> But we seem to want to be paid. It's interesting that socializing the payments seems to strike people as more freeing than just social obligation.

It's not that we _want_ to be paid. It's that we _need_ to be paid, because in order to raise a child you need a stable source of critical things for many years:

- food & water

- shelter (and heat)

- clothing

- waste disposal

If I wanted to take several years entirely away from work to raise a child, I would still have to have those things. How can I afford those things if I am not getting paid?

It's not about valuing _being paid_, it's about valuing the things that are necessary to raise a child.

You tell me how to acquire those things without being paid, and then we can analyze while people value being paid more than the social obligations.

> How can I afford those things if I am not getting paid?

From savings or by having another family member work? Combinations of that worked for a very long time in human history.

Sure, but that's just shifting who is getting paid or when.

The person I was responding to said that people were obsessed with getting paid versus the social obligations.

I was explaining why people who would want to stay at home might be obsessed about payment. It's a question that must be answered.

You provide some potential answers, but for the vast majority of young Americans these days having enough savings to raise a child by themselves without working is not in any way realistic.

Even for the "have another family work" plan, for many a single income isn't enough to support 2 adults and raising a child. The economy just doesn't make that viable for a large swath of the country.

If you’re in the latter situation, find work that can done entirely compatibly with raising your family. Open a family daycare for other nearby 2-income households to use. It helps them and helps you. If that violates the premise of “without being paid”, so be it; I’m trying to be pragmatic not pedantic.

The traditional way of solving this problem is to assume stronger social obligations -- to a spouse, and to family, and sometimes community.

I realize some people won't do that. But we're talking about tech CEOs, so these are people who have some control over their lives. If we re-normalized those social obligations, I think it would be better than transactionalizing it.

And it's not all-or-nothing. I've tried to arrange my life so that I can make enough money, but also spend a lot more of my time doing the things I value more than money.