That’s because you’re still engaging with an argument about collective vs individual childcare not the one being advanced by the OP which is about the failure to measure some economically advantageous work just because of the circumstances in which it is performed. As I said in my post that you replied to even if collective work is more efficient that doesn’t mean the value of the same work in the home is zero which is what it’s currently measured as.

My mother did not work outside the home for the roughly ten-year span between my birth and my brother reaching school age. The communal setting, school apart, was called the neighborhood. This was the boom, so a given block could have quite a few kids on it.

Same here. Sometimes my mother would look after me and the neighbor kids, sometimes my neighbors mom would look after me and her kids and so on, for example.

It takes a village. But the village has lately eroded to "every family for themselves"

I guess I'm happy to be still living in a rural area, this is not the case here.

Yep. Also, the parent staying at home is in a very vulnerable position - completely dependent and having really hard time to become dependent when needed. And when society demands one parent at home, independence can become effectively impossible.

The divorce laws take care of that imbalance. From child support, alimony and a presumed equal division of the marital assets the risk is quite low for the stay at home parent. Since no fault divorce was brought in they don't even have to behave like they are married, go out and have dozens of affairs, lie, neglect the kids and the home and you still get half plus most of you living expenses covered until the kids are supporting themselves. The law makes no distinction between a housewife and a unemployed woman.

> The divorce laws take care of that imbalance.

They do not. 90% of US households have a total household net worth of less than $300,000. Even if you got all of that, it's not enough to make up for the lack of marketable skills. Similarly, a judge can award all the alimony and childcare in the world, but that does not help you if it does not get paid.

Then you'd be as poor as when you were married. At a certain point we need some level of accountability for the partner staying home, if you had a kid with someone who doesn't earn much money and you don't work yourself why would you expect to be middle class once you get divorced? You'll get your money, many men have most of their paycheck forcibly taken from them each week. You can't even get a driver's license in many states if you are behind on child support.

These insane expectations are part of the reason why marriage is a bad deal for the provider.

Well, it is reasonable for that person to want to be able to influence own outcome by having ability to actually earn. Instead of having to sue ex for money.

Also, alimony and child support are two different things.

What you call accountability for partner at home is not accountability. It is just complete helplessness and dependence.

Then get a job, but the idea that they are helpless is insane. They have the full force of the law behind them.

Go to family court as a woman, make up a sob story about abuse and provide no evidence and you'll have the power to prevent a father from seeing his children. That father is experiencing helplessness. Having to get a job isn't, that's accountability.

Employers do not want someone who was not employed for 10 years.

So, we are back to "actually it is loosing deal for one partner to stay at home. It puts you at massive disadvantage and makes you dependent. Hence, it is simply not good for you".

> Go to family court as a woman, make up a sob story about abuse and provide no evidence and you'll have the power to prevent a father from seeing his children. That father is experiencing helplessness.

In these situations, when father contests, courts tend to side with father. It takes a lot for father to not be allowed around the children in reality.

The mother would be not as poor as before marriage but way poorer, because now she's older, she's been out of the workforce for a long time, and still has to take care of the kid(s) after the divorce. The father, by contrast, has accumulated professional connections and work experience. Single mothers end up in poverty way too often, and alimony is an attempt to rectify this.

As with any legal process you can find examples where justice has failed, but overall a world with alimony and child support is way better than the world we had before, where women were condemned to destitution after divorce.

The previous comment was about divorcing someone without money. In your example my argument holds as she would receive not only half of the current assets but a claim on his future earnings, no matter how she behaves in the marriage.

Great deal for women. Horrible deal for men.

I get what you're saying but it's plainly false.

Just look at the statistics: https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/population-profiles/marital-...

In broad strokes: married people tend to be way wealthier than never married people, and divorced women do much worse than divorced men do. (Women are much poorer across the board also, of course). If your claim was true then the poverty gap between divorced men and divorced women would be much smaller, and we see that's not the case. If alimony/child support is such a raw deal for men it should be visible in the statistics.

Note the poverty rate for men who never got married vs men who got divorced. Marriage is not the raw deal for men you think it is.

Correlation is not causation. Women try to marry men with resources. Men without resources or ambition are ignored by women.

Per all stats, men do better financially after divorce. They feel more lonely then women however. On average, women do worst after divorce financially and are at bigger threat of poverty.

And still, in USA, women do file for divorce more, because simply that financial control is not enough to keep someone in. Funny enough, it tends to be be organizations dominated by men who push against no fault divorces and toward even bigger financial dependence of their female partners.

Per all stats men do financially better in virtually all situations. They also work longer hours at more difficult jobs and take less sick and vacation days.

That's a great theory, but it often doesn't work out that way. She's likely to settle for less half just to get out of the marriage. She likely doesn't have a good way to get her own future earnings.

Even if it goes to plan with her getting alimony and partial retirement, she's still dependent on her ex-husband which is a frustrating and often vulnerable position. It means he is still in her life. He can harass and badger her about how she spends money. He may pay, but he might often be late, or sporadic, which causes her bills to be overdue and have late fees. Maybe he starts hiding money, he could even tank his income for a year or two to have the courts change the agreement. None of this stuff is transparent and can be very adversarial.

The average age a woman gets married is 31. This concept of the virgin bride who can't care for herself is long dead. She provided for herself for a decade prior to marriage. She can handle a few late payments.

You are a victim of a common cognitive bias: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect

I had no thoughts of a young bride. I'm thinking of a woman that'll get married, then raise some kids for a decade and end up in her mid 40s divorced and have been out of the workforce for a decade. I think you're projecting your thoughts and biases into my statements.

> but overall a world with alimony and child support is way better than the world we had before, where women were condemned to destitution after divorce.

Maybe we could start with making the minimum wage a living wage again so this doesn't happen.

And I'm very ambivalent about this. The problem with "justice" here is that the govt. has no incentive to cut off alimony because it means the govt. foots the bill. That's why even some outrageous outliers like someone's sperm being stolen from a bank has resulted in that man paying alimony. Judges exist to cover edge cases like that and its just not being done.

They do not and can not. Because even with large alimony, one partner is completely dependent on their ex. There is still huge imbalance.

Also, currently alimony even as those are rare and requires years of being without income. At that point, you can defend yourself by divorcing partner that does nothing long before alimony kicks in.

Being at stay-at-home parent does not mean your kids won't socialize with other kids.

Also one could argue insofar this is actually "better for everyone". It will result in kids that are "more socialized" in some way maybe, but not necessarily socialized better. And it also doesn't take into account other developmental aspects.

If I look at young adults here (Europe) that have been more or less raised in daycare vs young adults that have been raised at home, I certainly don't see an advantage for the former (which might have many confounding factors of course).