No one is talking about paying home makers.

Well, “Women for Yang” certainly is:

Feminists in the US, with the aid of Italian feminist Silvia Federici (author of Revolution at Point Zero: Housework, Reproduction, and Feminist Struggle, which I cannot recommend highly enough), launched the Wages for Housework movement in 1975 in New York, arguing that the valuation of women’s household labor at zero allowed capital to outsource the cost of rearing and caring for workers to uncompensated women and that we needed to radically rethink how we assign value as a society. They were right. [Boldface added.]

But I’ll assume that by “nobody,” you mean Mr. Yang, and it’s fair to say that he is not advocating paid housework. But he does seem incapable of logical purity regarding his concept of a freedom “dividend”:

“The question is: What do we mean by work?” Andrew Yang said on The Daily last month, and gave as an example his wife, who stays home with their sons. “I know my wife is working harder than I am, and I’m running for president. And right now, the market values her work at zero. So we have to think bigger about what we mean by work and value.”

The link is to a NYT article of 10/3/19, in case it’s pay-walled.

If the Freedom Dividend is about being a good citizen and sharing the benefits of our national success, discussion of what constitutes “work” is completely off-topic and misleading to the point of being an opportunistic play for the hausfrau vote. I believe that homemaking is not “very valuable” but “invaluable.” It is essential, and we should do all we can to support it as a national business model. To the extent that a UBI would make that more possible, that’s fine with me. But the whole idea of a dividend is that it is for a common contribution, not a specific one. Introducing the notion of paid housework just muddies the water.