logo
Would a baby boom be good for kids?

Would a baby boom be good for kids?

Vox01-05-2025
is a senior correspondent for Vox, where she covers American family life, work, and education. Previously, she was an editor and writer at the New York Times. She is also the author of three novels, including the New York Times bestseller Outlawed.
Would kids be happier if there were more kids in the world? Getty Images/fStop
This story originally appeared in Kids Today, Vox's newsletter about kids, for everyone. Sign up here for future editions.
The pronatalists have entered the White House.
Today, however, I want to look at pronatalist policies through a slightly different lens: whether they benefit kids. People who want to boost birth rates generally talk about the importance of children to society as a whole: We need more kids, they often say, to pay into Social Security and take care of us when we're old. But what about the kids themselves? Are pronatalist policies, and pronatalism in general, in their best interest?
In some cases, these questions can be easily answered with data. In others, they're more about values. Is a world with more kids inherently better for kids? Is championing childbirth the best way to show kids that they're valued? The answers to these questions are complex, but the experts I spoke to were clear about one thing: If the United States aims to be a pro-child country, we have a long way to go.
The idea that really helps kids
Of all the pronatalist policies reportedly under consideration, one is straightforwardly good for kids, experts told me. That would be the one where the government gives parents money.
Five thousand dollars may not pay for day care — and it may not substantially boost birth rates — but it could be enough to allow a parent to stay home for a few more weeks with a new baby, said Karen Guzzo, a family demographer and director of the Carolina Population Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. That extra leave would benefit baby and parents alike, research suggests.
The money could also help defray the costs of a birth (often expensive even with insurance) and of necessities like car seats and strollers (which could be about to go up in price). If it helps keep families solvent during a time of financial upheaval, a baby bonus could benefit children in the long run, since financial stability is good for kids' health and learning. 'I'm all for giving families money,' Guzzo said.
In fact, a similar policy already had impressive results. During the Biden administration, the American Rescue Plan expanded the child tax credit from a maximum of $2,000 to between $3,000 and $3,600 per child per year, and made it fully available to poor families. As a result, child poverty dropped to the lowest level on record, and the number of kids going hungry appeared to decrease as well.
However, the expanded child tax credit lapsed at the end of 2021, and child poverty immediately spiked again. Republicans are reportedly interested in bringing the expanded credit back, but the path for any legislation remains unclear. For now, 'it is frustrating to hear that we are thinking of giving one-time bonuses when we already had a plan that worked' to reduce child poverty, 'and we got rid of that,' Guzzo said.
Is it better to be one of many?
Other policies reportedly under consideration, like giving a medal to moms with more than six children or reserving a certain percentage of Fulbright scholarships for married people or parents, are unlikely to do much of anything for kids or birth rates, according to Philip Cohen, a sociology professor at the University of Maryland who studies demographic trends.
But more broadly, it's worth thinking about whether the pronatalist project in general — producing more births — is good for children.
Some observers argue that certain countries with low birth rates have become actively anti-child. In South Korea, for example, hundreds of restaurants, museums, and other public spaces bar children from entering. These 'no-kids zones' make life difficult for parents, who have begun to campaign against them, but they arguably limit kids' opportunities to enjoy and learn about the world as well.
'We don't fund school systems, we don't fund child care, we do not fund leave programs. We are so not pro-family in the United States.' — Karen Guzzo, director of the Carolina Population Center at UNC at Chapel Hill
If pronatalism led to more children and therefore more tolerance of children in public space, or even to child-friendly urban design, it could benefit kids. For example, child-centric neighborhoods where kids were able to 'flow out their doors' and form 'their own little society' would be both fun for kids and beneficial for them as adults by potentially making them more self-sufficient and able to advocate for themselves, Trent MacNamara, a history professor at Texas A&M University who has written about fertility rates, told me.
Some experts worry about the decline of autonomy and free play among children today, and for MacNamara, it's possible to imagine that having more children around could bring some of that freedom back. 'Maybe if you do build a more child-centered society, it's easier for parents to think of kids as running their own show,' he said.
There are also intangibles to think about — the joys (and trials) of growing up with a lot of siblings, or a lot of cousins, or as part of a big generation. Having a lot of kids around helps both adults and other children get in touch with 'their wilder side' and 'let go a little bit,' MacNamara said.
However, because pronatalism often goes hand in hand with patriarchal values, it's not necessarily great for the roughly half of children who happen to be girls, Cohen noted.
It's also not completely clear that a world with more births is always a better one for kids. Around the world, 'the decline of fertility has been a key part of rising living standards' for kids and adults alike, Cohen said. Fewer kids can mean more resources per kid — for example, falling birth rates in the US are one reason that state and local governments have been able to expand publicly supported preschool.
Birth rates falling below a certain point could be bad for kids — if, for example, their schools close. But when it comes to policy, the most pro-child ideas aren't necessarily the ones advocates typically bring up to increase birth rates. Kids need food, housing, health care, and education, and they need 'the confidence that those things will be there for them in the future, and that their families will be there for them in the future,' Cohen said.
Policies that would bring stability to parents and kids include robust paid leave, access to health care before and after birth, and subsidized high-quality child care, Guzzo told me. Some pronatalists have pushed for such supports, but right now, they feel out of reach in many parts of the country.
​​'We don't fund school systems, we don't fund child care, we do not fund leave programs,' Guzzo said. 'We are so not pro-family in the United States.'
What I'm reading
Three children who are US citizens were sent to Honduras last week along with their mothers, who were deported. One is a 4-year-old with Stage 4 cancer who was removed from the country without his medication, advocates say.
Cuts to the federal government have had a profound effect on programs serving kids, affecting everything from education to safe drinking water.
My little kid and I have been reading Nothing's Wrong! a picture book about an anxious rabbit and the bear friend who makes him feel better. My kid refers to this only as 'the cool book,' for reasons that remain unclear.
From my inbox
Last week, my story about mental health days for kids reached Sean, a reader who is a high school student in California, when he was, in fact, taking a mental health day.
'There is a freedom in knowing that when I take on things outside of school to boost my college resume, I can also alleviate some of the pressure that school puts on me,' he wrote. 'Yesterday, the thought of going to school made me feel zombified and my usual motivation had melted away, but by the time Monday rolls around, I expect to feel at least somewhat motivated to go.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Commerce chief Lutnick insists Aug. 1 is ‘hard deadline' for EU and tariffs: ‘They're going to start paying'
Commerce chief Lutnick insists Aug. 1 is ‘hard deadline' for EU and tariffs: ‘They're going to start paying'

New York Post

time26 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Commerce chief Lutnick insists Aug. 1 is ‘hard deadline' for EU and tariffs: ‘They're going to start paying'

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick was adamant Sunday that the Aug. 1 date President Trump gave Europe to negotiate new trade arrangements is a 'hard deadline.'' 'So on Aug. 1, the new tariff rates will come in. But nothing stops countries from talking to us after Aug. 1, but they're going to start paying the tariffs on Aug. 1,' Lutnick told CBS News' 'Face the Nation' when asked the European Union, whose representatives he was on the phone with before the interview. 'That's a hard deadline,' the Trump official said. Advertisement The president has shifted his deadline several times. On April 2, 'Liberation Day,' he debuted his customized rates, which were supposed to go into effect April 9. They it got pushed 90 days and then to Aug. 1. Trump has threatened to slap a 30% tariff rate against the EU and a flurry of customized tariff rates on other countries that fail to cut a new deal with him. Those tariffs come on top of the 10% baseline tax against virtually all countries. 3 President Trump moved his tariff deadline several times, but Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick stressed Aug. 1 is now a firm cut-off. AFP via Getty Images Advertisement 3 Trump has made recalibrating US trade policy a top priority of his second term. AP Despite the fast-approaching deadline, Lutnick conveyed confidence that the US and EU will come to some sort of arrangement. 'There's plenty of room. Look, the president and the European Union, these are the two biggest trading partners in the world talking to each other. We'll get a deal done. I am confident we'll get a deal done,' the commerce secretary said. 'You are going to see the best set of trade deals you've ever seen for America and for the American people.' Advertisement Lutnick also stressed that the 10% baseline tariff rate is 'definitely going to stay' amid negotiations. So far, the Trump administration has announced tariff deals with the United Kingdom and Vietnam as well as a tariff truce with China, which Trump claims is subject to a 55% rate. 'The next two weeks are going to be weeks for the record books. President Trump is going to deliver for the American people,' he said. In addition to the baseline tariffs and levies on imports from China, the Trump administration has imposed 25% tariffs on automobiles, aluminum, steel and imports from Canada and Mexico that don't comply with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. Advertisement 3 Lutnick urged US trading partners to finish negotiating deals with the Trump administration by the deadline. REUTERS Trump has threatened to raise that to 35% against Canada and 30% for Mexico. This month, he has been blasting out letters to smaller US trading partners urging them to get a deal done or face the 'Liberation Day' tariffs. But Lutnick indicated that many of the smaller countries may simply face the 10% baseline rate while the Trump administration focuses on retooling trade with larger nations. 'I think what you've got is you should assume that the small countries, you know, the Latin American countries, the Caribbean countries, many countries in Africa, they will have a baseline tariff of 10%,' Lutnick said. 'Then the bigger economies will either open themselves up or they'll pay a fair tariff to America for not opening themselves up and [for] treating America unfairly.'

Himes: White House warning of ‘massive market reaction' if Trump fires Powell
Himes: White House warning of ‘massive market reaction' if Trump fires Powell

The Hill

time26 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Himes: White House warning of ‘massive market reaction' if Trump fires Powell

Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) said Sunday that a White House insider is warning President Trump of a 'massive market reaction' if he fires Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. 'I mean, what happens if there's a tweet that says the Fed chair is gone?' CBS's Margaret Brennan asked Himes on 'Face the Nation.' 'Well, interestingly, inside the White House — and I don't know who it is — my guess is, it's maybe the Treasury secretary — is saying — and this is a very difficult thing to say to a person like Donald Trump — that, if you fire the Fed chair, either illegally, which they're happy to do, or because you trump up some baloney-like charge associated with a renovation of the headquarters, there is going to be a massive market reaction, because you cannot lie to the capital markets,' Himes responded. Trump has recently grasped on to the Federal Reserve's multibillion-dollar makeover as a possible way to finally oust Powell. The president has for months criticized Powell over the Fed's decision not to cut interest rates, a move partly based on uncertainty surrounding Trump's tariffs. Trump has stated his desire to remove Powell, whom he appointed during his last term in the White House. Senate Republicans have recently warned Trump that it would be a large mistake to go forward on his threat to fire Powell, saying it would probably send a 'shock wave' through the financial markets and rattle the larger economy. Republican senators, including those who are strong supporters of the president, have warned that any action to oust Powell would jeopardize the Fed's independence, which could erode investors' confidence in American monetary policy and creditworthiness. 'I do not believe a president, any president, has the authority to fire the Federal Reserve chair,' Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said previously.

Minneapolis mayor loses party endorsement for November election
Minneapolis mayor loses party endorsement for November election

UPI

time29 minutes ago

  • UPI

Minneapolis mayor loses party endorsement for November election

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, right, pictured in 2023 during a press conference about an investigation into police conduct in the 2020 murder of George Floyd, lost the the Democratic party's backing in this November's mayoral election to state Sen. Omar Fateh. Photo by Craig Lassig/EPA July 20 (UPI) -- The Minneapolis mayor during the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests has lost the backing of the Democratic party to a Somali-American after a contested vote by members of the party. Omar Fateh, 35, a state Senator, won the mayoral endorsement over Jacob Frey, who has held the office since 2018. Fateh is the first Somali-American to serve in the state legislature since 2018 and received 60% of the delegates at the Minneapolis DFL convention Saturday, despite complaints from the Frey campaign about the election process. Frey took issue with electronic balloting at the convention, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, and said he would appeal the vote. "This election should be decided by the entire city rather than the small group of people who became delegates, particularly in light of the extremely flawed and irregular conduct of this convention," Frey's campaign manager office said in a statement. "Voters will now have a clear choice between the records and leadership of Sen. Fateh and Mayor Frey. We look forward to taking our vision to the voters in November." Frey was elected mayor in 2017 and again in 2021, and was in charge of Minneapolis during the 2020 BLM riots after George Floyd died at the hands of a white police officer.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store