Effectively they do get paid. In a marriage, mothers own half their husband's income. Outside a marriage, mothers get child support.
The fact it's not taxed as "pay" is a bonus for mothers, not a downside!
It's weird how the myth persists that mothers "not getting paid" a taxable wage is some kind of negative.
... and half of asset appreciation, and in some cases (it varies) half of pension.
I will also add that it’s not just mothers. It’s any spouse. I’ve seen successful women come out on the raw end of this deal during divorce.
I mention this not as a grievance, rather just an observation that people who are married, both male and female, are sometimes surprised at asset allocation during a divorce with regards to “passive” investments and business ownership (e.g, a self-owned business that has grown).
What you're hitting on is that staying home to raise 1-2 kids is economically inefficient compared to working and sending the kids to a daycare, because the daycare can benefit from efficiencies of scale.
Translated to HN-world: "I'm going work on a FOSS project full-time!" World: "Great; we'll pay for your server! You won't lose a dime!" Me: "Uh, what about the income from the job I gave up?"
Providing your own daycare instead of working is a lifestyle choice, why does the opportunity cost of that choice have to be shouldered by someone else?
That’s some creative logic. Being a stay at home parent is a full-time job. If the stay at home parent were being paid, they’d...well...be paid. “Effective” payment isn’t helpful to a full time parent raising a child and losing out on wages they would otherwise get at a job that the economy values with a taxable wage.
I don't see the upside.
Which is fine with me, I don’t think that’s a problem that needs solving but you and others in this thread had implied otherwise.
? Having room and board for yourself and your child is nothing if not helpful.