> It sounds a bit sexist (as if moms should stay home and their spouse, male of female should be employed) I never implied that. Preferably society would be ri

> It sounds a bit sexist (as if moms should stay home and their spouse, male of female should be employed) I never implied that. Preferably society would be rich enough both parents could raise their kids without having to fend for survival while doing so. I would hope we have advanced as a species enough at this point, generated enough wealth at this point, to enable that. And if that were not possible, I know classical sexism would drive the women to stay home, but preferrably whoever preferred their job would continue working and the other could raise the children, irrespective of sex. > For example, with basic income UBI is almost certainly the optimal solution here. I'd argue because it enables that joint parental rearing much more often - if parents have any financial assets they could potentially both drop out of the workforce to optimally raise their child, and depending on their wealth they could both withdraw for variable lengths of time. Even in the worst case scenario one successful careered individual in a family of two with joint UBI should definitely be able to have a stay at home parent and a working one maintain a working class lifestyle.