White House proposes giving out $5,000 checks to address falling birthrates amid growing ‘pronatalist’ movement

One of Donald Trump’s priorities for his second term is getting Americans to have more babies – and the White House has a new proposal to encourage them to do so: a $5,000 “baby bonus”.

The plan to give cash payments to mothers after delivery shows the growing influence of the “pronatalist” movement in the US, which, citing falling US birthrates, calls for “traditional” family values and for women – particularly white women – to have more children.

But experts say $5,000 checks won’t lead to a baby boom. Between unaffordable health care, soaring housing costs, inaccessible childcare and a lack of federal parental leave mandates, Americans face a swath of expensive hurdles that disincentivize them from having large families – or families at all – and that will require a much larger government investment to overcome.

  • foggy@lemmy.world
    Aquileo | link
    Aquileo | fedilink
    Aquileo | arrow-up
    126
    Aquileo | arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    $5000???

    Hahahahaha

    Give me a house. Anything short of 1500 sqft, 3br, 1.5ba, on a half acre or more is just not enough for my gf and I to even consider.

    And we are both gainfully employed.

    • CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de
      Aquileo | link
      Aquileo | fedilink
      English
      Aquileo | arrow-up
      32
      ·
      1 year ago

      1500sqft starts to feel cozy with a bunch of teenagers hanging out.

      $5000 probably won’t cover the lost salary from missing work, if adequate recovery time is taken to say nothing of the true developmental needs of the infant. Try 2 years of salary, just to get to a point where daycare can take over for some of the time (and you get to pay that too!).

      I get that “we need kids to grow the economy” but also, humans are killing the planet and if our population keeps growing, we’re going to just keep on killing it faster.

    • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
      Aquileo | link
      Aquileo | fedilink
      Aquileo | arrow-up
      15
      Aquileo | arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I get the sentiment here, but a half acre is a lot of land and the development of large suburban lots is a big thing that contributed to the housing crisis in north america. We need to diversify housing and increase the number of 1000-2000 sqft apartments as well. Relatively small homes on smaller lots (1/4 acre and under) should also be being built.

        • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
          Aquileo | link
          Aquileo | fedilink
          Aquileo | arrow-up
          9
          Aquileo | arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Which could be 10, 2000 sq/ft single story units or 40, 2000 sq/ft apartments in a 4 story building. We cant just keep letting cities build outward and cover farmlands with endless swathes of single family homes and barren lawns.

            • arrow74@lemm.ee
              Aquileo | link
              Aquileo | fedilink
              English
              Aquileo | arrow-up
              5
              Aquileo | arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Honestly this is super common in many urban settings across the world. I think why this seems so unreasonable from the American perspective US due to the lack of public spaces/infrastructure/services.

              Having a private lot seems less of a big deal when there are accessible spaces and easy ways to travel around town.

              Like I get it, I also want a yard, but if I had an easy way to access other things and a safe place to recreate it would be less of a desire

          • kozy138@lemm.ee
            Aquileo | link
            Aquileo | fedilink
            Aquileo | arrow-up
            2
            Aquileo | arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Don’t forget parking lots! The suburban strip mall is dependent on them. And since they take up valuable real estate that isn’t providing any tax revenue, it gets subsidized by taxes from neighboring high-density urban areas.

        • wjrii@lemmy.world
          Aquileo | link
          Aquileo | fedilink
          English
          Aquileo | arrow-up
          5
          Aquileo | arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Maybe for any sort of food-supplementing gardening and/or egg-farming. For simple living space, it’s extravagant. I live in the Texas suburbs, and half-acre lots are nowhere near the norm until you get way out into the exurbs. Quarter acre lots are a rather generous and (and resource intensive), and 1/8 would be standard for “starter” homes.

      • klemptor@startrek.website
        Aquileo | link
        Aquileo | fedilink
        Aquileo | arrow-up
        8
        Aquileo | arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        True, but kids aren’t free-range anymore the way they were when I was growing up in the '80s & '90s. It didn’t used to matter if you had a small backyard if you had a big neighborhood to roam. But from what I understand, kids aren’t allowed to just get on their bikes and go explore like they used to. Larger yards give kids a place to play, to get some fresh air and exercise instead of being indoors glued to a screen.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.worksdeleted by creator
          Aquileo | link
          Aquileo | fedilink
          Aquileo | arrow-up
          8
          Aquileo | arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          My in laws have an acre and their kids mostly play on about ⅒ of it because that’s where their stuff is, give people parks and they can live with a smaller yard. It’s not sustainable to give everyone ½ an acre.

          • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
            Aquileo | link
            Aquileo | fedilink
            Aquileo | arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            As a kid I’d spend a lot of time in local forests, go to a local park to play. The benefit of these spaces is you can have all your friends meet up with you. Manhunt in a 1/2 acre backyard would be way more boring than access to various parks and forested areas.

            There are also activities like sports, camps, boy scouts/girl guides that kids can participate in to get outdoors time.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          Aquileo | link
          Aquileo | fedilink
          Aquileo | arrow-up
          4
          Aquileo | arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          True, but kids aren’t free-range anymore the way they were when I was growing up in the '80s & '90s.

          Then quit being fucking paranoid cowards and fix that!

      • klemptor@startrek.website
        Aquileo | link
        Aquileo | fedilink
        Aquileo | arrow-up
        5
        Aquileo | arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Serious question, have you considered the trades? It seems that jobs like electrician, plumber, auto mechanic, etc are a lot more secure than white collar jobs are right now, especially STEM. I know at least where I live (Philly exurbs) there’s a shortage of electricians, with only 2 going into the trade as 5 retire. You get paid during your training and through the union you get healthcare and a pension. Something to think about.

        • SuiXi3D@fedia.io
          Aquileo | link
          Aquileo | fedilink
          Aquileo | arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I currently work assembling cables. Soldering, crimping, etc. I grew up building stuff, be it with my father at his business or at home. I don’t have no skills, but the skills I have don’t seem to be those that are in demand for high wages. Furthermore, as someone with Autism, I don’t do well in positions where I have to interact with the general public.

    • PopcornPrincess@lemmy.world
      Aquileo | link
      Aquileo | fedilink
      Aquileo | arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      Seriously, a one time payment that low won’t cover shit. The climate doesn’t support families to begin with like your comment points out.

      Also you can’t ask people to have kids and cut funding to Medicaid & be actively dismantling Department of Education… It’s counterintuitive to say we support families and then not support families. Oh but here’s some money.

  • glimse@lemmy.world
    Aquileo | link
    Aquileo | fedilink
    Aquileo | arrow-up
    73
    Aquileo | arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hey non-Americans, fun fact! If you have a baby here, you can expect $15,000+ in hospital bills.

    $5,000 should cover that, right?

    • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
      Aquileo | link
      Aquileo | fedilink
      Aquileo | arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s the most laughable part of this idea. Even with a great insurance plan that $5k is basically a hospital discount. Furthermore, the few people I know that are interested in having more kids and have “uneventful” home births under their belt, thus minimal medical bills, are all Hispanic.

      • taiyang@lemmy.world
        Aquileo | link
        Aquileo | fedilink
        Aquileo | arrow-up
        3
        Aquileo | arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Let’s not spread incorrect numbers, our hmo made the cost of labor about $100 (maybe because of California). Childcare, formula, etc is still way more than $5k but labor is only expensive with bad insurance or no insurance, which is actually kind of more ironic since that applies more to MAGA than the rest of us.

        • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
          Aquileo | link
          Aquileo | fedilink
          Aquileo | arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s the fucked up part about America. You can walk out of a hospital with no bill or life-crippling debt depending on your age, income level, state, and employer (i.e. employer-based insurance).

          • taiyang@lemmy.world
            Aquileo | link
            Aquileo | fedilink
            Aquileo | arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’ll say life-crippling debt roulette is certainly one of the more frustrating aspects of our system, yeah. Non-labor costs are a hit or miss of rejections, especially, since you don’t have the same protections.

            E.g. Indiana friend owes 40k for a 15 dollar mandatory procedure, for instance, and he has to fight it since it’s clearly a random rejection. It’s very upsetting. I just don’t want to paint the picture it’s always life-crippling, just… very random.

        • ExtantHuman@lemm.ee
          Aquileo | link
          Aquileo | fedilink
          Aquileo | arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not in California, but we had twins, a couple days stay in the hospital, and have really good insurance. Still got billed 7k for the supposedly 80k total the hospital was billing for.

    • The_v@lemmy.world
      Aquileo | link
      Aquileo | fedilink
      Aquileo | arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      A C-section will run you $60K easy. With the 80:20 insurance thats $12K owed by the parents. . With the federal out of pocket maximum being $9,450 for the mother. The baby also has a $9,450 out of pocket maximum. So the family will likely owe at least $12k before leaving the hospital

      $5K handout is seriously ignorant. It will cost a hell of a lot more to reverse the trend

      In order to increase the birthrate above replacement level here are a few things that need to happen.

      1. Free universal healthcare including dental.

      2. Rent control for all apartments locked to single income minimum wage.

      3. Ban on investment properties for single family homes. If the house is classified as single family, you can’t rent it out. It must be sold.

      4. Free childcare.

      5. Free education from pre-K to Graduate levels.

      6. Open immigration policies for countries with higher birthrates.

      7. Increase minimum wage to make it a livable wage.

      8. To pay for it all - Increase corporate taxes to 95% for more than $100million income. Increase personal taxes to 95% for more than 1 million in income.

  • crystalmerchant@lemmy.world
    Aquileo | link
    Aquileo | fedilink
    Aquileo | arrow-up
    59
    Aquileo | arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Lmaooo no shit it won’t work. Daycare alone is $20-$40k a year. A pittance one-time payment doesn’t change the fundamental calculus of how fucking expensive everything is now

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.worldBanned
      Aquileo | link
      Aquileo | fedilink
      Aquileo | arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It shouldn’t work, it should give the right publicity. 1/8 of yearly daycare cost is you know what? more than 10% of daycare cost and more than zero. It doesn’t matter this is small, what matters is that people will subconsciously remember it exists.

      Propaganda works like that. Various pieces of the right mechanism will be planted into your brain (yes, even your brain) to work in the right moment, when, despite everything having turned into shit, you’ll vaguely remember that there are some programs helping someone, not all other countries are perfect too, terrorists exist and should be fought, even though it’s done with wrong methods, and your ruling clan is full of dumb thieves, which is what they want you to think. And at some point this will make you defenseless for a full takeover.

      Well, that’s what worked with Russia, USA is kinda stronger (not being a stagnating totalitarian state that just stopped breathing helps), but such people improve and perfect their methods too.

  • PancakeTrebuchet@lemmy.world
    Aquileo | link
    Aquileo | fedilink
    English
    Aquileo | arrow-up
    40
    Aquileo | arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    My wife and I would consider another kid if the fed wanted to kick us an extra $25k per year.

    A one time fee of $5K is hilarious. You’d maybe be able to cover the hospital bill from having the kid with that sum.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      Aquileo | link
      Aquileo | fedilink
      English
      Aquileo | arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not even his idea.

      https://taxfoundation.org/blog/hillary-clintons-proposal-5000-baby-bond-essentially-already-here/

      Sen. Hillary Clinton’s plan to give every newborn a $5,000 bond, money meant to defray college costs when the kids hit 18, continued to draw criticism yesterday from her right-wing rivals.

      “It’s a quick way of trying to buy votes, which is irresponsible when it comes to the economic future of the nation,” said New York Conservative Party chief Mike Long, adding that the White House would have to raise taxes to finance the plan.

      The bonds would cost about $20 billion a year, based on the 4million American babies born annually, according to Time magazine, which last month proposed a similar plan.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      Aquileo | link
      Aquileo | fedilink
      Aquileo | arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not even cash, but healthcare, childcare, preschool, more tuition assistance (WTF, FAFSA no longer considers if you have multiple kids in college? Let’s start by fixing that), excessive housing and vehicle cost. Plus give us some hope for the future with investments in the environment and renewable energy, making the world a better place. $5k probably covers first year food, clothes, diapers but not much more

  • ExtantHuman@lemm.ee
    Aquileo | link
    Aquileo | fedilink
    Aquileo | arrow-up
    36
    ·
    1 year ago

    They’re pretending to offer incentives while their actual policies are why birth rates are declining.

    5k won’t even cover the hospital costs for the birth. Let alone the child care, continuing to insure that child, food, housing, child care because both parents need to work, education which they’ve been staying refunding for decades…

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      Aquileo | link
      Aquileo | fedilink
      English
      Aquileo | arrow-up
      29
      ·
      1 year ago

      It makes more sense when you realize that money has solved all of Donald Trump’s problems in the past. Get a little too handsy with a woman? Pay her off to keep quiet. Have a business partnership or contract you want to get out of? Pay lawyers to harass them in court until they give up.

      Heck, he doesn’t even need to use his own money most of the time, he can spend out of one of his companies like it’s a slush fund then declare bankruptcy, leaving business partners and banks with the bills.

      He is now running the government like one of his privately owned companies, and using our money to try and solve his problems. Give them a pittance to go away, and when they don’t, you can say “we gave them a chance” before kidnapping them.

    • GluWu@lemm.eedeleted by creator
      Aquileo | link
      Aquileo | fedilink
      English
      Aquileo | arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      They don’t want the middle class breeding, those are the people they want to get rid of. They want rulers and servants. With this, poor people will have more kids for the short term gain because they have to. Parents get money and can feed thmselves for a while. Then the oligarchy gets a influx of child labour they can pay less for and will be indoctrinated from this early age. Those parents will realize having more kids means they can get more income off them and with be incentived to have 12 kids in the factory.

  • opus86@lemmy.today
    Aquileo | link
    Aquileo | fedilink
    English
    Aquileo | arrow-up
    28
    Aquileo | arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is how you get Idiocracy. The people that would take advantage of this would be the people you don’t want to over-breed.

  • adm@lemm.ee
    Aquileo | link
    Aquileo | fedilink
    English
    Aquileo | arrow-up
    28
    Aquileo | arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Just birthing the damn thing is like $50,000. He can shove the $5,000 right up his ass and I hope he gets paper cuts up there too.