this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
1188 points (99.0% liked)

People Twitter

6843 readers
1692 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works 21 points 10 hours ago

Based on data presented here: https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-true-cost-of-raising-a-child

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.

[–] Hayduke@lemmy.world 100 points 14 hours ago (4 children)

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.

[–] stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

giving birth in a hospital costs $10k, after insurance payback?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] raltoid@lemmy.world 26 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours 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@sh.itjust.works 22 points 11 hours 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@lemmy.world 8 points 12 hours ago

Meanwhile Id kill for those 5k bucks. But thats becausw the right to stay alive doesnt cost me a kidney

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 7 points 8 hours ago (6 children)

daycare costs $2k a month? are they training the kids to be astronauts?

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] The_Caretaker@lemm.ee 8 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Wow, two months rent for having a baby. That should fix it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 184 points 15 hours ago (4 children)

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.

[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 81 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.world 17 points 12 hours 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.

[–] JokeDeity@lemm.ee 33 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I worked both Brinks type security and for Chase, so the inside and outside. That's not a million. It's probably somewhere between a quarter and a half, but the picture doesn't make it super easy to tell.

Your point is very valid however, they used a deceiving picture on purpose.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] stupidcasey@lemmy.world 75 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

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 2 points 7 hours ago

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

Mmm yes, Borrasca.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 19 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] salvaria@lemmy.blahaj.zone 159 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

WE CAN'T DO THAT, IT'S LIKE PUNISHING THE MOMS WHO ALREADY HAD CHILDREN!!!! /s

[–] Donkter@lemmy.world 24 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (2 children)

This is literally going to be an argument if people start proposing free daycare/child care :/

[–] salvaria@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 10 hours ago

It's already been done to college students - that's the parallel I was trying to draw

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] boreengreen@lemm.ee 23 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 8 points 11 hours ago

No matter the state of the economy, if you look at birthrate stats in various countries, it goes down with women rights and access to contraception. People just don't want kids.

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 12 points 12 hours 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.

[–] boreengreen@lemm.ee 24 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

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@programming.dev 14 points 12 hours 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.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 54 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

Clinton Floats $5,000 Baby Bond

~ September 28, 2007

It's nice to know these two are still in touch.

[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 18 points 14 hours ago (4 children)

put into an index fund over the last seventeen years, that $5k is now $30k. it was not a terrible idea.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 22 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] KelvarIW@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

Free daycare and free healthcare for people under 18 are two social services that would only benefit parents. How about free college tuition moving forward?

This is just a sad attempt making an exclusive version of establishment Dem stimulus checks...

[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 3 points 7 hours ago

Idk, it seems like US doesn't even have the basic shit going on, any of that is a good news.

[–] papertowels@mander.xyz 3 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] fuzzzerd@programming.dev 2 points 8 hours ago

And folks wonder why parents these days are so old. Earning potential to afford daycare in the first place.

[–] nathanjent@programming.dev 17 points 12 hours 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."

[–] pappabosley@lemm.ee 10 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

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@lemmy.myserv.one 10 points 11 hours ago

Sounds like classic Conservative projection.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 7 points 11 hours ago

Which is hilarious because iirc it was a fucking Howard policy

[–] Squorlple@lemmy.world 44 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

USA so shit they gotta pay people to make babies here

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] DirkMcCallahan@lemmy.world 28 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Remember the stimulus checks that covered approximately 15 days' worth of rent?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 34 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (3 children)

According to my halfassed search engine results, giving birth costs on average $18,000.

Just the cost of epidural, estimates range from $1000 to $3500 out of that cost.

[–] Barley_Man@sopuli.xyz 32 points 15 hours ago (6 children)

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@sopuli.xyz 28 points 15 hours 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.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 12 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (2 children)

Why only after the baby is born? Is there something significant about the moment of birth or something?

[–] TheOakTree@lemm.ee 13 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Yeah, clearly an embryo/fetus is a child with rights at the moment of conception (/s), so why wait until after delivery?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›