It’s not just a values question, but a valid criticism of GDP as a measure. If you and I stay home and take care of our own kids, then that counts $0 to GDP. If we take care of each other’s kids and pay each other an amount that balances to $0, that contributes significantly to GDP.

If you think about what you wrote it doesn't actually add up.

If you're both staying at home and paying each other X then where did you get the money from to generate X.

You would've had to do some economic producing activity.

I hand you $100 and you hand me $100. We can do that until the paper currency wears out and generate huge amounts of GDP!

If you do this legitimately, you both slowly lose money to taxation.

Their partners’ respective salaries

The BEA has done some work to capture non-market activity:

https://www.bea.gov/data/special-topics/household-production

For whatever reason, it doesn't seem to have gotten much attention.

Thanks for the clarification. I guess everybody who stays home to look after a child should have their GDP contribution rated the same as a professional provider.

I'm surprised this wasn't taken into account long ago? Are homemakers really excluded from any GDP calculation?

>Are homemakers really excluded from any GDP calculation?

Yes.

Statistics where ranges have been removed could be referred to as "de-ranged."

It's a one-sided statistic, and it's completely pointless. What is it supposed to prove? That raising children costs money? Well, no shit. Let's just cut this useless expense loose and die off as a species, then. No species, no GDP, no problem.

The people who want to take care of their children already feel strongly about it. Mentioning the impact on GDP influences the people who think it doesn't involve them and/or assume that touchy-feely policies mean higher taxes.