A Surprising Finding on Paid Leave
“One of the biggest arguments for paid leave for new parents has been an economic one: Research has repeatedly shown that women with paid time off after childbirth are more likely to keep working. But a new study, the largest to be done in the United States, found the opposite. In California, which in 2004 became the first state to offer paid family leave, new mothers who took it that year ended up working less and earning less a decade later.”
“For policies like paid leave, the way they’re designed and the context in which they’re rolled out matter a lot. ... other things seem necessary beyond several weeks of paid leave ... subsidized child care, [and] if fathers take leave... Countries that give men incentives to take paternity leave have seen more gender equality at work and at home as a result.”
“If the mother — but not the father — is out of work and doing most of the child care at the beginning, the division of labor could get locked in. One piece of evidence for this, she said, is that the effects were bigger for first-time mothers, who were forming their family routines for the first time. Which brings the story back to men ... Men’s employment and earnings did not decline after they had a child. Even if the study complicates the economic argument for paid leave, it makes one thing clear: how much women’s lives changed after taking time off with a new baby — and how little men’s lives did.”
The New York Times, November 11, 2019: “A Surprising Finding on Paid Leave: ‘This Is Not the Way We Teach This,’” by Claire Cain Miller
The National Bureau of Economic Research, October 2019: “The Long-Term Effects of California's 2004 Paid Family Leave Act on Women's Careers: Evidence from U.S. Tax Data,” by Martha J. Bailey, Tanya S. Byker, Elena Patel, Shanthi Ramnath (42 pages, PDF)