The US town that pays every pregnant woman $1,500: ‘We’re not OK with our babies being born into poverty’
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/15/rx-kids-flint-michigan-pregnancyOpen linkView original on lemmy.world389
Comments71https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/15/rx-kids-flint-michigan-pregnancyOpen linkView original on lemmy.world
How many studies that boil down to giving people money with no strings attached that always result in "well it improves their lives it seems" are we gonna have before people finally decide it's worth doing that stuff universally?
The trouble is, the people doing the studies and the people in charge of deciding where public money is spent and acquired, are different groups.
Many people are driven by feelings. We all are to some extent. But for many people feelings are primary. This comes up all the time.
You can show charts and studies and everything, but they don't care. You have to make them feel good about it.
Frankly I'm kind of sick of pandering to overgrown toddlers, but there's no escape from it.
i mean this is true but also the natural state of humans isn't to be filled with hatred, if it was just that people are ruled by emotion then the world would be an amazing place since most people have empathy.
It's the combination of "all feelings no thinkings" and "in-group good, out-group bad" that's really the problem.
Just one or the other isn't a disaster.
Even Milton Friedman, the Nobel winning economist credited for libertarianism and neoliberal economics was in favour of UBI.
He specifically advocated for simplifying the tax code, and abolishing the welfare state in favour of progressive tax rates which included a negative income tax, which is a more extreme UBI.
Right wing policy makers just heard the simplify tax code and abolish welfare state part.
Never, so long as there's the notion that you have to "earn" or "deserve" it.
For some, life has to be suffering. I think that people can't get past that way of thinking.
What? You mean without the cruelty? Why even bother?
But Dave from the local bar says he knows someone who took advantage of the benefits system so it's obvious that everyone takes advantage of it and are just lazy and would rather get money for nothing... /S
"well i'm a raging alcoholic and spent all my welfare on the cheapest booze i could find, so obviously that's what everyone's going to do"
This is not going to go down well on Lemmy, but: not many studies boil down to this, unfortunately.
This article really changed my view on this https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/giving-people-money-helped-less-than
This article is not saying money does not help, but saying it's not all it takes. I don't think this is a hot take at all
breaking news: family in uganda starving to death despite having €40000 to eat
The entire point of living in a society, of following the collective social contract, is to assure everybody's basic needs are met.
To suggest otherwise is contradictory to the very core of what a society is, and at that point, its better to have no society at all.
Given how having "no society at all" is impossible with 8 billion of us around... Either provide for everybody's basic needs, or people need to break the social contract until they enforce their needs are met.
Being egoistic and wanting society to pitch in at the same time is a core tenet of the US republican party. Privatise the gains, socialise the losses is a big thing there. There are millions of people like that and unfortunately they are influencing the world-wide discourse on the issue.
That helps, but that's a far cry from "born into poverty" solutions
Still amazing and I'm sure incredibly helpful to the families.
For people on the edge, this would make all the difference in the world and allow them to sleep at night.
For sure. I'm all for it.
I mean, I never had a kid, but $500 a month for a year sounds like it would shore you up for all early expenses
When I was in high school, many years ago, I remember posters in classrooms that stated
"It costs $800 a month to have a baby. How much is your allowance?"
I don't know how that came up with that figure, but inflation has made this number much higher by now
Not even close
it helps but $6k isn't enough for a year in Flint, MI. That 500 doesn't even cover rent.
It's not supposed to. Wtf you having a kid if you can afford rent!?
It's supposed to help with formula, diapers, shit like that.
since none of y'all can read
The early expenses of raising a child, not "all of your expenses"
so the baby sleeps in the yard then
Bathtub
Multiply that figure by at least 10, and it might actually be meaningful.
EDIT: Ah, there's a continuing payment aspect to it.
Well, that's actually fairly impactful then.
Flint, MI
Cool that they took the lead on this
Wow a whole 1.5k
Plus $500/month for a year. It's to help with diapers, food, etc. it's a start, but needs a lot more if they don't want the population to drop off the Mariana trench.
My copay on each of my kids births was over $2k, one was $7k. A couple of those bills were close to $30k, not that we paid that much, but still.
The US: “we need to be making more babies! Also fuck you, here’s a bill for the amount of a very nice new car! Get fucked, loser!”
This is normal in all the developed countries.
Having and raising children is not a concern only for the mother, the whole community needs to be involved.
I had no idea the only thing keeping me from escaping poverty is rent for a month
In Germany you get 250€ every month per child until they are 18. Even after, if they remain in education. If they move out they can get it directly for themselves.
It's called Kindergeld "children money"
Same in the Netherlands and it’s absolutely crazy. We already have too many humans, why stimulate procreation when we don’t even have enough housing for the humans that already exist.
Are you sure that's even what is happening? It seems there would be a line where you could ease the burden of childbirth, especially for women, by supporting them and making it more likely that child becomes a healthy educated adult, but not so much reimbursement that you actually stimulate fertility rates. I would think that the government has data on this.
It's not stimulating it's making it barely affordable to have children.
Relax the planet is not over populated. Projections already show it might go down soon. Which is fine as well I guess.
you realize basically every single western country has a decreasing population, right? immigration is currently the only thing keeping us all vaguely afloat.
If things continue like they are then in 50 years europe and america are gonna be fucking miserable as they're filled with old people and nowhere near enough people to take care of them.
Not decreasing fast enough. Also ‘western countries’ is irrelevant. It’s about global population.
We’re at 8 billion humans globally. A good goal would be a global population of 10 million.
They should give out free birth control as well.
Doesn't planned parenthood offer low to no cost BC?
only in states where that's legal. tons of red states have limited PP to providing only care they find acceptable, women's health be damned.
As a mother of an actual human I gotta say $1,500 for a lifetime is a ridiculous figure that wouldn’t even last a week when covering basic necessities (stroller, bedding, diapers, lotion, etc.)
So
65007500 over the course of the first year. That is good stuff.$7500. $1500 at pregnancy + $500/month for first year = $1500 + $500 x 12 = $1500 + $6000 = $7500
Which juuuuuuuust might cover the ride in an ambulance to go give birth (not the birth itself, just the ride).
If you're being facetious: this is a good thing. It doesn't solve all problems but it's a damn good start. No need to get critical about a pretty damn big step in the right direction, especially considering those starting this initiative in a local setting can't change the healthcare system nationwide.
If you're serious: admittedly (and thankfully) I haven't had to take an ambulance, but when my daughter was born the deductible on our high-deductible plan (after which point all care is covered for the calendar year) was a fair amount under that. The system sucks, but that's not how it works either.
Think many would rather have universal healthcare and public school free meals.
Why not both?
Id take affordable housing first to add. Its honestly just a weenie benefit. Sure I would add it on to a dozen more useful things but there is so much more useful things. Even like increasing library programs and hours.
How about free college so we don't have to see our kids working minimum wage job...give those to AI and robots.
Politicians don't want smart voters
Charity needed to support impoverished countries like Bangladesh, Liberia, Rwanda, Uganda and the good old US of A. Simultaneously the richest and poorest country in the world.
charities are mostly money laundering schemes by the rich.
That doesn't even cover the hospital bill
Its definitely not enough, but its way better than zero.
Oh good point, I guess we shouldn’t give them anything then /s
How dare someone point out an issue with something that doesn't ultimately do much to fix the problem...
Just pointing out that Hitler had a very similar scheme.
That's like saying the trains should suck because Hitler made them run on time (I know that's a myth but still)
Also Flint, Michigan is mostly black
Hitler also wanted to fuck his dog, maybe even did. Does that make him a dogfucker? Yes. Yes it does.
I don't remember what I was going to say, but I couldn't pass up an opportunity to call Hitler a dogfucker.
Hitler also liked animals. Guess every animal friend is literally Hitler
It's not a scheme, it is a valid tool for population encouragement. Anyone having a kid to get $1500 needs to live in poverty imo.
Just pointing out that hitler breathed oxygen and drank water.