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.

  • rumba@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 day ago

    He “could” TOTALLY pay his way into a baby boom.

    Step 1: Tax the rich. Lower the pressure on the lower and middle classes.

    Step 2: Fix housing pricing so that a single hard-working person can afford a house, a car, and two kids without their partner having to work.

    Step 3: Put some guardrails in place to stop the 2-3 companies that are buying up everything. Give medium and small business a chance to thrive without needing to be purchased by a giant company.

    Step 4. Fix healthcare so that the family above gets 100% coverage for whatever happens. Pay for it with Step 1.

  • Critical_Thinker@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Wow, look at that! The price of strollers just went up 5k!

    Replace strollers with basically anything related to birth or infants. 5k more to spend? 5k more to earn by big business selling wares.

    This assumes the hospital doesn’t determine that you seem to owe 5k more for that one out of network service provider they slipped in while you were distracted during birthing.

    • Tire@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      I hate our healthcare system so much. Individual bills for random doctors you never asked for that are somehow working for the hospital but are unrelated in terms of their insurance policy makes zero sense. How could anyone consent to anything in a reasonable fashion

      • Critical_Thinker@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        24 hours ago

        Preach. I can do nothing but agree, and I have insider info in the insurance industry, pharma and healthcare. It’s all a game to make the rich even richer and the politicians are colluding in such a bipartisan fashion you’d think the parties were fully unified.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 day ago

    If $5000 is a lot to you, he’s really not interested in there being more of “your type” of person.

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      Actually, I’m sure he’s quite interested in there being a nice big class of desperate labor pool ripe for exploitation.

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Well, they say societies grow great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they will never sit in.

        Trump doesn’t seem like a man who thinks that far ahead. He’s more the Fox News “great replacement” type.

  • adm@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days 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.

    • seat6@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      I believe $5k is around the average cost (after insurance) to have a baby in the US if you have insurance.

  • opus86@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days 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.

    • BlackSheep@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      The people that would take advantage of this would be the people completely lacking in critical thinking.

      • Hanrahan@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        Thats mostly what happned in Australia back in the day when we tried it. Mu friends wife was a social worker, she said coercion to have babies was endemic and the money taken off the mother by the asshat father when said money arrived. Not really a lack of critical thinking per se, just desperate :(

        What a debacle.

      • opus86@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        The people that would take advantage of this wouldn’t have the ability for critical thinking skills. I doubt the kids would be much better.

    • ours@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      In any case this combined with his dismantling of public education will certainly not help.

    • The_Caretaker@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      There is no housing shortage, just an abundance of greed. There are 14,000,000 empty homes in the USA and most are owned by corporations who hold them as part of a financial portfolio or hedge funds. Ban corporations from owning residential properties and the housing shortage will vanish without cutting down more trees and burning more fossil fuels.

      • MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Idk man, around me it’s sprawling single family homes for miles, when it should be blocks and blocks of condos and town homes. The NIMBYs have prevented construction for decades and now a house costs $1.5m. There is a housing shortage. I think corporations recently taking an interest in buying houses is because the shortage makes their value appreciate so quickly. They’re like parasites taking advantage of the situation, not the root cause.

        • BlackSheep@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          The corporations buying houses, and property, is exactly the root cause. If they own it all, they set the prices. It’s a cash cow. You pay, or you’re homeless. You pay $2500/month rent, but they won’t give you a mortgage where you would be paying $2000/month.

          • ILoveUnions@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            The root cause is a lack of multi family housing. Corpos buying houses is not the primary issue with housing, though it is also a serious concern.

            • BlackSheep@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 days ago

              https://www.cbc.ca/radio/sunday/federal-social-housing-1.6946376 The Canadian government used to build social housing. We have a real problem with homeless people in Canada. There are only a few places left like this where I live. They are very well run complexes. My Son-in-law’s retired Mom lives in one. She worked hard all her life, but through a divorce and buying a “leaky condo”, she was left without a lot of resources. She was lucky enough to find a placement in one of these places. The rent is a percentage of her income. We need more places like this…

    • angrystego@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      Do we really need a baby boom though? I agree we need affordable housing, everything you mentioned and more. At the same time I don’t think the population should grow forever (so education and available birth control).

      • MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        I don’t disagree. I was just clarifying what would spur one.

        Truthfully, we are fucked either way. The truth is having a baby boom would help the economy, but accelerate environmental degradation and the consequences of climate change, which will be extremely destabilizing to society and possibly lead to collapse.

        But, if we don’t continue to grow the population, the capitalist world, based on a need for endless growth will falter. We will see less productivity and consumption, which will also be destabilizing to society as the economy shrinks or becomes stagnant. This is also destabilizing to society and could also create a collapse.

  • Formfiller@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    2 days ago

    He’s making everything more expensive, gutting medicade to nothing (50% of babies are born on medicade), taking away food stamps, getting rid of the department of education, gutting hud, gutting head start, getting rid of free lunches in schools, sending us into a Great Depression, stripping worker protections and removing any hope for a future….but yeah 5k sure that will cover your first 15 minutes of delivery. What a joke this man is

      • Formfiller@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        and most elderly in nursing homes. That is going to be a whole lot of care work dumped onto women with little to no pay and dire economic consequences for women and families. It would be absolutely stupid to have a baby with this level of uncertainty

        • medgremlin@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          I’m just looking forward to when I have time to yeet my uterus (get a hysterectomy). It was a pain to find an OBGyn who would do it without asking too many questions, but I still brought my husband to the consultation appointment just in case there was any push back because I’m a woman in her 30’s with no children. I’ve had previous OBGyn’s refuse to even discuss a hysterectomy with me because “what if your future husband wants children” when I wasn’t even in a relationship or dating at the time.

          • IamSparticles@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 day ago

            “what if your future husband wants children”

            “Then he shouldn’t be marrying someone without a uterus” would be the logical response. Sorry you had to go through that bullshit.

            If it makes you feel any better, my wife and I were both 40 and already had two healthy kids in elementary school when I got a consultation for a vasectomy. They still made me do everything short of swear on a bible that I wasn’t going to change my mind before they would agree to do it. They insisted that my wife come in with me and sign a document affirming her agreement with the procedure before they would schedule it. Then they made us both give verbal and written agreement AGAIN right before they started. It was nuts (pardon the pun).

  • foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    127
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      2 days 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          2 days 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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days 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

              • foggy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                2 days ago

                I did not say it was impossible. At all. Get your strawman bullshit outta here. Stick to the point or stfu.

                I said am not interested in those living conditions.

                Full stop.

          • kozy138@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          2 days 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.

    • Ledericas@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      hes just copying putin, putin promised equivalent to 16k for 10 children from moms.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          Well people need to make up their minds then. If people keep saying that urban spread is an issue, we need higher density and less reliance on cars we can’t go and ask to have ½ acre lots for each and every parents.

          Maybe OP is only talking about what they want in exchange for having kids and well I’m sure they’re able to afford it if they truly want it (since they mention they’re pretty well off) but it will come with moving far from a urban center.

      • klemptor@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days 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.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 days 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Welp I don’t have children and it would be highly weird if I went around forcing other people’s kids to go play free-range so…

  • PancakeTrebuchet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days 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.

    • 5too@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      You’d maybe be able to cover the hospital bill from having the kid with that sum.

      If there’s no complications.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 days 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days 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

      • andros_rex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        FAFSA calculations have been bullshit for years.

        “Oh, your family was extremely abusive and they aren’t giving you a dime? Well, your stepfather still makes too much for you to get anything other than unsubsidized loans.”

        Like, fuck, my mom stole thousands of dollars from me. I should have had a negative EFC.

    • OccamsRazer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      None of the developed countries have a replacement birth rate. Higher quality of life has lead to lower birth rate in all cases.

    • NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      because that requires the people in charge facing hard truths about their own lifestyles.

  • matdave@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 days ago

    Literally cost us $11k in medical bills to have a baby. That doesn’t include the cost of actually maintaining it either. $5k is a JOKE

  • glimse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      2 days 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      2 days 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.

      • glimse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        You got a good fuckin deal. I don’t have kids but my friends pay between $20,000 and $30,000 for daycare