Edit: before you read this, I want you to understand that I am not giving a flippant answer. I spent a half hour of my own working day to draft this response.

Edit: before you read this, I want you to understand that I am not giving a flippant answer. I spent a half hour of my own working day to draft this response. Childhood education is a mechanism that reproduces the existing social order, by transmitting the dominant culture—shared outlook, beliefs, knowledge, and skills which influence one’s educational and occupational opportunities—and legitimizing the inequalities that result from it. Parents are training their children on employers behalf—to the child's detriment—when they, for example, encourage their children to adopt the dominant language, accent, dress code, manners, hobbies, and tastes. (This is especially true of extrametropolitan families.) Likewise, when parents limit their children’s exposure to their own culture and language (even only as an opportunity cost), they are complicit in reproducing the dominant cultural superstructure which principally benefits the dominant economic institutions and only incidentally benefits the workers these children go into—if at all. Parents who cook, clean, and care for their children are providing essential services that enable their children to grow up healthy, educated, and productive. These services have a monetary value. Parents are owed wages from the employers who hire their children in the future and profit from their skills and abilities. Since we can't predict the future to track individual employers down, we might implement a form of insurance which would wring compensation from the private sector en mass.