1) You overstate the likelihood of the market driving out discrimination. Racist and sexist discrimination has existed for centuries without the market ever reaching the equilibrium state of no discrimination that would result if people were rational market participants (1).

2) Inevitably people bring up Scandinavia in these discussions, and for good reason. Scandinavian countries have both very generous family benefits (including paternal leave!) and high representation of women throughout the workforce. This isn't dispositive, but it does suggest the situation is much more complicated than the original post would suggest.

All in all, I prefer to live in a world where everyone pays their fair share instead of trying to eke out a couple extra cents of profit by not providing parental benefits to mothers and families.

(1)This is actually an even subtler issue, because it's possible for markets to exist where racism and sexism offer a competitive advantage, due to consumer preferences.

I would imagine that those who don't discriminate would continue to not discriminate while those who do discriminate would continue to do so. Removing the law doesn't make women less likely to get pregnant. I am not sure your concept that we should remove the laws so that everyone can discriminate against women equally is really advantageous or very upstanding. Nor do I think the idea that people are going to discriminate despite the laws & it's too hard to prove that they're discriminating is a valid reason to remove the laws either.

True, but we are not postulating an employer who's customers prefer not to be served by a pregnant woman. We are merely postulating an employer who wants his employees to show up for work.

I would imagine that those who don't discriminate would continue to not discriminate while those who do discriminate would continue to do so.

In that case, why bother with any laws on the topic at all? After all, those who do discriminate would continue to do so.

Removing the law doesn't make women less likely to get pregnant.

No, but it does mitigate the harm that her pregnancy causes for her employer. If she chooses to vanish from the workforce as a result of becoming pregnant, her employer can permanently replace her and is not obligated to take her back 3 years later after her skills have stagnated.

This in turn gives the employer a greater incentive to hire her, since she poses less of a risk to the business.

I believe you stated under "normal circumstances" discrimination is disadvantageous. I am not sure exactly what you would consider "normal circumstances", but I was merely giving an example where discrimination would be an advantage.

We are merely postulating an employer who wants his employees to show up for work.

Which can lead to discrimination because a woman may be turned down for a job because of something she has no control over, her ability to become pregnant, regardless of if she actually has plans to become pregnant or not, or is even fertile.

In that case, why bother with any laws on the topic at all? After all, those who do discriminate would continue to do so.

People still murder others even though it's illegal. Why have laws against murder? They obviously don't work.

No, but it does mitigate the harm that her pregnancy causes for her employer.

Isn't the biggest harm losing an employee & having to hire someone new? That happens regardless of leave laws. True it might be less hassle now that they can fire a now expectant mother, but they probably would save themselves even that hassle by not hiring a woman in the first place.

Do you actually believe this claim?

"I would imagine that those who don't murder would continue to not murder while those who do murder would continue to do so. Removing the law doesn't make murderers any less likel to kill."

If not, your analogy is faulty.

Isn't the biggest harm losing an employee & having to hire someone new?

Did you even read the article? ...not only I couldn't fire her while she's away, I couldn't fire her when she comes back either. So I would have to fire the one who's been working instead of her for the whole time. When a woman would come back from the maternity leave I would be legally forced to increase her salary to the present level in her position, and also, give out her normal vacation days...

I would imagine that murderers would still murder & those who don't like to murder wouldn't murder. Laws don't enforce themselves, people still break them & sometimes get away with it. That is no reason to repeal them.

I couldn't fire her when she comes back either...

What would be the point of saving her job for her if you're allowed to fire her immediately upon her return?

So I would have to fire the one who's been working instead of her for the whole time.

So long as it's clear that the job was a temporary fill-in position, I don't see a problem with this.

When a woman would come back from the maternity leave I would be legally forced to increase her salary to the present level in her position...

Like you would have to offer any other employee at that position.

I don't think it's a black-and-white issue of giving or not giving a job. These types of government restrictions cause a change in the supply and demand for the protected individuals. This results in a change in their average salaries (i.e. more restrictions reduce salaries). Women are still worth hiring, just at a lower salary, to account for the added risk.

So in the end, the cost ends up being fronted by the women anyway.

Where I live, there's plenty of laws that stop companies from discriminating against women, thereby removing the competitive advantage, which in turn forces the companies to do the right thing.

Yes, there's a cost to these laws and these processes, but I think (and the politicians of my country obviously agrees) that it's cheaper and easier to do it this way, than to add a corporate tax and redistribute that money to groups that suffer from workplace discrimination.

It seems to work here, but that doesn't mean it would work as well elsewhere. There are so many factors that make up a society.

But in this case, the discrimination is rational. Due to maternity leave, a woman of equal skill creates significant cash flow risks - if she takes leave, you either go for 3 years with her job not getting done, or else you hire a replacement and risk being stuck with unnecessary employees in 3 years.

That is not how it works in Sweden (nor anywhere else that I know of). The replacement is hired as a temporary position until the original employee returns.

Such laws make an employer indifferent between a man of quality Q and a woman of quality Q + P(taking leave) x (cost of leave). Whether or not hyper-productivity is required depends strongly on P(taking leave) and the cost of leave.