The fallacy of some child care arguments

Daily we are told that mums would all be back at work if only they had childcare.
This raises a few issues - yes, mums want to rejoin the world post childbirth, and for many mums career is very important, and mostly it is the mum who faces the choice of home or work. (Perhaps it is the dad who stays at home...) OK, that is fine, but there are a few assumptions that need to be tested.
What is the point of having kids if you are going to get someone else to raise them? Can someone with no 'bond' to your child other than financial provide the necessary care to the half dozen or so little kids in their care?
What is the financial cost? For a mum/dad on $50k/y the financial advantages of working and putting their kids in child care, mostly, are negligible, except the child gets to be raised by a stranger and the parent is exhausted and stressed from the relentlessness of commuting, working, home upkeep ....
Some people pay $7-800/week for childcare, and when govt subsidies are considered, the cost can blow out to $1200/w. In that situation if a mum was paid a minimum of $200, tax free, to stay at home till the kids are of school age, then it is a net financial saving as well as the additional gain from kids being raised by their mum.
Business and govt want women to work because it helps the GDP, regardless of it is makes any economic sense or is good for anyone.
It is cheaper to pay a parent to stay at home if there is one child below school age, and this becomes radically cheaper when there are 2-3 kids under school age, esp when after school care is considered.
It is also a no-brainer that kids are mostly better off with a caring parent at home. no doubt some parents have major issues with being at home