The Trump administration, like other governments around the world, wants to encourage more births—but isn’t sure how.
Bri Adams always imagined that she would have three children, just like her parents did. At 33, she has a son, age 3, and a daughter, 1. Though Adams said she and her husband would like another baby, they decided that they can’t afford one.
Even on a combined salary of $250,000 a year.
Adams and her husband, both college graduates with full-time jobs, earn far more than the median U.S. household income of $80,610. Yet, their relatively high salaries—hers from a tech company, his from the U.S. State Department—aren’t enough, she said, to offset the $3,000 monthly mortgage on their townhouse in Falls Church, Virginia, a suburb of Washington, D.C., and day care costs of $2,000 a month per child.
“I’m the third of three kids. So anytime I pictured having a family, it was always with three,” Adams said. “Unfortunately, despite having the space in my home and the space in my heart and my partner’s heart, we just cannot afford a third child.”
Adams’s story of longing and disappointment is commonplace in the United States, one of many countries facing a notably reduced birth rate that threatens population and economic growth. As the majority of women moved into the workforce during the past half century, and as the costs of having and caring for children have grown, the size of the average family has shrunk.
Adults are not replacing themselves with new generations, a reality that is particularly problematic for countries—such as the United States—that depend on a young workforce to support an aging population.
Last year, the fertility rate in the United States stood at 1.62 births per woman, a drop from the rate of 1.99 births per woman 30 years earlier, according to the United Nations. The U.N. also reported that in 2024, the global fertility rate was 2.2 births per woman, down from 4.8 in 1970. In four countries—China, South Korea, Singapore, and Ukraine—the fertility rate has dipped below 1.
“Fertility rates are falling in large part because many feel unable to create the families they want, and that is the real crisis,” said Natalia Kanem, a physician and the executive director of the U.N. Population Fund, which recently released a survey of more than 14,000 adults in 14 countries. Nearly one-fifth (18 percent) of respondents under 50 said they didn’t expect to have the number of children they want. More than half blamed economic barriers.
During his campaign last year, U.S. President Donald Trump said he would take steps to increase the birth rate, declaring, “I want a baby boom.” Vice President J.D. Vance also wants to see more babies born in the United States and Trump’s former close advisor, billionaire Elon Musk, seems to be on a political and personal quest to repopulate the planet. (He has acknowledged fathering 14 children with four women.)
The administration has reportedly been hearing from conservatives peddling policies that would reward parents for having babies with tax incentives, one-time baby bonuses and actual medals (the latter, for mothers of six or more children). The massive tax and spending bill that Trump signed into law this month included the creation of investment accounts for babies born from 2025 through 2028, seeded with $1,000 each, though the money cannot be withdrawn for 18 years.
Women’s rights advocates, however, say those measures fail to offer the level of support that working parents actually need.
“Moms don’t need incentives. We need support every step of the way,” said Erin Erenberg, the CEO and co-founder of Chamber of Mothers, a nonpartisan grassroots organization with which Bri Adams volunteers. “I say that it’s no secret what will lead to more babies. It’s these three things: paid family medical leave; accessible, affordable child care; and improved maternal health.”
Across the political spectrum, advocates for parents in the United States agree that people would have more babies if the costs weren’t so prohibitive. They want government policies to enable parents and would-be parents to build the families of their dreams. But they disagree on how to do this.
“If we’re going to have a day care subsidy, I think we should also have a homemaker allowance to keep parity, to avoid discriminating,” said Lyman Stone, director of the Pronatalism Initiative at the Institute for Family Studies. “But I would just say, in general, we shouldn’t do either of these. We shouldn’t subsidize day care. We shouldn’t subsidize staying home. We should just give parents cash and let them make the choice on what’s best for their family.”
Pro-natalists are (predominantly) conservative activists who encourage women—primarily married women—to have more babies. Yet even among pro-natalists, there are differences of opinion on why and how to grow the population.
“You’ve got people who are worried about economic decline, dependency ratios, paying for Social Security, innovation, any of these things. We’ve got people who are worried about loss of culture, civilization, civilizational decline, the end of certain communities. And then you have people who just think it’s bad because people aren’t getting what they want,” Stone said.
In a blog post written last June, Stone singled out one segment, “communitarian pronatalists,” which he said “covers an enormous range of political territory, from simple love of family to the bonds of faith and creed, to—in some of the worst cases—racial supremacism and genocide. It is this last strand of communitarian pronatalism that has given pronatalism, writ large, a bad name to many demographers.”
The Trump administration has not specified how it would inspire parents to have more babies beyond the cash incentives outlined in the new bill. In response to an interview request for this story, the White House press office emailed a quote from spokeswoman Taylor Rogers, … who echoed some of the pro-natalist stances that Stone described.
“President Trump believes parents know how to best raise their children, and this administration is pursuing policies that empower parents with the flexibility to make the best choices for their kids while lowering child care costs,” Rogers wrote.
It is hard to cajole women to have more babies.
Countries have created a plethora of programs to increase fertility in recent years. Some have stopped population collapse, at least temporarily, but none has changed the general trajectory of decline, said Jennifer Sciubba, the president and CEO of the Population Reference Bureau, a nonprofit research organization.
“Anyone who’s tried this, especially if their goal is to reach replacement again—there’s no one who’s ever done that. It may be that they prevent it from going lower faster—that’s possible, but not everywhere,” Sciubba said.
Nordic countries, she noted, have offered paid parental leave, a policy favored by feminists, and yet Finland has a low fertility rate of 1.3 children per woman, Sweden and Norway have a rate of 1.4, and Denmark is at 1.5. Child tax credits, which allow parents to reduce their tax burden based on their number of dependent children, have also not done the trick, Sciubba said.
South Korea is the poster child of low fertility. According to Sciubba, the East Asian nation has spent roughly $270 billion on policies and credits and cash bonuses since 2006. In 2024, its birth rate was just 0.73 children per woman. (This April, birth rates reportedly rose at their fastest rate in 34 years, a shift attributed largely to a post-pandemic increase in marriages.)
There is one thing that unarguably boosts a nation’s population, even when birth rates slump: immigration. According to Sciubba, it is only because the United States attracts a high number of immigrants that its population has not peaked. “It will solely depend on our immigration levels as to how much the U.S. population shrinks or grows this century,” she said.
Yet, curtailing immigration is a centerpiece of Trump’s agenda. For Jocelyn Frye, these immigration policies reveal an ugly truth about some pro-natalists: racism.
“If it was about birth rates, then you wouldn’t be pursuing all sorts of regressive policies against communities that have higher birth rates, like immigrant communities, right?” said Frye, the president of the National Partnership for Women and Families. “At the same time they’re [the U.S. government is] talking about increasing birth rates, they’re also talking about kicking out groups, different pockets of people who are disproportionately Black and brown folks.”
Indeed, women’s rights advocates say, a number of Trump’s policies will do more to repress the birth rate than to increase it. That includes reducing access to resources for family planning and reproductive health—including abortion—which enable people to have children if and when they choose. It also includes cutting Medicaid, a federal- and state-funded program that pays for more than 4 in 10 births in the U.S.
“You have to sort of look at the full range of policies that the administration is trying to put forward, and then you begin to get a picture,” Frye said. “Their agenda is very narrow, and it’s rooted in a perception about where women are supposed to play a role, and their view is that women’s role is to have children and to stay at home, and everything that they are doing is with that in mind.”
I wish the places that publish these COL articles would find different people to interview.
Though Adams said she and her husband would like another baby, they decided that they can’t afford one.
Even on a combined salary of $250,000 a year.
Adams and her husband... earn far more than the median U.S. household income of $80,610. Yet, their relatively high salaries... aren’t enough, she said, to offset the $3,000 monthly mortgage on their townhouse in Falls Church, Virginia, a suburb of Washington, D.C., and day care costs of $2,000 a month per child.
If you can't support a family of five on a quarter million dollars a year (which means you're making more than 91% of American households,) either you're bad with money or your "can't afford" is more like "don't want to pay for."
Obviously having three kids is more challenging than two (I'm one of four,) but I'd rather hear about it from one of those people who's raising two kids on $80,000.
im gonna say it now so everyone in my notes stops arguing over this. meatballs menu is three dots side-by-side. kebab menu is three dots up and down. bento menu is an array of 9 dots in a square shape. hamburger menu is three lines horizontally. Yes there are others but none of them are nearly as prevalent so i dont care enough to list them. goot bye
for me it comes down to the way the narrative that “the south is regressive because of gerrymandering and top-down policies imposed by rich white supremacists on residents of color as well as white working class people” omits the fact that the south is also like that because of the centuries of racist terrorism and mass violence enthusiastically committed by white people of all classes. No one ever got tricked into burning a cross or gerrymandered into throwing a bomb or pouring acid into a swimming pool. Even if they were racist out of ignorance, they still chose it that’s still on them. Like how the majority of white voters in the south have historically and currently vote to make their own lives worse as long as it perpetuates white supremacy.
Doesn’t mean you should dismiss the south as incapable of change but the history (feels weird to call it that when it’s sometimes literally what your grandparents were up to) has to be accounted for.
It's Noble Savage theory with the white working class as the noble savages.
Anyway I think a lot of progressive white people are uncomfortable with the idea that we're a minority within our demographic. It's hard to swallow that white Republicans really do believe those awful things, especially if you're in a blue district and don't know many Republicans in real life or a red district surrounded by Republicans who aren't overtly hostile to you.
Much easier to believe that everyone who's not like you and your friends has merely been manipulated or suppressed by the ruling class than to assign them agency.
Note: that is not a lumberjack!!! Most likely it is a domesticated marine biologist, possibly a domesticated fisherman, (you can tell because it has been clothed in wool, which stays warm when wet, so it is is clearly well cared for).
While this may be appropriate enrichment for your DOMESTICATED and WELL TRAINED marine biologist or fisherman, please remember that lumberjacks may be tame, but are not domesticated. They are still wild, and they absolutely will freak out if they see you swimming around in their forests.
@blessyouhawkeye literally. it's free and basically a 30 min read. i've been taught it multiple times in media studies classes. it's THEE media studies text. it was written in an era where "mass media" still meant something but it's so foundational and so easy to apply to everyday situations, not strictly to analysis
In “Attack of the Clones”, when Obi-Wan Kenobi used Jedi mind control to make the death sticks dealer “go home and rethink [his] life”, this was ethically
It isn't explained in the film how bad "death sticks" are (no, the EU does not count). Does your answer change if they are more similar to cigarettes versus meth?
Answered mandatory or supererogatory / no it does not change my answer
Answered mandatory or supererogatory / yes it changes my answer
Answered neutral / no it does not change my answer
Answered neutral / yes it changes my answer
Answered discouraged or forbidden / no it does not change my answer
Answered discouraged or forbidden / yes it changes my answer
When you have emotions that you don't understand, it's easy to fall for propaganda convincing you to interpret your emotions in a sexist way.
You lost a competition to a woman? Don't automatically assume that her being a woman is why that bothers you. Maybe you're just competitive and an overachiever, and it bothers you when anyone is better than you.
A woman talks too much and annoys you? Don't automatically assume that her being a woman is why you're annoyed. Maybe you're just not able to focus on conversations for that long.
A woman gives you unsolicited advice? Don't automatically assume that you're being emasculated. Maybe you just don't like unsolicited advice. Maybe you're the type of person who would rather have an opportunity to figure something out yourself and you'd prefer if others refrain from helping unless you ask.
Me every time I haven't rewatched DS9 for a while - Odo and Quark weren't that insane about each other, I'm just misremembering
Me two episodes into the rewatch - I was wrong, they're worse
rewatching the first episodes of ds9 and I'm not advocating Sisko/Quark as a ship per se but I am intrigued by Sisko strong-arming Quark into staying on the station but trying to frame it as though he is persuading him by pointing out Quark is a gambler and surely he wants to see what will happen, and then in conversation with the wormhole aliens he explains the appeal of baseball and competition more generally as being an outgrowth of mortal beings' inability to see the future and instead having to wait and see what happens. Not only is Sisko a gambler, too, but he considers this fundamental to the Human Experience.
#star trek#i think sisko also understands that quark will not see fair dealing the way a human would#ferengi expect to cheat each other and be cheated. humans get disappointed and put you in jail#however if sisko is lightly cheating quark then quark is allowed to lightly cheat him back#the great material continuum flows on (via @perminas)
Very true! Something else I love about this scene is that, like you said, Sisko is speaking Quark’s language insofar as Ferengi values go but also he makes an appeal to Quark’s sense of care for his family, and positions him as a community leader, which Quark laughs at BUT LIKE… is Sisko wrong??? By the end of the show it’s evident Quark takes a lot of pride in that bar despite also feeling he’s failed as a Ferengi businessman because it’s just one measly little bar thrown in amongst other species and not, idk, the moon his cousin owns or prestige on his homeworld. Going back to the beginning of this show I kind of got bowled over seeing that Sisko sized Quark up correctly at the start.
au where Odo and Lwaxana never reveal it's a fake marriage. she moves into his quarters and sticks around throughout the pregnancy. they're seen walking down the halls, Lwaxana's arm looped through Odo's and chit-chatting like besties (well, Lwaxana chats and Odo grunts at her but is happy to be included), meanwhile Quark has to witness what he thinks are loveydovey newlyweds. at the wedding he was bursting with the joy of celebration (and lucrative afterparty at his bar), but now in the aftermath he's SEETHING with jealousy.
it would be one thing if Odo seemed miserable and awkward about it, but he isn't. he's HAPPY, the bastard. he swings by Quark's on his usual rounds, but spends the whole time mooning about how he felt the baby kick, or something funny Lwaxana said last night (presumably while they're cuddled up in bed together, Quark assumes). Quark has a little satisfaction from "i told you so"-ing Odo that he needed to engage with humanoid connection to not be such a sourpuss, but it curdles more and more as it sinks in that that connection will never be with him.
while Odo's on duty elsewhere, Lwaxana's often at the bar, meeting with dignitaries as ambassador, making her way through the holosuite catalogue, gambling and cavorting, etc etc. it burns how much Quark actually *likes* her, someone who knows how to have a good time and let loose, once she's not accusing him of stealing from her. He concocts fancier and more elaborate mocktails for her, because she's a very good tipper as long as she's treated well.
...at some point Quark overhears Lwaxana loudly flirting with some vedeks, going on and on about how she won't be on the station forever and her business is almost concluded here, and then she'll be free as a bird, and wouldn't he enjoy a lovely vacation with her to Risa? their childcare is as excellent as their pleasure activities for adults -- Quark can't believe his ears (but of course he can - he's Ferengi). He can't bear to imagine the way this will crush Odo's heart, but surely he deserves to know and better to hear from Quark than secondhand... He rushes off to break the bad news to Odo that she's flirting around and planning to leave him, but Odo just looks at him "Hmph. Is that all?"
anyway hmmm I think throughout all this Lwaxana is catching onto their weird quodo relationship and trying to set them up.... She's not a subtle person, but I think they've got to be so so deep in their repression they don't even notice her overt attempts at matchmaking... it ends with her basically shoving them together, and tittering to Odo about how such a dear he's been these past months, but she can't stay here forever and the legal case with her kid has been resolved thanks to him, and she couldn't bear to think about him sad and alone without her, so WHY can't they just accept their love for each other???
If Sisko were captain of Voyager, I don't think he would have been as patient and he's more willing to bend the rules... I do think he would've got them home earlier. Like he's never gunna be Ransom bad but he's not letting the Barzan wormhole get away, yknow?
Janeway a captain during the Dominion War though... With free range to do as much damage as possible? She would've been a fucking nightmare to the Jem Hadar.
