The implication of "and it turns out..." is that all else is equal, but clearly it's not. Would women still choose to have babies if they didn't have to work also? I admit that it's basically moot - we can't seem to figure out how to have a society where both members of a couple are free to choose whether or not to work. I'm only pointing out that this trend doesn't mean what you're implying about women's desires.

If you don't think child rearing is work then you won't understand why women choose not to have kids in the first place. You cannot be a parent and choose not to work, period. Just because you're not getting paid and ordered around by an adult boss doesn't mean being a trad wife is magically somehow not work. In fact, at least with a regular 9-5 you get PTO and time off.

If you scoff at the idea of flipping burgers your whole life then just imagine it's changing diapers instead.

_obviously_ they meant "work" as in "employment", stop being obtuse

> your whole life

pretty sure the diaper changing part only lasts a couple years

Sure, which is still not any better cause at least you can quit a job you don't like.

It should be framed as “taking a second job” rather than “not working”

While none of this is wrong, men are also choosing not to have babies, which points to a broader root cause.

Would it make sense to frame this as a Baumol's Cost Disease problem? E.g., the labor of child rearing has been historically offset by the inherent emotional surplus of the task, but the march of productivity in other sectors gradually increases that imputed loss until we reach a breaking point.

I think that's a fair take. We could also frame it as society in the past has carried a lot of the burden of raising kids.

Tribes and communities helped raise kids. That's no longer true in an individualistic and institutionalized society.