As we have covered here repeatedly, the United States and much of the rest of the Western world are experiencing plunging birth rates and a potential population decline. But what can be done about it? America isn't an autocratic society like China where the government can simply dictate when or how often couples procreate. Public education efforts don't seem to have much effect, if any. So how about some form of government incentive? Could we bribe people to have more babies? That sort of sounds like what Baltimore, Maryland is considering doing, even if it's not the stated reason. There is a ballot initiative currently being considered that would create a program that would pay new mothers $1,000 after the birth of each infant. Could this really work? (CBS News Baltimore)

An advocacy group wants to give Baltimore City voters a voice in moving a campaign forward that would give a one-time, $1,000 cash infusion to new parents of Baltimore City.

Maryland Child Alliance President Nate Golden said the goal of the proposal is to offer financial support to residents who birth or adopt a baby.

"The Baltimore Baby Bonus started as a campaign where we could go around state legislators, around city legislators and take our message directly to voters," Golden said.

The advocacy group has canvassed for more than a year and said it has collected upwards of 13,000 signatures.

To be clear, the group in question isn't trying to do this to address a decline in birthrates. They're just looking to help families deal with the costs that are associated with bringing a new baby into the world. They also want it to apply to adoptions, which is a nice feature. They have already collected enough signatures to put the measure on the 2024 ballot, assuming the signatures are all validated. It's also interesting to note that there is no income eligibility requirement attached to the "baby bonus" so even more affluent couples could apply for it if they wish.

With all of that said, what if such a program were specifically focused on addressing the nation's declining birthrate and expanded to the national level? Could you really bribe people into having children if they weren't already planning to do so? It seems unlikely if we were to base it on the Baltimore model. A one-time payment of $1,000 dollars would probably be nice for many people and it could certainly help pay for some diapers and baby formula for a time. But it's still not even a drop in the bucket compared to the total cost of delivering and raising a child. Forbes recently estimated that the average cost of hospital bills for having a baby (without insurance) is $18, 865. Raising a child to adulthood costs an average of more than $330,000.

Of course, the government already provides a number of incentives for those who procreate. Child tax credits are available at the federal level and state and local programs exist to help offset the cost of childcare. SNAP and other food programs are designed to help meet the nutritional needs of children from economically disadvantaged families. 

How much more of an incentive could the government afford to offer, and would it do any good? What do we say to people who simply don't want to have children? Unfortunately, that's an increasingly common attitude, particularly among younger women who put off starting a family so they can focus on their careers or simply "enjoy their youth" without shouldering the responsibilities of parenthood. This doesn't account for all of the decline that we're seeing in birth rates, of course. There is a global problem involving male infertility that nobody seems to be seriously addressing. But this reluctance to reproduce is clearly a part of it. Particularly with the availability of technological advances such as IVF, almost anyone who feels seriously driven to have a child can do so. What's missing is a sufficient number of young Americans who feel that drive. And it doesn't seem as if all the gold in Fort Knox can change that.