I don't really know what controls or limits they impose in other countries where the leave is more generous. Like most choices between extremes (i.e. no leave versus unlimited), I'm sure there's an optimal middle ground.
You acknowledge that the optimal level varies by individual case, and that legislation is applied broadly with little regard to individual situations. When the level is not optimal, this implies that there is some harm done, things are not arranged as well as they could be. Does this not mean we should ask if the harm done by broad-brushed legislation is greater than the harm done by doing nothing?personalized lawmaking
Oh, that's nothing new.
Touche on the earmark thing. But to answer your question, yes, of course the effects of legislation should be carefully projected to the extent that projections are possible. I believe that's the entire purpose of the CBO. If it is determined that the status quo is better than the proposed legislation, then the legislation is probably a bad idea. But then, we could always argue about what the terms "better" and "worse" even mean, since they're largely matters of opinion a lot of the time.
Here I disagree. I don't think my values are very different from yours. Making life easier for struggling new parents is something I value. Do you think you have many values (regarding outcomes, not methods) that I do not share? I believe we differ not so much on values but in our belief on factual matters (which is understandable in politics, as the context is very complex). For a fact like "The Family and Medical Leave Act makes life better" I believe one should maintain skepticism without good evidence of costs and benefits. A stated purpose of the act is the undeniably desirable goal "to balance the demands of the workplace with the needs of families, to promote the stability and economic security of families, and to promote national interests in preserving family integrity." This no more means the act actually makes life better than a used car salesman's promises mean that the product is a good buy. Same with the CBO; its stated purpose is to advise Congress, this does not mean that it achieves that goal. Do you have evidence for your belief that this policy "would probably benefit the entire country" (enough to justify the costs and downsides)?we could always argue about what the terms "better" and "worse" even mean
I can't pretend to be an expert in the economics of family leave, but my cursory Google search turned up articles claiming that maternity leave helps the economy, as well as articles saying the exact opposite. I don't know if one or the other has more veracity. However, this is kind of my point about better and worse. Even in the case where parental leave might cause short term negatives effects in the economy, I would still argue it's a good thing for two reasons. 1) I believe that it's just the good ole' plain moral thing to do (not a great argument, for sure). And 2) I think that there is plenty of evidence that the way a child is treated in its earliest years can affect its ability to succeed in the world much later in life (just yesterday, for example, it was all over the news that we should be reading aloud to newborns). Therefore, I find it highly probable that the net effects to the economy will be positive in the very long term, so long as we assume that smarter children will grow up to be more creative and productive adults (certainly a leap of faith). But, in the end I suppose that point 2 is just rationalizing for point 1.
On the contrary, I think this is the very strongest argument you could make. What other reason is there to act, except that it is right? Of course, this argument will not work for people who do not agree with us that Making life easier for struggling new parents is good. I think such misanthropes are rare and I am willing to ignore them. If your position were "We should make life easier for struggling new parents because it is good" I would march alongside you. Instead, I read your position as "We should divert resources, taken from others (including struggling new parents), to give new authority to the body which terrorizes struggling new parents with terrifying goons, to force businesses to alter the voluntary agreements they make with working people, including struggling new parents, such that some workers will benefit and some will be harmed (perhaps by discrimination, perhaps by fewer job opportunities), and we will write a charter for this authority with the words Purpose: To make life easier for struggling new parents because this will make life easier for struggling new parents." That is a much different position and not one I am sure I can get behind.it's just the good ole' plain moral thing to do (not a great argument, for sure)