Latest news with #CarolinaPopulationCenter
RNZ News
6 days ago
- Health
- RNZ News
Feature interview: The issues with Pronatalism
life and society about 1 hour ago "Start procreating or start panicking." That's the core message of a once-fringe ideology now pushing its way into the mainstream called pronatalism. Elon Musk is one of the movement's loudest voices, boasting 14 kids and calling population decline humanity's biggest threat. The pronatalist movement is largely led by white conservatives and tech elites. Critics say it's not just about babies it's about power, and control. Dr. Karen Guzzo is a sociologist, fertility expert and the director of the Carolina Population Center. She argues that solving the "birth rate crisis" isn't about pushing people to have more kids, it's about building a society where they actually can.
Vox
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Vox
The Trump-approved policy that's actually good for kids
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. Last week, news broke that the Trump administration was considering a variety of policies to get Americans to have more kids, inspired by figures like Elon Musk (who has 14 known kids) and activists Simone and Malcolm Collins (who have four but want as many as 10). Those suggestions, which included a $5,000 baby bonus and a 'National Medal of Motherhood' uncomfortably reminiscent of Nazi Germany, triggered immediate backlash. Many wondered how any of them would actually help parents, at a time when $5,000 only covers a few months of child care in some places. 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. ' Chicken jockey ' is a thing now, I guess. 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.'
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Trump-approved policy that's actually good for kids
This story originally appeared in , Vox's newsletter about kids, for everyone. . The pronatalists have entered the White House. Last week, news broke that the Trump administration was considering a variety of policies to get Americans to have more kids, inspired by figures like Elon Musk (who has 14 known kids) and activists Simone and Malcolm Collins (who have four but want as many as 10). Those suggestions, which included a $5,000 baby bonus and a 'National Medal of Motherhood' uncomfortably reminiscent of Nazi Germany, triggered immediate backlash. Many wondered how any of them would actually help parents, at a time when $5,000 only covers a few months of child care in some places. 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. 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. 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.' 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. 'Chicken jockey' is a thing now, I guess. 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. 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.' As always, you can share your experiences, ask questions, or propose future topics at
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
The fertility rate was stable in 2024, but it's still near record lows
As the Trump administration renews its focus on declining birth rates in the U.S., new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests that births were fairly stable in 2024, rising 1% over the year prior. There were 3,622,673 births in the U.S. last year, according to a CDC report released Wednesday. Overall, the number of births declined by 2% per year, on average, from 2015 through 2020 and fluctuated in the years since, according to the report. The report also estimated the birth rate among women ages 15 to 44, referred to more specifically as the fertility rate. The rate declined from 2014 to 2020, then fluctuated through 2024. The fertility rate last year was 54.6 births per 1,000 women, the report found — a 0.2% uptick compared with 2023. Brady Hamilton, the report's main author and a CDC statistician, said the data marks 'a continuation of the general downward trend in births to teenagers and upward trend in births to older women seen for the last three or so decades.' However, he said the CDC could not speak to the reasons behind the trend. Sociologists who examined the CDC data said it largely reflects women who delayed having children in their 20s finally choosing to do so in their 30s and 40s. Birth rates increased last year among women ages 25 to 44, but declined among teenagers and those under 25. 'It's not that people are deciding against having kids at all,' said Karen Benjamin Guzzo, director of the Carolina Population Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Rather, she said, people are asking themselves: 'Do I have the right partner? If I have another baby in child care, what would that do to my expenses? Does my job feel stable?' Those same concerns might also compel parents to have fewer children, Guzzo said. The average woman in 2024 had one to two biological children, according to the CDC report, compared with more than three in 1960. The overall fertility rate in the U.S. has declined since 2007 — a pattern sociologists expect to continue, despite the nominal uptick last year. While the economy has generally improved since the 'Great Recession,' many people still don't feel like their financial position has gotten better, said Sarah Hayford, director of the Institute for Population Research at Ohio State University. 'In a lot of places, the housing market is really challenging, and that's something that a lot of people want to have kind of in place before they have children,' she said. Guzzo said the Trump administration's tariffs on imported goods and gutting of federal programs that support women and children could add to a climate of women delaying having kids or deciding not to altogether. The Trump administration, for its part, has lamented the decline in birth rates. Vice President JD Vance called for 'more babies in the United States of America' at an anti-abortion rally in January. And Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said that same month that communities with higher-than-average marriage and birth rates should be prioritized for federal transportation funds. President Donald Trump dubbed himself 'the fertilization president' at a White House event in March. His executive order to expand access to in vitro fertilization emphasizes 'the importance of family formation' and calls for making it easier 'for loving and longing mothers and fathers to have children.' Tech billionaire Elon Musk, a senior Trump adviser, has also referred to declining birth rates as a danger to humanity's survival. According to the CDC report, the birth rate in the U.S. is far below what's known as the 'replacement level,' where enough babies are being born that a population can keep its size from one generation to the next. The New York Times reported Monday that the White House is weighing proposals to incentivize childbirth, including a $5,000 cash bonus to mothers after delivery. But sociologists said those efforts aren't likely to reverse declining birth rates. A 2021 study of 'baby bonuses' in South Korea found that most of the money went to women who would have had a child regardless of the incentive. 'You can't just flip a switch and change the birth rate,' said Julia Strasser, an assistant research professor at the George Washington University Fitzhugh Mullan Institute for Health Workforce Equity. 'The economic requirements — not just for having babies, but for raising babies — last a very long time, and $5,000 doesn't really go a long way towards supporting that,' she added. Sociologists generally agreed that low fertility or birth rates aren't an inherent problem. In fact, they said, the decline in teen birth rates is a positive trend. 'It's good news when people can avoid having kids at periods of their life where they themselves would say, 'This is not the right time,'' Guzzo said. This article was originally published on
NBC News
23-04-2025
- Health
- NBC News
The fertility rate was stable in 2024, but it's still near record lows
As the Trump administration renews its focus on declining birth rates in the U.S., new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests that births were fairly stable in 2024, rising 1% over the year prior. There were 3,622,673 births in the U.S. last year, according to a CDC report released Wednesday. Overall, the number of births declined by 2% per year, on average, from 2015 through 2020 and fluctuated in the years since, according to the report. The report also estimated the birth rate among women ages 15 to 44, referred to more specifically as the fertility rate. The rate declined from 2014 to 2020, then fluctuated through 2024. The fertility rate last year was 54.6 births per 1,000 women, the report found — a 0.2% uptick compared with 2023. Brady Hamilton, the report's main author and a CDC statistician, said the data marks 'a continuation of the general downward trend in births to teenagers and upward trend in births to older women seen for the last three or so decades.' However, he said the CDC could not speak to the reasons behind the trend. Sociologists who examined the CDC data said it largely reflects women who delayed having children in their 20s finally choosing to do so in their 30s and 40s. Birth rates increased last year among women ages 25 to 44, but declined among teenagers and those under 25. 'It's not that people are deciding against having kids at all,' said Karen Benjamin Guzzo, director of the Carolina Population Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Rather, she said, people are asking themselves: 'Do I have the right partner? If I have another baby in child care, what would that do to my expenses? Does my job feel stable?' Those same concerns might also compel parents to have fewer children, Guzzo said. The average woman in 2024 had one to two biological children, according to the CDC report, compared with more than three in 1960. The overall fertility rate in the U.S. has declined since 2007 — a pattern sociologists expect to continue, despite the nominal uptick last year. While the economy has generally improved since the 'Great Recession,' many people still don't feel like their financial position has gotten better, said Sarah Hayford, director of the Institute for Population Research at Ohio State University. 'In a lot of places, the housing market is really challenging, and that's something that a lot of people want to have kind of in place before they have children,' she said. Guzzo said the Trump administration's tariffs on imported goods and gutting of federal programs that support women and children could add to a climate of women delaying having kids or deciding not to altogether. The Trump administration, for its part, has lamented the decline in birth rates. Vice President JD Vance called for 'more babies in the United States of America' at an anti-abortion rally in January. And Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said that same month that communities with higher-than-average marriage and birth rates should be prioritized for federal transportation funds. President Donald Trump dubbed himself 'the fertilization president' at a White House event in March. His executive order to expand access to in vitro fertilization emphasizes 'the importance of family formation' and calls for making it easier 'for loving and longing mothers and fathers to have children.' Tech billionaire Elon Musk, a senior Trump adviser, has also referred to declining birth rates as a danger to humanity's survival. According to the CDC report, the birth rate in the U.S. is far below what's known as the 'replacement level,' where enough babies are being born that a population can keep its size from one generation to the next. The New York Times reported Monday that the White House is weighing proposals to incentivize childbirth, including a $5,000 cash bonus to mothers after delivery. But sociologists said those efforts aren't likely to reverse declining birth rates. A 2021 study of 'baby bonuses' in South Korea found that most of the money went to women who would have had a child regardless of the incentive. 'You can't just flip a switch and change the birth rate,' said Julia Strasser, an assistant research professor at the George Washington University Fitzhugh Mullan Institute for Health Workforce Equity. 'The economic requirements — not just for having babies, but for raising babies — last a very long time, and $5,000 doesn't really go a long way towards supporting that,' she added. Sociologists generally agreed that low fertility or birth rates aren't an inherent problem. In fact, they said, the decline in teen birth rates is a positive trend. 'It's good news when people can avoid having kids at periods of their life where they themselves would say, 'This is not the right time,'' Guzzo said.
