logo
We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is.

We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is.

Yahoo06-06-2025
Let's just get this out of the way: The birth rate is a red herring.
It's been a common refrain that if the Trump administration and congressional leadership truly wanted to make it easier for families in America to grow and thrive, they would turn to policies like national paid leave, affordable child care, maternal health care and home and community-based services for our aging and disabled loved ones. They would be investing in early education and the caregiving workforce. They would be supporting commonsense accommodations like remote work. They would be growing social safety nets.
But they've done none of that. Their response to child care is to send in grandma. They've said next to nothing about paid leave.
What they apparently have suggested instead is both hilarious and dystopian. A medal for women with six or more children? Classes on your own menstrual cycle? Coupons for minivans?
And instead of investing and building for the future, they're slashing and burning. From fertility and maternal health programs, to food and farm assistance, to Medicaid and Social Security, they're going after all the powerful things our country has built to sustain life.
Elon Musk says the birth rate crisis is about the disappearance of civilization. I'd say he's already destroying its foundations.
The real crisis is one of care. As baby boomers age, more and more of us are taking care of our parents and children all at the same time, with little help, and drowning financially and emotionally. No federal paid leave, in many counties without access to child care. The answer to the real crisis is not what we can gut and burn and take away from people, but what we can give them, the world we can create.
My organization, Paid Leave for All, is asking people to envision their lives if they had the guarantee of paid family and medical leave ‒ if they knew no matter where they worked and the joy or loss they faced, they could maintain their life and their livelihood. Imagine the businesses and ventures that might be started, the families that could be sustained, the moments we wouldn't miss. Imagine the peace of mind, the paychecks kept, the lives saved.
Opinion: Trump's $5,000 'baby bonus' isn't what new moms like me need
What Musk, President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and beyond are suggesting isn't about any of that ‒ it's not about affording working families the security and dignity of being able to take care of themselves and each other. It's simply code for hatred and bigotry, driven less by concern for families than by a desire to preserve a demographic majority.
But the good news? They're still at odds with supermajorities of Americans. They're overplaying their hand, ignoring the desperate real needs of working families and missing a political opportunity.
In April, House Speaker Mike Johnson went to great lengths to try to kill a bipartisan measure to simply allow new parents in Congress to vote by proxy ‒ a pro-family protocol that would cost nothing.
A lot of people had never heard of it, but message testing found that when you told people even a little bit about it and Johnson's unprecedented moves to kill it, their support for the measure jumped up to 23 points. This was true across every demographic group tested, across gender, race, age and ideology. What's more, their support for broader federal policies like paid family and medical leave shot up as well.
Your Turn: Are you planning to have children? Why or why not? Here's what USA TODAY readers told us. | Opinion Forum
In polling done in battleground states just before the 2024 election, there was record-high support for paid leave across party lines and walks of life, however you sliced it. That included 90% of independents, 96% of suburban women and 97% of low turnout Democrats.
Commentary and post-election analyses have pointed to the family policies like paid leave and affordable care that would have offered tangible improvements in people's daily lives and stress, and could have changed the political landscape and outcomes.
'We didn't deliver what people wanted ‒ help with child care, help with elder care, more security in their lives,' said Ron Klain, a former chief of staff for Joe Biden.
Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store.
And that's the task ahead ‒ not just to respond to dangerous and very real threats to our families and communities, but to also counter with a vision of how much better our lives could be, and a plan to achieve it. To outline the damage they're doing to people's wallets and freedoms, and opportunities, and then to contrast with the policies that enable us to hold onto jobs and care for our own families.
The desire to succeed in life, to be able to afford one, to be able to support your loved ones, is universal. It's not a liberal fantasy, it's an idea of strength and dignity.
Making more babies by threat, faux incentives or even force is not a goal or a solution. But the idea of supporting families and allowing all of us to live healthier and richer lives is one we should be restoring front and center, and a conversation we should be having.
This is the project facing all of us who actually care about the survival of civilization.
Dawn Huckelbridge is the founding director of Paid Leave for All.
You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Musk is wrong: Birth rate isn't the crisis. Child care is | Opinion
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Elon Musk Warns of Losing Tesla Control, Denies Personal Loans Tied To Shares
Elon Musk Warns of Losing Tesla Control, Denies Personal Loans Tied To Shares

Yahoo

time5 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Elon Musk Warns of Losing Tesla Control, Denies Personal Loans Tied To Shares

Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla Inc. (NASDAQ:TSLA), has expressed concerns over potentially losing control of the electric vehicle giant due to the influence of activist shareholders. What Happened: Musk, who currently owns a 12.8% stake in Tesla, is apprehensive about being dethroned by shareholders who may not align with his vision for the company's future. He suggests that a 25% ownership stake would offer him adequate influence, while still leaving room for his possible removal. Musk's fears are rooted in past instances where shareholders voted in favor of a compensation package tied to the company's growth targets, only to be overruled by Delaware Chancery Court Judge Kathaleen McCormick. Earlier in January in a post on X, he shared that about 25 percent ownership stake would be enough "to be influential, but not so much that I can't be overturned.'Musk has the opportunity to acquire an additional 304 million shares, which would boost his voting control by roughly 4% post-tax. Also Read: Elon Musk Returns To Intense Work Schedule: 'Back To Working 7 Days a Week and Sleeping in the Office' In a recent statement on Friday on X, Musk affirmed that he has no personal loans against Tesla stock and reiterated his anxieties about being ousted by 'activist shareholders'. He expressed optimism that these concerns would be addressed at the forthcoming shareholders' are rumors that Musk may resign if his ownership stake is curtailed, akin to the limitations imposed on his pay package. Nonetheless, a majority of shareholders who endorsed Musk's pay package continue to support his leadership of Tesla's operations. Why It Matters: Musk's concerns highlight the potential power dynamics at play within Tesla's shareholder base. His potential loss of control could significantly impact the company's strategic direction, given his instrumental role in shaping Tesla's innovative trajectory. The upcoming shareholders' meeting will be a critical event, potentially determining the future of Musk's leadership at Tesla. Read Next Elon Musk Commits To Intense Focus on X/xAI and Tesla: 'Back To Spending 24/7 at Work, Sleeping in Conference/Server/Factory Rooms' Image: Shutterstock Up Next: Transform your trading with Benzinga Edge's one-of-a-kind market trade ideas and tools. Click now to access unique insights that can set you ahead in today's competitive market. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? TESLA (TSLA): Free Stock Analysis Report This article Elon Musk Warns of Losing Tesla Control, Denies Personal Loans Tied To Shares originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Court reaffirms ruling limiting Trump's asylum ban at US, Mexico border
Court reaffirms ruling limiting Trump's asylum ban at US, Mexico border

The Hill

time6 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Court reaffirms ruling limiting Trump's asylum ban at US, Mexico border

A three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals on Friday reaffirmed the ruling limiting President Trump's asylum ban at the U.S.-Mexico border, blocking the president's Day 1 order. Shortly after taking office, Trump issued a proclamation seeking to end asylum for all migrants besides those who entered the U.S. at ports of entry, contending the change was needed to address the 'invasion' at the border with Mexico. The American Civil Liberties Union sued the administration on behalf of nonprofits in early February. Last month, a U.S. District Court Judge, Randolph Moss, an appointee of former President Obama, blocked Trump's ban, saying the administration violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). A panel of judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit – Patricia Millett, Cornelia Pillard and Gregory G. Katsas – issued an administrative pause on Moss' early July ruling. Moss argued that the president overstepped his authority in severely limiting asylum for those migrants fleeing danger and persecution. The D.C. circuit panel lifted its stay on Moss' decision. The three-judge panel narrowed the extent of the district judge's decision, permitting the U.S. government to keep utilizing Trump's order to forbid migrants from participating in the asylum system. 'The President secured the border in record time at an unprecedented level by using every available legal tool provided by Congress. A rogue district judge took those tools away, threatening the safety and security of Americans and ignoring a Supreme Court decision issued only days earlier admonishing district courts for granting nationwide injunctions,' Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told CBS News. 'The Trump Administration is committed to restoring integrity to our immigration system and to our justice system,' McLaughlin added.

Corporate America is not falling for the left's outrage over Sydney Sweeney's ‘good jeans' ad
Corporate America is not falling for the left's outrage over Sydney Sweeney's ‘good jeans' ad

New York Post

time6 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Corporate America is not falling for the left's outrage over Sydney Sweeney's ‘good jeans' ad

The left is trying its best to stir up a furor over the recent Sydney Sweeney jeans (or is it genes) TV commercial to ignite a backlash similar to the Dylan Mulvaney-Bud Light debacle. Sorry progressives, it ain't happening. Yes, there's lots of chirping from lefty columnists, purple-haired TikTok influencers, late-night hosts who are still employed, and assorted wokesters after American Eagle had the audacity to feature the attractive blond, blue-eyed actress expressing her sartorial flair in a pair of tight-fitting blue jeans. Advertisement 'Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality, and even eye color . . . my jeans are blue,' the 'Euphoria' star says. The ad ends with a voice-over: 'Sydney Sweeney has great jeans.' Blond women? Blue-eyed? Good genes (I mean jeans)? Oh, the horror! That's if you are listening to the leftist commentariat that still hasn't piped down weeks after the spot first appeared. The lefties are freaking because they think the jeans company is looking to bring back the bad old days, pre-George Floyd of course, when white blond oppressors ruled over American culture. Advertisement It's all very Hitler-like to the progressive numbskull class, but not to just about every other segment of American society. Most Americans of all colors and genders either don't care, or they know good genes and jeans when they see it. I know this based on lots of reporting on the mind virus known wokeness — the progressive orthodoxy that embraces everything from cultural Marxism, DEI and, of course, the oppressor-oppressed theology. We are a diverse country, and that's good. The wokesters take it to a level that excludes rather than includes. Good-looking white people, particularly if their hair is that evil shade known as blond, are nowhere near the intersectional matrix they demand for hiring or image making in their version of America. Advertisement That's why Sydney Sweeney, known more for her cleavage than her politics, has become a touchstone in our culture wars, and here's why the attacks won't work: Wokeness was once big in the business world, but notice my use of the past tense. Corporate America listened to these kooks for many reasons, including their own progressive management leanings, with disastrous results. They learned the hard way that most Americans of all races hate being proselytized with political dogma, particularly of the left-wing variety that pushes the limits of identity and gender politics beyond cultural norms. I chronicled this spectacle with a healthy dose of schadenfreude in my book 'Go Woke Go Broke: The Inside Story of the Radicalization of Corporate America.' Just a few short years ago, DEI was the norm; so was radical environmentalism pushed by asset managers through something called ESG investing. It was difficult finding a straight man or woman — God forbid a blond — who survived the Madison Avenue woke censor machine. Budweiser thought its customers were ready for a commercial featuring a half-naked trans woman in a bubble bath. Disney decided it could sell more kids programming featuring same-sex kissing scenes. Money managers like BlackRock thought they could increase returns by advocating environmentalism and de facto racial quotas on their portfolio companies. Advertisement All of the above resulted in some of the biggest brand-destroying disasters in modern business history. Marketing is a lot like politics. It's a business of addition, not subtraction. You build customers just like you attract voters, through messaging that unites rather than divides — or customers flee. There are exceptions, of course. Niche brands like Ben & Jerry's ice cream attempt and succeed at targeting the tree-hugger demo. Try this stuff on a mass audience and you will get the beatdown of the century. The predictable customer revolt impacted the businesses of Budweiser, Disney and BlackRock in such a measurable way that shareholders revolted, too, forcing some of the most progressive CEOs in the world to course-correct. That's why the Sydney Sweeney uproar will go nowhere with the people who matter most: Most American consumers, and American Eagle shareholders. Unless you're stretching it like Silly Putty, there's nothing inherently political about a pretty blond (dare I say 'All American'-looking) woman in jeans and pointing out the health of her genes to sell stuff. Zero. Zilch. Otherwise, Pamela Anderson would have been a poster child for Aryan Nations instead of the 'Baywatch' babe most American men and many women adored, and still do. Shares of American Eagle are up since the Sydney Sweeney ad ran, despite the backlash. NYU Marketing Professor Eitan Muller points out the obvious, telling Fox Business's Teuta Dedvukaj that the commercial 'attracts attention, drives Google searches, and boosts the brand. Yes, she does have great genes — and it rings authentic. That's what you want from an ad.' My bet: You will be seeing a lot more of Sydney Sweeney. Most men will be rejoicing, many women will buy the company's jeans. Management will be rewarded with higher sales and a stock price that matches. The attacks will ultimately fail for the same reason Mulvaney's tenure as a spokeswoman for Bud Light was so short-lived. Recall: The nation's Number 1-selling beer dropped to Number 3 and never recovered. Sydney Sweeney has both good jeans and genes and there's nothing the wokesters can do to change that reality.

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