> It’s not about how we measure it, it’s about actual productivity. Having some sort of communal childcare which allows the majority of parents to work full time will always be more productive.

What's measured is the amount paid. Hiring exclusively 1-on-1 tutors is "more productive" than communal childcare. Paying more money for the same services is also "more productive."

> more productive" than communal childcare. Paying more money for the same services is also "more productive."

That’s not obvious, those tutors might be doing something else which is more productive instead.

Just spending money does not do much on it’s own. e.g. paying $100 for a good/service when you can get an equivalent for $50 doesn’t “increase” productivity it just means your money is worth less.

If children educated by private tutors are not significantly more productive than those from a normal school longterm that would only lead to lower productivity/higher inflation.

> And it does. You don’t spend money on childcare and other services and can spend it on something else (assuming you have it).

But you lose, at least in the UK, from tax. If a married couple works, they each get tax allowances; first 10k is tax free, each, and then the next 30k is taxed at 20%, and the rest (up to 100k) is taxed at 40%.

If one person works and the other doesn't, they exist in a world where most couples work and bid up house prices, and they're taxed more for it. It's massively disincentivised to have a parent who raises your own kids and does other community activities (e.g. be on PTAs/school boards), unless you earn so much you can push through it.

Where I live (~DC), daycare costs 2.2k per month. With two kids and a 35% marginal tax rate (including state taxes and Medicaid/etc) you would need to make $81k per year just to break even.

Add up extra food costs (vs cooking at home) and extra cleaning costs ($140 every two weeks so about $4k and the value prop of having one SAH parent doesn't look as bad (which is what several college-educated friends have done, sp the ones with 2+ kids)

Agreed, and if things are so busy people need to buy in food every night then their kids are probably seeing the worst of them, which to me is the main issue.

I suppose what I meant more would distinguish between valid services that you buy because it makes your life easier, e.g. cleaning help, and government-mandated disincentives to stay at home, e.g. tax brackets.

And what is the purpose of that productivity? Except for generating tributes to the rulers? Why should people sacrifice the most important thing in life for productivity?

>Why should people sacrifice the most important thing in life for productivity?

because it's becoming less and less viable to not give it up. That's why many simply don't have kids, or are having the later.

Then again, considering that many people already are just doing bullshit jobs, i.e. being employed for the sake of being employed, does it really matter if they are more "productive"? (as they are not really productive anyway)