I think there is a fundamental problem with the way that caring is funded which means it's very difficult for it to be high up in terms of how it is paid. So long as pay for carers has to be affordable to people with other jobs, it will almost always have to mean being paid less than said jobs.
No one can pay for child care (or other care) that costs more than they bring in themselves, so the carer will have to be paid less, enough to make working worthwhile, and at a certain point it makes sense for the worker to simply become the carer.
Socialising care helps this somewhat but only to a point. There is still a sense in which the cost of that care is being paid for by the productivity of the economy. I think what we are likely to see is that more is going to have to go towards paying for such things and less to consumer goods and perhaps certain other leisure activities. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
As a feminist question, I'm not convinced feminism has ever really faced this question honestly, and it's been able to get away with this because it's been possible to think of childbearing as a choice, almost a consumer choice, and childrearing as something that can be solved by the capitalist economy, or in part turned over to men. These are all somewhat dodges though IMO - in reality most women will have kids and having more than one will often impact career because it is a big job, and it's not clear that most women really prefer to give up most or half of infant or even child care to paid workers or even fathers.
But, and this is I think what I don't see people talk about much, mainly because there is a kind of synergy, in biological terms, between being the one who bears and nurses infants and also taking on the related jobs like caring for older kids, managing the domestic sphere, etc. Like there is a reason we have not developed as a species with men doing most childcare and eldercare and domestic work while women go out to till the fields, fight battles, and hunt. Those things happen, some more than others, but we don't really see societies patterned like that, and that's not because of sex stereotypes. It's directly related to what usually works when we are also "working" at our reproductive roles.
Feminism has been very very uncomfortable to talk about that, that these patters are likely to assert themselves, and capitalist society has also preferred not to talk about it for other reasons. But this has IMO contributed to some of the problems we have now around women's rights, and I think it's also made it difficult to talk about patterns of caring. Humans exist in families, even if they are families of one, and all families at one time or another require carers, you could even say all need them but sometimes it can be combined with other things. I always think that most families with school age kids usually need 1.5 adult paid jobs, so that .5 can deal with the rest of life and kids needs. A lot of the time it does not make sense for that work to be hired and many people would not prefer that anyway, they value their own human connections outside of paid work.
I'm not sure I think we can address this outside a capitalist model that sees adults in the same family as independent workers who happen to be roommates, or until we acknowledge that things like age, and sex, will affect our living patterns, perhaps long term.