What does the current pro-baby push mean for you?

Would $5,000 change your mind about having a baby?

Fertility rates are falling all over the world. Leaders of many countries, from the U.S. to Europe and Asia, worry that we will soon have too few workers and too many old people needing care. As a result, the pronatalism movement, which promotes childbearing, is growing.

Anyone who has found themselves surrounded by people who keep asking when you’re going to have a baby has met the babies-are-great-and-everyone-has-to-have-some crowd, but now we’re hearing it from our governments, too.

In the U.S., the birthrate has fallen to 1.6 births per woman, below the 2.1 needed to sustain a stable population. Many countries are offering incentives to encourage couples to have more babies. Here in the U.S. under the Trump administration, we’re hearing similar conversations.

In April, President Trump said, “I want to be the fertilization president.” Father of five himself, he has done his part.

Vice President J.D. Vance, father of three, and famous for his childless cat lady comments, said at a March for Life in January, “I want more babies in the United States of America.”

Elon Musk, said to have fathered 14 children, has called low birth rates “a much bigger risk to civilization than global warming.”

The Trump administration has talked about awarding $5,000 for each baby born. His administration has discussed tax breaks for parents, financial help with IVF, and even a medal for mothers of six or more children. No mention of the fathers. No mention of people who might not be equipped to be good parents.

As a baby boomer who grew up hearing that we needed to stop having so many babies because overpopulation was killing the world, this blows my mind.

I’m not in the baby game anymore, but I’m pretty sure none of these so-called incentives or the words of our current leaders would have made any difference for me. It was the circumstances of my own personal life that made me childless, not anything Uncle Sam might do or say. I’m sure it’s the same for other non-parents.

Over and over, I’m hearing that young couples can’t afford to have children, due to the estimated $300,000 it costs to raise a child, the daunting cost of childcare, and the high cost of owning a home suitable for raising children. It takes two incomes to support a family these days, but if both parents work full-time, who has time to take care of the kids?

The pronatalists seem unaware of the umpteen legitimate and often sad reasons why someone might not have children. What about people struggling with infertility, people whose partners are unable or unwilling, people who don’t have partners, or people who are dealing with physical or emotional illnesses that force them to abandon their plans to have children?

What about people who are working so hard to stay financially afloat that they can’t even think about babies? What about people who are giving everything to their careers and just don’t have the time or energy to raise children? What about those who look at our world and don’t want to subject children to what’s coming, whether it’s wars, climate change, or a civilization run by AI?

Some conservatives blame feminism and women in the workplace for the decreasing birth rate. They recommend a return to the old model of Dad at work and Mom at home taking care of the family. Is that even financially possible anymore? Do we really want women who enjoy their careers to step back into the 1950s when they had no rights and few opportunities?

Oops, my politics are showing. But we do already have a lot of people in this world. Look at the traffic in any major city during commute times. Do we really need to worry that older folks outnumber young ones? It’s a concern, sure, but is having more babies the solution?

Would a $5,000 bonus, tax breaks or a Mommy Medal make any difference in your childless status? What would it take? Is there anything the government can offer that would change your situation?

If your partner has been unwilling to parent, would any of these things make him or her change their mind?

Are your family and friends talking about the need for more babies?

This post seems to be all questions. I don’t have the answers. I only know that I entered the world during the 1950s baby boom, ran into roadblocks with my two husbands, and came out the other side childless. The government had nothing at all to do with it.

What do you think? I welcome your comments.


You might be interested in my recent “Can I Do It Alone?” Substack post about buying a home. How can anyone afford it these days? Are we doomed to rent forever? Check it out at https://suelick.substack.com/p/does-being-alone-mean-you-cant-own.

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Is money the reason you’re childless?

Is money keeping you from having children? Check out this article.

In a Fox Business article, “Are Childless Millennials Harming the U.S. Economy?” writer Brittany De Lea looks at the trend for young Americans to either delay childbearing or decide not to do it at all. Birthrates have declined overall, and only 20 percent of young Americans questioned in a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey said that having children was very important to them.

Why? Money is a big issue. Everything costs so much these days, and college graduates are burdened by student loan debt. They don’t know if they can ever afford a house. How can they afford to have children? The article estimates it costs about $234,000 to raise a child from birth through age 18. That’s assuming the child is healthy and has no special needs.

Most couples need two incomes to pay the bills. The 1950s lifestyle where moms stayed home and the family could live on the father’s income sounds like a fairy tale now. Right?

In addition, people seem to be getting married later, which means they have less time to have children (if they feel the need to be married before they procreate). And then they look at the news and think: Should I bring a child into this messed-up world?

De Lea doesn’t mention second marriages where the partners are older and one may already be supporting children from a previous relationship, but obviously money is a factor there, too. A lot of us can testify to that.

If fewer children are born, De Lea cautions, we will have fewer workers, fewer people to keep the economy going, and fewer people to support programs like Social Security.

It’s a lot to think about. I have noticed that in most relationships, one partner is a lot more concerned about money than the other. I always figured we’d work things out, but my late husband worried about the money. And my dad, omg, he held the dollars so tight they squeaked. In your own relationships, is money one of the reasons you disagree about having children?

Please read the article. What do you think about all this? I’m well into menopause, but many of you are right in the age group the article is talking about. I would love to read your comments.

 

Who can afford to have children these days?

Back about 23 years ago, I wrote articles for Bay Area Parent and Bay Area Baby. One of my assignments was a piece on the cost of childbirth and “Baby’s first year.” Knowing nothing, I called hospitals for quotes and drove around to the various baby supply stores taking notes on what they sold and how much it cost. As if I knew what I was doing, as if I knew what one really needed to take care of a baby. I’m the one who always showed up at baby showers with a stuffed animal or a ludicrously wrong-sized garment. I should have sat down with some actual parents who were willing to go through their receipts for the past year or at least make a list of the essentials. I mean, what did I know? Did I include breast pumps, vaccinations, itty bitty shoes? Do six-month-olds even wear shoes? I know more about what a dog needs than what an infant requires, but I did my best. I came up with $33,700 (in 1990 dollars). That’s a lot of lattes.
Jonathan V. Last, author of What to Expect When No One’s Expecting, has children. He knows what they cost. He estimates raising a child from birth through college costs way more than anyone thinks, more than the USDA estimate of $207,800. Add $66,452 to $145,060 for college, which takes it to over a million dollars. Fast says the median price of a home in the U.S. in 2008 was $180,000, so “having a baby is like buying six houses, all at once. Except you can’t sell your children, they never appreciate in value, and there’s a good chance that, somewhere around age 16, they’ll announce: ‘I hate you.'” In addition to the out-of-pocket expenses, couples need to factor in lost wages for whichever parent does most of the childcare, usually the mother. These numbers don’t include the ridiculous cost of fertility treatments for those who need them or caring for a child with special needs.
Now, I’m sure parents can cut back somewhere. Do kids need the most expensive version of everything? Do their parents have to send them to the most expensive colleges and pay for food and lodging? Do all kids have to go to summer camp? But if we had children, we’d want to do the best for them, right?
The high cost may explain why the birth rate has gone down in recent years. I can barely afford to take care of my dog, whose main problem is persistent ear infections. So, let’s talk about the cost of having babies. The young people I know worry a lot about having enough money. Some of them have delayed childbirth indefinitely for that very reason. Has this been a factor in your discussions with your partner about whether or not to have children? Should it be? How would you handle the costs if you got pregnant?