but when you look through maga glasses, that's what you see when a black single mom of 2 receives a wic voucher for a couple gallons of milk.
SavageCreation 30 points a year ago
You see, its not one black mom, its the millions of moms getting subsidies!
Lets ignore the part where we somewhy have a million moms needing subsidies.
MNByChoice 6 points a year ago
Thank you! Maddening!
edgemaster72 10 points a year ago
"I had to suffer so you should too!"
Hayduke 127 points a year ago
That won’t even cover half of the (insured) cost of even the smoothest birth with my plan, and I work for a multi-billion dollar company.
This country, man. Having traveled abroad a bit, you start to realize how tunnel-visioned people stateside can get. Don’t even realize how much they/we are getting fleeced.
raltoid 40 points a year ago
Having traveled abroad a bit, you start to realize how tunnel-visioned people stateside can get. Don’t even realize how much they/we are getting fleeced.
It's the classic of someone having to visit a doctor while in Europe. And they're always shocked at how cheap it is in comparison. Even people who know it's much cheaper tend to think it's like 50% , not 99-100% less. I had an emergency room visit with blood and urine testing, painkiller injection, private exam room, etc.. It took a few hours and was about $25 that you could pay at a machine on your way out.
ZombiFrancis 30 points a year ago
I was gonna day $5k is just a handout to insurance companies for just the birth of the baby.
Which is, well, the end of Republicans giving a shit about babies and children.
SavageCreation 8 points a year ago
Meanwhile Id kill for those 5k bucks. But thats becausw the right to stay alive doesnt cost me a kidney
merc 1 point a year ago
I wouldn't use the word "tunnel-visioned". That implies focused on something and ignoring the things nearby.
I think it's more accurate to say "ignorant". Many, probably most Americans just have no clue about most things outside the USA. You've travelled abroad, most Americans have not. The US is such an insular society that people can get away with saying things like "Canadians hate their healthcare" and people actually believe them.
stupidcasey 98 points a year ago
Better Idea, let's fix the economy so people can afford to have Babies.
Or fix the world so we want to have Babies.
Or lower the price of housing so we have a place to put babies.
Or open forced breeding camps, shanty towns and and slave labor...oh wait.
corsicanguppy 22 points a year ago
One of those are more likely than the others. It's the last one.
And you just know the people coming out of those labour factories will all share a visibly distinct attribute - or tint, god help me for saying that - that makes them recognizable as low-caste now as it did in the 1800s.
I hate fearing that is right around the corner. Again, fuck.
SavageCreation 5 points a year ago
I'm gonna fucking laugh if it leads to a revolution due to the slaves being the only people actively reproducing
pelespirit 7 points a year ago
What do you think all of this immigrant shit is about. They want white babies.
Kecessa -3 points a year ago
Look at the historic birth rate in countries where where these things aren't an issue and you'll realize that unless you walk back on women rights and access to contraception, people won't have enough babies to renew the population because they simple don't want to have enough of them to do so.
Lightor 3 points a year ago
There might be other factors at play. Deciding to have a child is a complex decision. But not having those things mentioned just makes the problem worse.
Also, speaking of historical facts. Even outlawing abortion and such doesn't stop it. They travel or use risky methods. Or they put the kid up for adoption which leads to a massive spike in crime. Which is why roughly 18 years after Roe v Wade there was a drop in crime.
Kecessa 0 points a year ago
As I said, it's just historical stats from a bunch of different countries that all show the same thing.
Both my sisters in law have three kids and get about $1.6k in financial help, super cheap childcare and free healthcare, they're still in the minority of people who have 3 kids in Canada and most of the decline happened just as the pill was made legal and women started having rights and didn't depend on their husband to, for example, open a bank account and at a time when buying a house wasn't an issue.
Look at migrants from African countries, childbirth over there is super high, they move to a rich country and they don't have as many kids as the average in their country of origin even though living conditions are better.
Women rights. Contraception.
Lightor 1 point a year ago
You call out all the reasons they should have a kid, like free healthcare. But ignore all the reasons why people don't want to have kids.
You also ignore all the reasons why someone in a 3rd world country might have more kids. Like mortality rate, needing more hands for work, etc.
Yes contraception and reproductive rights are part of it. But acting like those are the only things it's naive.
msage 2 points a year ago
How in the fuck do you write "unless you walk back on women rights"? Like what happens in your mind that you actually post that for the public to see? Shame on you for that misogyny, you deserve a slap.
Also, where is this magical country where I don't have to worry about wealth inequality and climate catastrophe?
You are absolutely arguing in bad faith, and for that, fuck you.
Kecessa -1 points a year ago
Reading comprehension much?
I never said it was acceptable to walk back on women rights, I said it's something that people who want to see a higher birthrate will have to fight against because it's not happening otherwise. I couldn't give more of a crap about increasing birthrate, I won't have kids by choice. I do give a fucking crap about women rights though!
I mentioned historical statistics because you can look back at times before climate change and wealth inequality worried anyone and birthrate was going down as women rights increased and contraception became readily available.
So, conclusion, if women are given the right to do more with their lives than being mothers and if contraceptives are made available, couples will make the decision not to have enough kids to renew the population, no matter how easy it is to have them, as we can see in all developed countries where socio economic inequality is lower than in the US. Scandinavian countries don't renew their population without immigration and haven't for a fucking long time, in Finland birthrate went below renewal rate before WW2 for fuck's sake!
msage 0 points a year ago
It's the most horrendous correlation-is-causation I've ever seen.
And people outside US have it better, but the trajectory is mostly the same everywhere, so you're just full of shit.
It's not easy to have children ANYWHERE, and in most places it just too expensive or downright impossible due to childcare issues or tons of other things.
Formfiller 76 points a year ago
They just cut head start, slashed medicade(51% of us babies are born on this program), no medicade no pediatric care for your baby either, cut hud, slashed the department of education, blocked student loan forgiveness, are dismantling the aca preventative care mandate, gutting worker protections, canceling child labor laws, laid off 275,000 workers and destroyed their livelihood and tanked the economy ……yea the birth rate is going to plummet. 5k lol doesn’t even cover a fraction of the utter devastation coming to American families from these moronic policies. Who in their right mind would want to bring a child into this racist sexist tech bro oligarchy?
GenXLiberal 25 points a year ago
And all to fund tax cuts for the wealthy - who don’t need them.
Doctor_Satan 12 points a year ago
yea the birth rate is going to plummet.
I'm not so sure. Impoverished countries have the highest birth rates. I can imagine the logic of the wealthy 0.001% being "if we make the rest of the country as broke as Somalia, the birth rate will also be as high as Somalia."
brotundspiele 63 points a year ago
5000$ is a lot. In Germany you get only 250€
well, that's
per month until they're 27 (as long as they're still in school/university)
plus free healthcare for mother and child
plus free daycare (depending on the state)
plus free schools and universities
...
DrDeadCrash 16 points a year ago
I'm with you here, but we need to keep in mind that the nazis never "leave". We'll need to forever and continually keep these bastards from power.
InvertedParallax 2 points a year ago
This was the whole problem, they've been here all along.
We thought we beat them in the civil war, they just hunkered down and changed the name of slavery to Jim crow.
Now they think this is their moment.
DrDeadCrash 2 points a year ago
Same thoughts here. Once they're beaten, no "reconstruction" can be offered this time around. They'll need to re-assimilate into our society.
VitoRobles 2 points a year ago
If it's like the civil war, we'll kick them out and then build statues and name bases after them.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA 3 points a year ago
whats leave
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA 5 points a year ago
i understand the individual words you use, but when you put them in that order my blood starts getting all bubbly and full of nitrogen. i think i'll take a nap
cannon_annon88 60 points a year ago
This wouldn't even cover the hospital bill for most people lol.
And since hospitals know moms will be getting an extra 5k they will just add that into the cost somehow. /s
Doctor_Satan 60 points a year ago
It won't even cover the cost of giving birth. This is some real "how much could a banana cost" energy.
UnderpantsWeevil 57 points a year ago
Clinton Floats $5,000 Baby Bond
~ September 28, 2007
It's nice to know these two are still in touch.
corsicanguppy 25 points a year ago
Of all the people who are so strapped they could receive $5k and not immediately blow it on visa bills and rent, parents aren't even close to the list. $5k into investments? Most of them are either flirting with bankruptcy or engaging in some heavy petting in a corner booth.
Septimaeus 3 points a year ago
Don’t judge me. I got kids to feed.
UnderpantsWeevil 19 points a year ago
Not on its face, no. I think it's still a band-aid attached to a bigger problem of generational inequality. Public housing, education, and a large competitive public hiring sector would have gone much farther in rectifying poverty in the US.
But the extra insulting aspect of "Baby Bonds" is that they're an idea dangled over a public hungry for economic reforms which never actually gets delivered. When liberals lose, they get to nag centrists and insist "We had all these good ideas but you were too racist and stupid to accept them". When they win, we get an earful about how the federal courts, the super-majority Senate, the prior administration's mid-level bureaucrats, the state legislatures, and two dozen of DC's biggest lobbying firms all have to agree to go along with it or the reforms can't pass.
Seems like Republicans are getting in on the same act, now that kitchen table liberalism is experiencing a popular resurgence.
Semi_Hemi_Demigod 13 points a year ago
It's really gonna help to pay for diapers in an index fund.
Semi_Hemi_Demigod 1 point a year ago
I think it sounds like a way to give a bunch of money to Wall Street so they can gamble with it
epyon22 6 points a year ago
Totally original idea
Doctor_Satan 19 points a year ago
Coincidentally, it's also the exact type of person conservatives want having kids. They make up the majority of prison labor, military fodder, and wage slaves.
Blackmist 50 points a year ago
Trade:
- One person's wages
For:
- Mortgage payments on a reasonably sized house
- All bills
- Food for two adults plus children
- Entertainment
Then you might see more babies.
It was their greed that caused this.
ERROR_100_000_100 48 points a year ago path: 0 16638896, hotness: undefined, score: 48, children: 6
_stranger_ 12 points a year ago
In a lot of places 5K a month covers daycare, and not much more
taladar 0 points a year ago
To be fair that is the kind of place where the argument "move somewhere cheaper then if your income doesn't match the cost of living" does have some merit. Oh, and fuck the employers who pay wages below the cost of living in their area.
MutilationWave 0 points a year ago
Moving is incredibly expensive and you have to find a new job, which is hard as fuck for anything paying better than slave wages. I feel like shit like this is written by experienced coders, surgeons, people like that who can snap their fingers and have a different job.
taladar 1 point a year ago
The kind of places where daycare is 5K a month are probably the 5% most expensive areas in a first world country. If you don't have a high paying job in those areas your job is very likely available elsewhere.
Barley_Man 33 points a year ago
As someone who lives in a country where giving birth is free that sounds absolutely insane to me. Are these birth costs in the US at least covered by common medical insurance or is it always that bad? It's a miracle that the US birth rate is one of the highest in the western world when the conditions are like this...
nokturne213 30 points a year ago
After my son’s birth in 2006, we owed $12,000 after insurance. That was a single night’s stay in the hospital. Nothing out of the norm for the birth. We had to refinance the house the following year to pay off his and our daughter’s birth from 2005.
93maddie94 14 points a year ago
I think my hospital bills were around $5,000. What I didn’t anticipate was the fact that once my daughter was born I was paying hospital bills for me and for her. I think without insurance it was around 30k? So insurance covered 25,000 and we paid the rest
corsicanguppy 7 points a year ago
Right? 🇨🇦
But I have family in Sweden, and I'm not sure they don't have a baby food fund, but I definitely remember that daycare, preschool and all schooling was free of user-fees and also nearby.
So she's been walking the kids to the schools down the road a bit for 14 years now, on her way to and from work. And it's been free. And I think they get lunch. And their schools are moderately successful and still have programmes. And they graduate kids who can add in their head and speak two languages or more.
Guys, I think rogue American states don't want to join Canada. Join Denmark or Sweden instead!
boonhet 3 points a year ago
Estonian here, similar, but two languages wasn't actually an option at least earlier this century. I started my first foreign language in 3rd grade and the other one in 6th. Could've added a 3rd one in high school but didn't feel like it personally.
Daycare isn't entirely free but the fee is very small.
Hospital visits are 2.50 per night for inpatient or 5 euros a visit for outpatient I think. Without insurance most tests are still double digits, but major surgery can go into the thousands. Insurance is tied to having employment - but being in school, raising a child under 3, etc counts too. And so does registering as unemployed. Pretty much the only time you have no health insurance is if you're a NEET and don't register for unemployment.
And you can walk to places. In my hometown, we could just walk or cycle to the next town over. There's a separate light traffic road next to the car road.
Nefara 5 points a year ago
I had a kid three years ago, we decided to get a higher premium health plan that specifically had excellent natal coverage. It's one of the most expensive plans available to us but we didn't pay anything for 9 months worth of prenatal visits plus 3 days in the hospital. The coverage statement said that delivery from the hospital was something like $28,000 but the first bill we actually saw that we had to pay was for a hearing test that was only partially covered.
albert180 3 points a year ago
An epidural doesn't "cost" 3000€
A whole hospital stay for a normal uncomplicated birth in Germany (5 days) with Epidural is just 3600€ (that's what the hospital gets paid, and most of them are for-profit in Germany)
SapphironZA 36 points a year ago
Wages have not kept up with productivity and GDP increases since the 1970s.
How about making single income middle class families possible again, so you can have one stay at home parent.
GhostedIC -16 points a year ago
Ironically, thats the exact idea behind the whole trade war thing. It has lead to TSMC already accelerating their plans to expand the Arizona microchip fabrication lab, which means... Factory jobs, the thing we used to have in the 70's.
julietOscarEcho 18 points a year ago
US economic output is more than adequate to achieve this already, but we choose instead to concentrate the benefits in the hands of a few.
Regarding tarrifs bringing back manufacturing: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/... "but this is very unlikely to work. Manufacturing has changed, with production now spread across multiple countries in so-called ‘global value chains’. Moving whole supply chains back to the US is going to be prohibitively expensive, result in rising consumer prices and make US-produced goods internationally uncompetitive. The model of manufacturing that underpins Trump’s approach simply hasn’t existed for the best part of 40 years, and is not coming back."
SapphironZA 3 points a year ago
When last could a family in America raise two kids, have a stay at home parent, buy a house send them to college and still save for retirement on a single teachers salary. Most of the Abby boomers had that.
SapphironZA 2 points a year ago
The problem is they are not moving the 500+ factories that feed that lab. They are not moving the over 100 raw mineral resources supply chains.
They are just moving the last few steps to the US.
They are doing this ass backwards.
whitewashersmud 1 point a year ago
That's not going to solve anything because it's going to make products more expensive, which is the 'exact idea.'
Enrich American oligarchs instead of those abroad that might be giving us a better deal.
brucethemoose 29 points a year ago
A: This is the 'bad' kind of incentive. My mom worked in a hospital where people would come in pregnant, tons of neglected kids in tow, asking how much wellfare they could get for the next kid. Stuff like vouchers for school, care, healthcare and stuff doesn't incentive that.
B: It's hilariously inadequate and out-of-touch. $5K for childcare these days is a joke, even as a nice supplement.
...But that's the point. This is for show, like Trump's COVID checks with his signature on them. It's a brand to tell people "Hey! I'm Trump, and I'm helping you!" directly, a decent idea poorly implemented for PR purposes. It's also hilariously hypocritical, seeing how much 'blank check hand-outs' were criticized for decades.
desktop_user 0 points a year ago
Consider that the more heavily impoverished neglected children there are the more desperate abusable workers there will be in the future. (and homeless, but there are solutions, some soup others stew)
DirkMcCallahan 28 points a year ago
Remember the stimulus checks that covered approximately 15 days' worth of rent?
MelodiousFunk 11 points a year ago
Remember? I'm still living off of mine!
Oh wait, that was just some right wing delusional bullshit that disappeared as quickly as it materialized.
Trainguyrom 1 point a year ago
I'm gonna need to see some math on how kids cost 100,000 because that doesn't at all add up with what I've spent for my two kids so far
boreengreen 27 points a year ago
My personsl hypothesis is that when couples are living in times of prosperity or growth, they can see a future and can comfortably grow a pension, then they are likely to consider having kids. This also happens to be the time they are getting a share of the wealth society generates.
In recession and uncertain times, couples tend to hold of on getting kids, and if they do get kids, they do it much later in life, when they have saved some money.
Of course couples need free time as well. If both parents need to work full time, it's gonna be a lot less palatable to have kids.
I think the global low fertility is the problem of infinite growth self correcting.
Mouselemming 14 points a year ago
You're right, when they have the choice, which is also why the Reich Wing wants to limit abortion and contraception and LGBT+ (non-accidentally-reproductive) relationships.
peekingduck 25 points a year ago
It really is a bummer to have such a legitimately retarded man just riding this country into the earths crust all Slim Pickens style.
merc 0 points a year ago
I've never thought Trump was smart. He sounds stupid when he talks. He doesn't seem to have a grasp of even basic things. But, now I'm thinking that somehow as stupid as he sounds, he's actually even dumber. Like, he's fooling people like me into thinking he has an IQ of 80 when it's more like 60. In a way that's impressive.
boreengreen 25 points a year ago
This has been tried elsewhere I believe. It ends up being a gift for those who can afford kids anyway, and does not incease the number of couples deciding to have children. A small gift for upper middle class.
Better wealth distribution however; that works.
jimmux 17 points a year ago
It was done in Australia quite a few years back and widely mocked. There was a bit of a bump in "XBox babies", but it was mostly from the kind of people who don't understand that a one-off cash bonus spent on a bigger TV doesn't cover the costs of raising a kid.
That is Trump's demographic, but he's being very optimistic if he thinks these kids will be going to the polls while he's still alive.
thatKamGuy 24 points a year ago
Based on data presented here: https://ifstudies.org/...
It takes a minimum of $200K USD to raise a child from birth to 18; which works out to ~$1K/mo.
If the Government were serious in wanting to address the aging population issue, the best way to tackle it would be to provide family funding at this level for a family’s first ~3 children.
Would it be expensive? Absolutely it would be in the initial term - but the increase in economic activity would arguably more than cover it in the long run.
Would it lead to inflation? Not if the costs were derived from taxes due to the government (which currently get dodged), rather than through national debt.
Would it lead to a positive outcome for the nation? Arguably yes, but there may also be unintended consequences to the negative. Human greed knows no bounds, after all.
DarkFuture 24 points a year ago
So conservatives want smaller government and less taxes but they're totally fine with their tax dollars being used to bribe women to give birth?
So they're stupid?
MystikIncarnate 9 points a year ago
You mean, they're using irrelevant and unrelated content in the message for shock value?
Impossible.
Buddahriffic 8 points a year ago
No, no, you see, that is the bag of money DOGE found to fund all of those $5k babies.
KingThrillgore 23 points a year ago
Ah yes, the conservatives plan to boost the birth rate has finally come to bear a rotten fruit:
- People can't afford to have kids
- People can't afford to feed kids
- People can't afford to shelter kids
- Therefore they won't have able bodied kids to keep the retirement and tax doles fulfilled
- Nor will they have able bodied soldiers for war
But they're boosting the birth rate! (they aren't, actually, the rate will be even more in decline since the replacement rate in the US was held up by immigration like in most countries, and dumbfuck's actions have brought a stop to that).
MithranArkanere 22 points a year ago
Daycare is free where I live. It has to be. You can't expect people to pay for public services themselves; that's done with taxes. Corporations can't have customers or employees without people, and to get people to make more people, you have to make it easier for them. So what makes the most sense is cutting corporation porfits, which they don't need past a limit if they aren't investing in things that will benefit the public. So if a corporation isn't doing anything good, raise their taxes, use them to pay for daycare.
rumba 3 points a year ago
60 years ago, wages were sufficient that one partner could be a homemaker even if the other only had a modest job, and they could afford a house and a car. We've only needed daycare as wages have stagnated against the cost of living.
snekerpimp 20 points a year ago
Isn’t it like ~$310,000 to raise a kid to 17? That’s, what, 2% of what is needed after the poor child is born? And some woman is going to decide to let a guy nut in her for $5000?
yourgodlucifer 13 points a year ago
This won't even cover the medical costs to give birth
ace_of_based 10 points a year ago
Even Elon pays better than this
garbagebagel 6 points a year ago
I know you were half joking but for everyone else here complaining that 5k ain't shit (I agree, it's not), it's because the incentive is not for you. It's for rich people (read: rich white people, since poverty disproportionately affects non-white people).
5k might not mean shit to you in trying to raise a child but for someone who already has the means to have/raise a kid, it's actually bonus money. That's the incentive.
veni_vedi_veni 2 points a year ago
They are rich, why would they have a kid over snack food money?
Supposedly they've done the cost benefit analysis, so this wouldn't even appeal to them, less so even...
nathanjent 17 points a year ago
After he rolls this out he'll start pushing to drop the child tax credit arguing, "they already get so much investment up front. They're so greedy."
baltakatei 17 points a year ago
monkey paw finger curls You get free healthcare coverage and half minimum wage for each child just for existing. However, you and your child must renounce your citizenship, forfeit your passport, and accept indentured servant status until you can buy back your citizenship after repaying the government child support in full.
dream_weasel 16 points a year ago
He should know that you can't buy that many diapers with $5k.
Unless he doesn't do his own diaper shopping I guess...
prole 16 points a year ago
I wonder how they'll make it so it only applies to "Aryan" children. Hitler did the same shit.
MystikIncarnate 13 points a year ago
They won't call them Aryan, but it will be the same shit. They'll call it something like Christian babies or some nonsense; then use that as a smokescreen for their racism.
Railcar8095 15 points a year ago
Daycare cost $2k a month
Is that for real? That's more than (many) private schools in Europe.
AnUnusualRelic 2 points a year ago
Decent houses in France typically cost more than a castle. Nobody wants a castle.
It seems fun until you look at the upkeep and maintenance fees. The initial price is peanuts.
Paper_Phrog 9 points a year ago
Well to be fair, that's what it costs in many European countries, too.
That's why many women don't work. The cost is basically as high as a low paying or part time job.
That's why everyone needs free daycare. That will generate a higher GDP for everyone.
Railcar8095 4 points a year ago
https://www.daycarefee.com/countries/germany/
I don't have a full analysis, but at least this source points at 1500 to be the high end of the expensive cities in Germany, with public care as low as 100.
So is 2000 a "normal" value in many areas, or a high end of some?
I have the feeling this is inflated and we just accept.
exasperation 5 points a year ago
$3000 is average in the big cities for infant care in a daycare center, and it drops down to about $2000 for toddlers.
Some places have options for home-based care where a person can get licensed to take care of children in their own home, and the prices are generally about half of that of the center-based care.
One big issue is ratios. If the wage for a child care worker is $30/hour including the cost of paid vacation, health insurance, and you need coverage for 9 hours per day, 5 days a week, while needing to maintain one teacher for every 4 kids, that's $340/week or about $1450/month for labor alone, assuming no overtime and perfect staffing ratios. Throw in food, rent, utilities, insurance, other operational expenses, and it's pretty much impossible to provide care for less than $2000/month per child on the costs side.
Paper_Phrog 4 points a year ago
Thanks for sharing.
I checked for Netherlands and it seems to be easily over 2k a month for fulltime care (172-240 hours).
The thing I wasn't aware of is the subsidies low income parents receive. Up to 96%. Seems to be a bit lower in practice, but still almost all is covered.
That doesn't account for high cost areas, and is dependent on income. But the conclusion seems to be that it's far cheaper than I mentioned for the end consumer.
Jakeroxs 2 points a year ago
path: 0 16644280 16645671 16645816 16646074, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 4
Railcar8095 1 point a year ago
So 2000 a month is greater than the max of the range in the most expensive states.
All values are crazy, don't get me wrong. But less crazy than originally stated.
Railcar8095 2 points a year ago
The source doesn't say it's the norm, but there very high end, an extreme.
The low was 0 to 50
I'm just pointing out how even the outlets are not close to 2000, as somebody said.
whitewashersmud -9 points a year ago
That’s why many women don’t work. The cost is basically as high as a low paying or part time job.
Interesting point. We should re-normalize the idea of the stay-at-home mom.
Let's be real, the people who promoted women going to work were almost always willing to shame those who decided not to. Let's stop doing that.
Pyr_Pressure 11 points a year ago
Stay at home parents should get paid. If free daycare would cost the government $20 a day, offer stay at home parents $10 a day and you save money while allowing people to raise their kids instead of strangers.
MutilationWave 1 point a year ago
$10 a day? What is this 1915?
Paper_Phrog 7 points a year ago
I sort of agree, because no one should be shamed. The issue I have with the statement is that current "trad wife" trends are at best exclusive and at their worst completely toxic. I definitely don't want to see that either.
Let's just leave it at: let every woman choose themselves and make it as easy as possible for those who do want to do paid work.
captainlezbian 7 points a year ago
Lets promote stay at home dads too. No reason to make this a gendered thing
Or we could have 2 day shifts of 20 hours and parents could each work one, that way neither is particularly vulnerable to financial abuse and neither has to sacrifice as much of raising their children.
ByteOnBikes 6 points a year ago
What in the tradwife?
parrhesia 7 points a year ago
path: 0 16644280 16644998, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 0
It can depend of state to state too. In Oklahoma, our cost of living is considered low but we have a high poverty rate. Our median income per household is 67k, and single income is 35k. Childcare for infants averages around $800 a month
TehWorld 3 points a year ago
Very much depends on the area. I'm in a middle class (what's left of it) neighborhood and to send my 2 kids to daycare is about $2400 a month. $2000/month for a single kid would be a pretty nice day care in a fairly expensive city.
CheeryLBottom 13 points a year ago
We need to feed the ones we have now
Furbag 5 points a year ago
I was being a bit facetious, but yeah. It's a pretty transparent ploy to get the birth rate up for as little money as possible. God forbid line doesn't go up always and forever, for all eternity.
TheOakTree 15 points a year ago
Yeah, clearly an embryo/fetus is a child with rights at the moment of conception (/s), so why wait until after delivery?
JollyBrancher 3 points a year ago
Aye. Try and convict them as an adult and then they're free labor.
Semi_Hemi_Demigod 13 points a year ago
What are the odds this is just Clinton's $5,000 Baby Bond, which was just giving them a fund at birth that they can cash out when they turn 18?
Except this time there's no guardrails and he can give it to all his cryptobro friends.
pappabosley 11 points a year ago
We had this in Australia for a while, where there was no hospital costs for birth, and almost 20 years ago, so it was a considerable help. The conservatives started claiming people were having babies just to get the money and then spending it on big TV's and other luxuries.
ShaggySnacks 11 points a year ago
Sounds like classic Conservative projection.
Lucky_777 11 points a year ago
Have 4 kids.
5k is couch money when you have kids. It'll maybe take care of a few months of daycare. Now if you're on gov assistance and make next to nothing? This will be great, but don't expect to get a job or climb out of poverty with 5k. A kid will eat that up super fast.
The_Caretaker 11 points a year ago path: 0 16640400, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 1
circuitfarmer 9 points a year ago
More ineffective Band-Aids.
The core issues never get addressed. Prices keep going up.
And those issues will get worse under a corpo like Trump.
MonkderVierte 1 point a year ago path: 0 16644003 16644699, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
papertowels 4 points a year ago
Additionally, government supplemented/paid for day care is the only way to pay the teachers fairly. Given places often aim for 4 students:1 teacher, you already have a hard cap of 4*monthly fees for salary for that one teacher. I pay 1.2k/ month, so a teacher can get a max of 4.8k/month if EVERYTHING went to them, which we all know it doesn't due to taxes, administrative staff, utilities, facility fees, etc.
However, if they raise fees, they price people out of a much-needed service at a time when folks typically haven't reached their max earning potential yet.
Barley_Man 8 points a year ago
Spending money on families hasn't been shown to help in any way whatsoever in increasing the birth rate. You have countries with close to free day care and generous monthly child subsidies with the same or even much lower fertility rate as countries that give just about nothing at all. I still support these kinds of policies just for the sake of helping families and their kids, but doing it for the only purpose of helping the fertility rate is futile. Honestly I don't think the government can do much at all to help the fertility rate. It's a cultural issue first and foremost. And the government can't (and I think shouldn't!) do much to change the culture of our society. You see people living in poverty with 9 kids just because they belong to a certain religious or ethnic group who values children above all else. That's the main issue. How important is children to the culture? Is it prestigious to be a dad or a mom? Is personal success measured in how you've built your family or is success measured in how much money you make?
Barley_Man 6 points a year ago
Latin American countries have recently had a collapse in birth rate, even since that chart from 2017 was made. Colombia has dropped to 1,2 in 2023. Fertility rates are collapsing almost everywhere and I think it's because of how globalisation is spreading anti natalist culture around the globe. It's so drastic and so consistent in nearly every developed country.
reallykindasorta 1 point a year ago
Yep even the regions that were previously holdouts (like sub-saharan africa) are showing significant downtrends in births.
Barley_Man 4 points a year ago
Fertility rate is calculated by dividing every age group in the country into groups and multiplying them by how many children that age group are currently having to estimate how many children a woman is going to have during their lifetime. So if today's women have on average 1 kid in their 20s and 1 kid in their 30s, and none after, that will give a fertility rate of 2.0, no matter how many women are actually in their 20s or 30s. So there being a lot of old people does not change the results. Fertility rate is dependent on how many children women have during their reproductive years. Birth rate however is affected by their being a lot of old people because birth rate numbers are just the number of children born per year per a 1000 people. So the birth rate of Japan would look comparably much worse than the fertility rate. Fertility rate is therefore considered to be a fairer metric.
reallykindasorta 1 point a year ago
Sure but economically states are worried about births— they need population replacement to persist
corsicanguppy 2 points a year ago
Ironically, comically, higher education leads to more lefty leaning politics with more programmes, and you know higher education correlates with reduced family size.
So - and it's probably minor - the easier it is there to have and raise and educate a child, the less likely its people need as much help.
porous_grey_matter 5 points a year ago
Haha, what's $4k in the sp500 gonna do? I guess having $3k in the sp500 is better than nothing...
porous_grey_matter 1 point a year ago
Just a little joke about the challenging moment the stock market is currently experiencing.
littlebrother 3 points a year ago
I get your ribbing. But it's sad if people think they saved anything.
They literally mathematically added way more debt and cut gap.
Yeah we don't need govt workers..who contribute to tax base. Nah...
technocrit 8 points a year ago
Fash privileging heteronormativity in order to increase servitude and hasten planetary destruction? Fairly normal in our culture.
BeNotAfraid 5 points a year ago
Can you provide proof humans are actually damaging the earth? Just curious, because there is a lot of science out there saying it is not.
No, there isn't. There is not a single reputable scientist alive in the world today who doubts the existence of man-made climate change. The Greenhouse Effect is science we explain to literal 5 year olds. Anyone espousing otherwise is either, a complete shill, or grossly misinformed by the propaganda of the same people responsible for the microplastics currently occupying the area found in the space between your ears. Do not be this obtuse.
applemao 0 points a year ago
Why did global temperatures drop during the industrial revolution then, if it contributes so much to man made climate change ? Not doubting micro plastics. I'm only talking about climate. The climate naturally changes over time. Native Americans burned entire forests for hunting land, for example, not to mention volcanoes.
BeNotAfraid 1 point a year ago
Bullshit, made up by billionaires to continue to obfuscate the literal ecocide of our planet in exchange for profits. Tired, boring, shill shit. Why does the one rebelling against the mainstream, the guys who are "just asking questions" repeat the same lie told by 'The Man' over and over again and how it just so happens to serve the bottom line of those destroying the Earth for those profits. Indoctrination, that's how I explain it. Also, global climate models did not exist in the 1800's we started modelling climate change in the 1960's. So, your data can't possibly be accurate in relation to what we have now, because our methodology is just so much better thanks to the advent of technology and improved record keeping. Models, which have been shown to be frighteningly accurate and actually less than what is actively progressing right now, due to the massive additional carbon emissions created by Amazon.com's influence on the global supply chain. You're wrong and you'll continue to be wrong and present tired, dis-proven talking points that serve the small number of men that will destroy us all because of the capitalist hellscape they have created with fiat money. A mass hallucination of a valuable resource that does not exist. But, I'd rather look for a solution than continue to debate you. Not everyone can be saved, it's not worth trying.
porous_grey_matter 15 points a year ago
No, just extracting the maximum possible amount of profit, it's the American way. And 2k is the low end.
pyre 4 points a year ago
wild. you'd think as a capitalist country that wants to maximize workforce for cheap labor people would be more incentivized to procreate. yet you have insane costs to childbirth alone, no parental leave for either parent (or a pathetic amount on state level), no child support... and this on top.
Tja 7 points a year ago
To be honest, childcare is expensive. You can only have so many kids per worker, you need to pay rent for a big space, utilities, etc. In a big city it adds up fast. I'm sure some of it goes to some CEO's Yacht, but even at cost it would be expensive.
The reason it's free/cheap in Europe is because it's subsidized from taxes. Same as universities and Healthcare.
VitoRobles 6 points a year ago
It's free to also commit murder.
It's the part afterwards that might maybe kinda be the issue.
BlackSheep 2 points a year ago path: 0 16647725 16656915, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
ZagamTheVile 6 points a year ago
As an atheist baby-eater, sign me up. I could have a lovely dinner party for $5K on Hallowen every year and not have to find a main course.
spankmonkey 2 points a year ago
They are good with proposing a thing that sounds good to a portion of their voting base, not with following through.
peteyestee 6 points a year ago
Adoption services are going to go wild! Hospitals too with infant detox programs. It's the new plasma!
4am 6 points a year ago
instead of DEPENDING on GOVERNMENT HANDOUTS new parents should be GRATEFUL someone is WILLING to be GENEROUS and provide them with such GOODWILL. America is WINNING again under PRESIDENT TRUMP
@BigMacHole@lemm.ee am I doing it right?
pugsnroses77 5 points a year ago
hospital bill will likely be 10x that
UltraMagnus0001 4 points a year ago
I sometimes joke with my kids and call them Lamborghini 1 and 2, because that's how much money it was suggested you would need for each kid, and I'm sure that has doubled or tripled by now.
trolololol 4 points a year ago
That looks more like 50k, 5k can easily go in pants pockets.
wuphysics87 4 points a year ago
Why would this in particular be important to him? I would think he wouldn't care
rumba 4 points a year ago
Guess, in no particular order, could be all these or none of these:
Someone told him about runaway population decline now being taken seriously in SK and Japan, we're not quite in the unrecoverable zone yet. https://gigazine.net/...
5000/child is enough to get a rural wageslave to bolster their numbers and create the next generation of right-wing voters, but not enough to get left-wing educated people who can make reasonable guesses 9 months into the future.
5000 per child is cheap and it's enough to gain him popularity where he's just starting to weaken.
untakenusername 2 points a year ago
if the population declines that should make real estate cheaper, and trump and his friends own a ton of real estate
mycelium_underground -1 points a year ago
The Nazis did it
FrowingFostek 1 point a year ago
I could see that, we went through a lot of diapers with my kid. Clothes pile up between 4m and 8m especially because the size fluctuations between manufacturers.
How much did you spend the first year?
Th3D3k0y 1 point a year ago
Napkin math. A box of Huggies size 1 diapers sells at 10.50 for 32 diapers, or roughly 30 cents each. My newborn spoiled a diaper about 7 to 8 times a day on average, it let's easy say 2.50 a day, 356 days or about 912 dollars in diapers for the first year.
That doesn't count wipes, powder, up sizes as they grow. I suppose you could go premier diapers as well, but yeah there's probably an easy 3000 gap on clothes
buddascrayon 2 points a year ago
Don't forget medical visits and one other thing... Hmmm, what was it again that almost half of children born end up needing again? Oh yeah, baby formula.
InvertedParallax 0 points a year ago
Babies expensive, yo.
Not just diapers, but formula is expensive, as is wipes, clothes, all the shit you need for them really.
Gammelfisch 3 points a year ago
The USA should copy the Swedish maternity leave.
edgemaster72 2 points a year ago
USA should probably copy a lot of Swedish things, but we won't
callouscomic 3 points a year ago
The government giving people stuff they didn't earn? Sounds kind of progressive. Is that really the image pure fucking evil vile narcissistic scum really want?
SPRUNT 8 points a year ago
It costs way more than $5k to birth and raise a child. This is only going to be incentive for the exceptionally poor and extremely stupid, which is likely to be the point because those people and their children are what continues to feed our exploitation model.
themeatbridge 6 points a year ago
I'm not sure what you mean, but if you mean giving people cash, yes I agree. It's just far too small an amount to make a difference. People have a variety of needs, and while some might benefit from daycare, others would benefit from diapers, while still others could use a decent car seat. Cash is fungible, and people can spend it how they like.
We spend more on preventing fraud and administering social services than we would spend it we simply gave everyone money. A negative tax rate on a sliding scale would do the most good for everyone. Yes, some people would spend the money on drugs or alcohol or other addictive vices, but the effort to stop that costs more than just letting it happen. It's like we have a swat team at the Dollar Store to prevent shoplifting.
But $5,000 is insultingly ineffective.
dangling_cat 2 points a year ago
Well, in a couple of years, some countries more than 50% of the population will be retired. Even a perfect democracy would not pass a law to improve young people’s lives so they can have time and money to have kids.
Just like in a perfect democracy, no affordable housing law will be approved because 66% of the population are homeowners.
Its unsolvable.
SaharaMaleikuhm 4 points a year ago
Correct, a "perfect democracy" requires empathy.
veni_vedi_veni 2 points a year ago
People blame boomers, but really we only have ourselves to blame sure to lack of voter turnout and everyone voting strategically, instead of who they actually want to win.
Kurious84 2 points a year ago
Nobody can afford health care and they want us in the office no remote work making it even more difficult. It's almost like they want to run us all into the ground while they sit on gold toilets and enrich themselves beyond all measure of reason. Oh and they're building bunkers in New Zealand, the billionares pulling the strings so when they get us into a nuclear war you won't hear from them again.
Bluefalcon 2 points a year ago
Let them get braces.
EndlessNightmare 1 point a year ago
"Why aren't people having kids?"
You know, aside from the world being on fire
UrbonMaximus 0 points a year ago
Well it does work actually. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_bonus
UrbonMaximus 1 point a year ago
The rest of the world thinks that the USA is weird, yes. But if I was an American, I would take any little help that I can.
maxwellfire 4 points a year ago
Nothing on that linked page implies it works, just that some countries have done it.
UrbonMaximus 0 points a year ago
What's your definition of "works" in this context then?
maxwellfire 2 points a year ago
I would understand working to be accomplishing its stated goal, which is increasing birthrates. I believe there's very limited evidence for that.
UrbonMaximus 1 point a year ago
What are you arguing here exactly? Are you saying that $5000 are negligible to parents?
imetators 1 point a year ago
I mean, of course it works if you imply that the money is given to families with newborns. Even fact that families will make a baby for that is a fact albeit not exactly noticeable.
5k even in Russia is a pocket change for raising a baby. It will help for a few months, but when it rand out, quality of life of that said baby and their parents not gonna increase. So it is a short game, not a long game.
What really would increase birth rates is stability and security. It is backed in our nature. 5k is not safety or stability. It is a bonus, nothing more.
UrbonMaximus 1 point a year ago
I don't disagree with you (apart from maybe $5k being a pocket change in Russia), we need to reduce inequality and bring back financial security in our societies.
There seems to be a small misunderstand on your part though - this baby bonus is not trying to increase fertility, at least not directly. The main goal is to reduce child mortality. The main beneficiaries of these bonuses are low income families, and for them every little helps. It's also just one part of the support system, as all of the countries from the article have other welfare systems to accompany.
sprittytinkles 1 point a year ago
Would that even pay to get the damn baby out of the hospital with insurance?
whitewashersmud 2 points a year ago
It should be paid for by the ruling class because it would make life better for the working class.
The working class should stop selling itself out to make people richer than them even richer.
whitewashersmud -6 points a year ago
Thanks, feminism.
based_raven -10 points a year ago
You can't clothe a baby for a year with $5k? We did it for basically fuck all. Had a load of stuff handed on from other parents, got some stuff from ebay and in sales. The fuck are you dressing the kid in, solid gold? Also how much is this person spending on diapers? There is no way you're spending $5k on nappies and clothes for a baby in one year, utter lunacy. Not that I agree with anything that Trump does, but this seems like a huge overreaction. I'm not from the US so I don't know how expensive this stuff is over there, but if it really costs this much to clothe one baby for a year then fuck me and I'm shocked.
ByteOnBikes 11 points a year ago
I'm not from the US so I don't know how expensive this stuff is over there, but if it really costs this much to clothe one baby for a year then fuck me and I'm shocked.
Be prepared to be shocked.
rickyrigatoni 7 points a year ago
Maybe you should keep your comments to yourself if you know you're ignorant on the subject.
Trainguyrom 2 points a year ago
Actually they're right that the clothing and diapers aren't that expensive. I saw my costs increase by about $100 per month when I added a new child to the family. Diapers are like $20ish bucks a month, and baby clothes outlast their wearers so you can find them for less than a dollar per garment at garage sales and thrift stores, often still with the tags on them. Or free if you have friends/family with slightly older kids who can pass you what they've outgrown. When my kids were babies the biggest expense was formula, but that was because my wife couldn't produce milk and they both were very sensitive and needed specific formula that didn't upset their stomachs (I also happened to have both kids right when formula shortages were beginning which was extra fun)
The real expenses are childcare and healthcare of course. Both children cost the entire out of pocket maximum from our insurance (5 and 8 thousand dollars specifically) and we haven't even tried looking at childcare costs and have my wife out of work instead
whitewashersmud -5 points a year ago
A lot of these people have been conditioned to spend their money like idiots while complaining they don't have enough.
These are the kinds of people who are "too good" to shop at Walmart and subscribe to things they can be getting for free.
MutilationWave 1 point a year ago
Good, good, keep othering and finding reasons to despise your fellow working class. This shit is exactly what the oligarchs want.
desktop_user 1 point a year ago
both can be true, 5k isn't enough to pay for a delivery at a hospital, but should absolutely be enough to clothe a baby for a year or two.
based_raven 2 points a year ago
Agreed. Anyone paying 5k to clothe a baby for a year is braindead.
shalafi -15 points a year ago
$5,000 will easily cover diapers, food (even if not breastfeeding), clothes, etc. for a year and more.
We can play with adding other costs, but kids can be way cheaper than paying "retail". FFS, toys, cribs, car carriers, all that shit is free, all day long. What we did pay for amounted to change, and then we sold it for change or donated it.
People have a kid, acquire all that stuff, and in a very short window suddenly have no use for it. You just about can't give it away. LOL, how many babies can wear the same one-piece until it's worn out? 10?! Our landlord's wife worked a charity for baby stuff. Gave us tons of goods, we gave it back.
Nurse_Robot 8 points a year ago
You're delusional if you think the average person spends $5,000 for the first year of their newborns life. Ask any new parent, or Google it. The average cost of a baby's first year can range from $16,905 to $28,166, depending on factors like location, income, and lifestyle. The main cost drivers are diapers, clothes, food, child care, and health insurance.
based_raven 1 point a year ago
The image post specifically stated diapers and clothing.
Nurse_Robot 3 points a year ago
The post also specifically said 5k ain't shit, and I think that was the actual point.
superniceperson 5 points a year ago
It costs about 300k USD median to raise a kid from birth to 18. By no measure is 5k enough for a year of anything in that period.
whitepeopletwitter
@sh.itjust.works
10100
1865
6553
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
go to feed...
whitepeopletwitter
@sh.itjust.works
10100
1865
6553
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
go to feed...
They chose to use a stock photo of a million dollars.
$5000 is only 2 and a half of those bundles of $20’s.
These people are trying to run propaganda for Trump, they can’t even keep their fascist bullshit straight.
save