When you look at the Phinney family’s finances the right course of action seems less clear. The dad is unemployed, and they also spend $500 a month on child car

When you look at the Phinney family’s finances the right course of action seems less clear. The dad is unemployed, and they also spend $500 a month on child care, which is a chunk of their budget. They could get child care for all their children for another $2000 a month, but the dad hasn’t been able to get a job that would cover that. Only warehouse jobs which pay very little. So, the government could pay $2500 a month for this family to have free child care. But, the unemployed father could also just take care of all the children. Why is it better for the government to pay for child care, and then this father either stays unemployed or takes a job that pays less than the cost of child care? It would be nice if there were not such a social stigma against stay-at-home fathers.