...and often makes them worse. In any case, you were claiming that regulation is different from disaster because intentions. This is indeed irrelevant. Only effects matter

Well I just talked about macro effects which means that is unlikely

I'd be more inclined to be persuaded that it is unlikely if you offered analysis and evidence, instead of just talking about it. Handwaving to the effect that "we just don't know what will happen", followed up by "I'm pretty sure what what will happen" is not terribly convincing.

The plural of anecdote is not data, though. It doesn't matter what your real world experience is - actual mass data is more important.

Indeed. My examples were in support of my contention that employees bear most, if not all, of the burden of labor regulations such as the one we are discussing. Let's see how your sources do at refuting it.

Here: http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/parental_2008_09.pdf

Thanks. This paper does zero analysis of positive effects. It simply tabulates the policies of various countries, and then offers the bald assertion "All members of society have a profound interest in the health and well-being of young children and the parents who take care of them", a declaration with which essentially no one will disagree.

It does offer strong support for my position, however. From the section "Financing Structure":

"Most of the countries studied here finance paid leave benefits through payroll taxes – with the overall taxation rates, and the relative shares contributed by employers and employees, varying across countries. ... The key point here is that these benefits are funded through social insurance schemes; in general, individual employers are not asked to pay the replaced wages of their own workers during periods of paid leave."

So employees do bear the costs of this mandate, as I've been saying. In fact, it looks like I've been optimistic - employees not only risk increased unemployment and having to forgo other benefits they might prefer, as I'd thought. It turns out that they do pay for the benefit directly through payroll deductions - essentially pay cuts! Fat chance, indeed! Who would have guessed that government is even better than the market at finding solutions to sticky wages? Why bother working around them when you can just impose lower pay by legislative fiat?

So in this instance the plural of anecdote really was data. Only in this one case, though - I don't think we can generalize the result.

As to the question of the sign of the total effects, this study does not provide any evidence of positive effects beyond pure assertion, but does indicate that there are costs (the payroll taxes that fund it), although it does not quantify them. If the other sources you've found say more or less the same thing, then I think my work here is done.

But your second source does provide better support for your position:

Limited evidence from the US points toward the same conclusion, see here.

Thanks. This paper analyzes the California Paid Family Leave Program. The program appears to be completely government run and funded, and does not provide job protection, so it seems there is essentially no mandate on employers.

Once again, the benefit is funded via a payroll tax. I think that this firmly establishes that it's workers, not employers, who bear the burden of the costs associated with the policy (whether or not these costs outweigh the benefits).

The "Key Findings: Workers" section is padded with some fluff, but here are some real benefits it mentions:

--"Use of PFL greatly increased the level of wage replacement during family leaves for respondents in low-quality jobs"

--"Among workers in low-quality jobs ... 97 percent of those who used PFL were satisfied with the length of their leave, compared to 73 percent of those who did not use PFL"

--"Among workers in low-quality jobs who used PFL for bonding leaves, 91 percent reported a positive effect on their ability to care for the new child, compared with 71 percent of those who did not use PFL"

Great. These are real benefits for lower-income workers. They're a little vague, though. Was the wage replacement greater than the wage depletion from the payroll tax? How much of a positive effect did the additional leave create, and what quantifiable improvements in the development of the children are attributable to this effect?

Also, while improvement, on some measures, from ~70% to > 90% is significant, and a good thing, a satisfaction level of 70+% in the absence of the program is hardly indicative of an enormous problem requiring government intervention.

Once again, though, the study makes no effort to identify any negatives associated with the policy. I would find this paper more persuasive if it considered questions such as:

--Were there any effects on employment in the time period following implementation?

--Are there other benefits that workers might prefer to PFL that could be provided for the same cost?

--If offered the chance to opt out of the tax and forgo the benefit, how many employees would take that option?

--How many workers took advantage of the policy but were then unable to return to their job?

--How many people were required to pay the tax, but were unable to enjoy the benefit (older, infertile, etc.)? What was their satisfaction level with the policy?

We have decades of evidence from many other countries pointing toward the positive effects of parental leave on both children and gender equity, and no evidence of any net negative economic effects

The fact that net positive impact doesn't exclude some losers doesn't bother me

I don't think you've demonstrated net positive effect. One source you provided makes no mention of any beneficial effects beyond simply asserting that mandating more leave is better, but does indicate that there are costs in the form of the payroll deductions used to fund it. The other does provide meaningful data relating to the actual benefits due to the policy, but makes no attempt to investigate any negative impact it may have, beyond again mentioning that the cost comes directly out of employees' pockets.

It's not good enough to do studies, such as the two you cited, that only look for benefits and then proudly declare that they found no costs. When considering whether to implement a major national policy, it is important to investigate its downsides as assiduously as its benefits. More so, in fact, since the benefits are easily seen, whereas the costs are easy to obscure or handwave away.