Trump tries to pay his way into a US baby boom. Experts say it will not work | Trump Administration

One of Donald Trump's priorities for his second term is the spread of Americans to get more babies – and the White House has a new proposal to encourage them: a “baby bonus of 5,000 US dollars”.

The plan to give mothers after delivery shows the growing influence of the “pronatalist” movement in the United States, which, citing falling birth rate of “traditional” family values ​​and women – especially white women – demands more children.

However, experts say that SCHECK's 5,000 US dollar will not lead to a baby boom. Between unreachable health care, high housing costs, inaccessible childcare and lack of mandates for parental leave, the Americans face expensive hurdles that prevent them from having large families – or families – and which require a much greater investment in the government to overcome.

It is true that the USA see declining birth rates – and for some time. While the fertility rates in relation to what demographers refers to as a “replacement level”, the rate with which the population has agreed with new names-in the decades after the sectors' baby boom, they have had a steady trend since the 2010 great recession, so that the US fertility rates are around 1.6 births per woman per woman.

According to demographers and political analysts, these numbers are anything but alarming. US birthdays are still in line with those in other industrialized countries in which companies and economies continue to thrive, and concerns about the sustainability of programs such as social security can be determined by other appeals, such as increasing the tax limit.

In the United States, the modest decline in fertility can be attributed to a decline in the pregnancy rates of teenagers as well as more families with two working parents and delay by children. These elements alone explain the trends that we see, says Paula Lantz, a social demographer and professor of health policy at the University of Michigan. While the number of people who have no children do not change, demographers see the percentage of families who have two children and the percentage of those who only have an increase. “There is still something going on,” she said.

The “something else”, Lantz and her colleagues say how difficult it is to found a family in the USA from a financial perspective. For many Americans, it means having a larger family to sacrifice the quality of life.

Between the costs of health care, including thousands, the Americans only pay for the birth in a hospital, childcare, housing and basics such as formula and diapers, it is an enormous edition that experts say that a single payment of $ 5,000 would hardly make any you.

“I had a baby a few months ago, and a one-time payment of $ 5,000 would not do much if I hadn't paid for a vacation, let my job, my job, good health insurance, family support, incredible childcare and the kind of work that enables me to be there for both my family and for picking up Lily Roberts, and Lily Roberts, the leading director for negative waking American progress, in the Center for American progress.

Stephanie Schmidt, the director of child and early education at the Center for Law and Social Policy, emphasized that the average costs for infant care in the United States are $ 14,000 a year, whereby this number has increased in high living areas to $ 25,000 per year. “You can get 5,000 US dollars anywhere if you think about paying it for the cost of a small child,” she said.

Schmidt also noticed that other countries, if they tried similar approaches, made little or no difference in the number of people who choose children.

In Australia, where a baby bonus of 3,000 US dollars was set up in 2004 to implement the declining fertility rates, there was a short increase in the birth rate immediately after a bonus, but these prices fell again in the following years. Experts say this is because families simply move their schedules up and have the same number of children they wanted before.

“You want to make sure you get [the benefit] Before this policy is changed by the next government, ”said Ron Lee, the director of the Center for Economic Affairs and Demography of Aging at the University of California in Berkeley.

In addition, most other countries that have tried baby bonuses also have robust social and health systems, so that the cash payments continued in the USA. “It doesn't work in these contexts, so it will certainly not work in ours,” said Lantz.

In order to change the opinion and behaviors, experts for the real estate crisis must give much better changes to the guidelines, offer childcare subsidies, make health care accessible and affordable and guarantee paid family vacation.

“[This] I would have such a more important influence on families because it is not a one -off investment, ”said Schmidt.

Deliberate efforts to combat the climate crisis could also encourage more people to have children, because younger people delay or begin to families due to climate fear or start families who indicate the surveys that interpret this trend. Evidence also shows that people have fewer children in times of political uncertainty and instability – a dynamic expert says that this administration only increases.

“If the problem that you try to solve is to tackle a low birth rate, then make the conditions possible to enable birth and to collect a family,” said Mary Ignatius, the managing director of Advocacy Group Parent Voices California.

This does not mean that $ 5,000 would not be well received, says Roberts. It can help to pay a month or two of childcare. Help families to buy a new cot, a stroller and other equipment, all of which are more expensive with rising tariffs. or compensate for hospital costs.

In the case of families with lower incomes in particular, studies show that receiving cash bonuses without strings can help them achieve a point of financial stability, especially if children are younger.

However, experts emphasize that other measures that the administration took to disassemble programs that already support American families and children believe in honorable intentions. So far, the Trump management has proposed to remove Head Start, a program that supports families with very low income in access to childcare, as well as funds for Medicaid that offers health care for low-income Americans with low incomes. (The congress also expired the child's tax credit – which extended the authorization of up to 3,600 US dollars for American families – in 2021, although the lifting of millions of children was attributed to poverty.)

“These are the things that women need to make the decisions as they want to be a parent,” said Ignatius. “Eliminate the programs at Medicaid, Head Start, Tanf [temporary assistance for needy families]Food branded das corresponds to much more than $ 5,000 for families with low incomes. “

The reduction of the federal employees in the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Justice, monitors the initiative youth jurisdiction, and the Ministry of Health and Human Services, in which employees who are disappointed for the distribution of funds for the well -being of state and care have also been negative effects on American families. “Even the little things that improve the life of a family, such as the children's museum and public libraries, can be paid off from cuts,” said Roberts. “All American families will feel the effects of this administration, and creepy plans to give mothers a medal will not make up for what they take away.”

For Schmidt, the actions of the White House speak a fundamental separation between statements that encourage Americans to have children and actions that are increasingly being out of reach. “There is such a focus in this administration in the birth and such a lack of support for people as soon as they are here,” she said.