• brucethemoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    19 days ago
    • A: This is the ‘bad’ kind of incentive. My mom worked in a hospital where people on 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, not policy to enact change. It’s also hilariously hypocritical, seeing how much ‘blank check hand-outs’ were criticized for decades.

    • desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      18 days 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)

    • SPRUNT@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days 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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      19 days 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.

  • JokeDeity@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    19 days ago

    We don’t have a population shortage so I’m confused? The only reasoning I can see is to use as meat on some front lines somewhere he can use in his 7th term in office.

    • Ech@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days ago

      Do people really think he’ll be alive in 20 years? He’d be nearing 100.

  • Lucky_777@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    19 days 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.

    • MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days 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.

  • Archangel@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    19 days ago

    Considering also, how much they all complained about handing out checks during the pandemic…this just makes no sense. Now they’re fine handing out even bigger checks, just to replace the people they’re obsessed with deporting?

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days ago

      They are good with proposing a thing that sounds good to a portion of their voting base, not with following through.

  • Barley_Man@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    19 days 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?

    • SGforce@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      19 days ago

      It’s a work culture issue. People need free time to socialise meaningfully. Notice how Iceland and France are as high or higher than Colombia?

      • taladar@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        19 days ago

        Not sure how exactly fertility rates are calculated but with countries like Japan the age of the population might play a role too.

        • Barley_Man@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          19 days 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.

      • Barley_Man@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        19 days 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.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days ago

      Ironically, comically, higher education leads to more lefty leaning politics with more peogrammes and you know it leads to reduced birth rates.

      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.

  • shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    19 days 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.

  • 4am@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    19 days 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?

  • ZagamTheVile@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    19 days 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.

    • KelvarIW@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days ago

      That’s the only way anyone would financially benefit from this bill. Infanticide. And only if they do a home birth.

      • boonhet@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        19 days ago

        I don’t think babies are supposed to be profitable.

        If you’re already gonna have a baby anyway, the 5k is a bonus. Otherwise it won’t do much for you.

  • stupidcasey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    19 days 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.

    • psx_crab@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days ago

      Or open forced breeding camps, shanty towns and and slave labor…oh wait.

      Mmm yes, Borrasca.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days 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.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days 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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        19 days 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@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          18 days 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@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            18 days 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.

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              18 days ago

              Acting like making peoples lives more comfortable will make them want to have kids is every more naive, that’s why I was replying in the first place. There’s plenty of reasons people don’t want them, women rights gives them even more reasons, women rights and contraception gives them the means to prevent it.

              • Lightor@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                18 days ago

                Lol, you’re clearly invested in one side and doing research in only one direction. There are plenty of reasons people would want kids too. There are plenty of reasons they don’t have kids that can be changed.

                You also pick out a chart that conveniently only has things that support this view called out. Ignoring correlation doesn’t equal causation. If you think so, this site will blow your mind https://search.app/RrPkGZ5UpJcSrvHU9

                I’m not here to change your mind, you’ve made it up. I’ve said my piece.

                • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  18 days ago

                  Thing is, when you see the same thing happen all over the world then saying “correlation doesn’t equal causation!” just makes you look dumb.

      • msage@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        18 days 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@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          18 days 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@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            18 days 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.

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              18 days ago

              I’m talking about historic data and you’re unable to understand what that means in terms of variation in quality of life over time. Even when people could make it on a single income they didn’t have 2.1 kids if they had the means to prevent it.

              Hell, millionaires and billionaires don’t have enough kids to renew the population either, but I guess you will find some way to not understand that either.

              • msage@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                18 days ago

                What the fuck are you on about?

                “Billionares are parenting on average 2.99 children”

                It’s you who mixes shit with stats and acting tough.

                Shut up.

                • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  18 days ago

                  Wrong again

                  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369921158_Fertility_behavior_at_the_top_of_socioeconomic_hierarchy

                  The average number of children among the 512 billionaires was 2.64, with US and Russian billionaires having higher averages of 2.8 and 3.2, respectively. The average number of children was also higher among older billionaires, **ranging from 1.05 among billionaires aged less than 45 ** to 3.2 among billionaires aged over 75. Among female billionaires, the average number of children was 2.41, while among males, it was slightly higher at 2.66. Tables 1-4 provide a detailed breakdown of the data.

                  1.05 kids for the ones under 45, will you look at that, just like everyone else in their generation, they don’t have kids!

  • callouscomic@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    19 days 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?