Microeconomics does seem to offer insights into the pressure our society
puts on parents to pay, and into the tensions among members of society.
Parents feel that the rest of society is free riding on their long hours
of unpaid care. Others feel that parents "bought" the kids, they are
irresponsible if they don't make the payments.  Both of these sentiments
have an economic logic to them.

The issues of externalities seems most obvious to me: if we raise
children well, society as a whole would benefit. If we raise children
poorly, then all of society benefits.  If we tell people, "Hey, it's
your problem, you made the kid," then children are neglected or
abandoned.  Then we rant and rave about irresponsible parents and strange
kids.  The economic incentives seem wrong, so it does seem economics.

I was thinking that usually for econ thought we discuss older thinkers
than Folbre 1994, but I suppose the dearth of female economists in prior
periods affects the ability to do that here.  Malthus' arguments and the
Batchelor tax arguments are interesting and related, but seem to miss a
few things, also.

Marie Christine Duggan