Loading summary
Transcript22 lines
- [00:00]
Dr. Patrick McGrath
What if I told you that right now millions of people are living with a debilitating condition that's so misunderstood, many of them don't even know that they have it. That condition is obsessive compulsive disorder, or OCD. I'm Dr. Patrick McGrath, the chief clinical officer of NOCD, and in the 25 years I've been treating OCD, I've met so many people who are suffering from the condition in silence, unaware of just what it was. OCD can create overwhelming anxiety and fear around what you value most, make you question your identity, beliefs and morals, and drive you to perform mentally and physically draining compulsions or rituals. Over my career, I've seen just how devastating OCD can be when it's left untreated. But help is available. That's where NOCD comes in. NOCD is the world's largest virtual therapy provider for obsessive compulsive disorder. Our licensed therapists are trained in exposure and response prevention therapy, a specialized treatment proven to be incredibly effective for OCD. So visit nocd.com to schedule a free 15 minute call with our team. That's nocd.com.
- [01:00]
Maybelline Advertiser
Ever wonder what your lashes are destined for? The cards have spoken. Maybelline, New York Mascara does it all. Whether you crave fully Fan lashes with Lash. Sensational Big Bold volume from the Colossal. A dramatic lift with Falsies Lash Lift or Natural Looking volume from Great Lash. Your perfect lash future awaits. Manifest your best mascara today. Shop Maybelline, NY and discover your lash destiny. Shop now at Walmart.
- [01:27]
eBay Advertiser
Picture this. You're halfway through a DIY car fix, tools scattered everywhere, and boom. You realize you're missing a part. It's okay because, you know, whatever it is, it's on ebay. They've got everything. Brakes, headlights, cold air intakes, whatever you need. And it's guaranteed to fit. Which means no more crossing your fingers and hoping you ordered the right thing. All the parts you need at prices you'll love. Guaranteed to fit every time. Ebay. Things people love.
- [02:03]
Isaac Saul
From executive producer Isaac Saul.
- [02:06]
Isaac Stahl
This is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening. And welcome to the Tangle podcast. The place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Stahl, and on today's episode, we're going to be talking about fertility rates and boosting the birth rate in America. As you might have noticed, this is becoming a pretty big policy discussion here. There are some proposals on the table, or I guess I shouldn't say on the table being rumored about with the Trump administration and some proposals that have been tried that are attempting to be resurrected right now. So we're gonna break down some arguments out there about how to address a falling fertility rate with public policy prescriptions, share some views from the right and the left, and then I'm gonna share my take. Before we do, though, I wanna give you a quick heads up that April 29th today marks President Donald Trump's 100th day of his second term in office. This Thursday and Friday, we're gonna be breaking down the President's first 100 days in a two part series covering how he has executed on his campaign promises, what he has accomplished and and the issues that have defined his presidency so far before giving him a kind of tentative early grade. Part one is gonna come out on Thursday. It'll be free for all listeners and readers, while part two will be for members only and that'll come out on Friday. A quick reminder that if you wanna unlock Members Only posts, you can go to readtangle.com membership all right, with that out of the way, I'm gonna send it over to John for today's main story and I'll be back.
- [03:56]
eBay Advertiser
Thanks, Isaac, and welcome everybody. Here are your quick hits for today. First up, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and his Liberal Party won the country's federal election, securing enough seats to form a minority government and win the party's fourth consecutive term in power. Additionally, Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre lost his Ottawa area seat. Number two, President Donald Trump signed three executive orders on Monday. The first directs Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to comp a list of states and local jurisdictions that do not fully comply with federal officials, attempts to arrest unauthorized migrants and pursue legal action against them. The second instructs the administration to offer legal resources to police officers accused of wrongdoing and review existing limitations on police actions. The third calls for greater enforcement of existing rules requiring professional truck drivers to be proficient in English. Number three, Yemen's Houthi rebels claimed that a U.S. airstrike killed at least 68 people in a detention center holding African migrants. U.S. central Command said it is conducting an inquiry into the strike. Number four, the Trump administration dismissed all contributors to the US Government's National Climate Assessment, a report that aims to help federal agencies and lawmakers make decisions on climate policy and funding priorities. And number five, a power grid collapse caused widespread blackouts across Spain and Portugal, shutting down transit systems and leaving millions of people without phone and Internet coverage. Spain has restored 92% of its power as of Tuesday morning, but has not determined the cause.
- [05:47]
Isaac Stahl
President Trump endorsing the idea of giving up to $5,000 to mothers to help increase birth rates Mr. President, are there.
- [05:57]
eBay Advertiser
Reports that you're considering doing something for moms across the country? Hearing that as a kind of bonus, one of the household revisiting hours sounds.
- [06:06]
Isaac Stahl
Like a good idea to me.
- [06:07]
eBay Advertiser
In recent weeks, the Trump administration has heard a range of proposals to increase the fertility rate in the United States. While taking questions in the Oval office on Tuesday, April 22, President Donald Trump expressed support for a baby bonus that would pay $5,000 per delivery to the birth mother, calling it a good idea. Additionally, advocates and policy experts have pitched the White House on scholarship allocations for married people or parents, new government funding for education on conception, and a National Medal of Motherhood awarded to women with six or more children. The US Total fertility rate, which estimates the number of children a woman would give birth to in her lifetime given current age specific fertility rates, has steadily declined since 2007, with a 2024 rate of roughly 1.63 births per woman in developed countries. Epidemiologists define 2.1 children per woman as the replacement rate, the rate at which a country can maintain its population over Future Generations. The US total fertility rate has been below this level since 2008. Globally, fertility rates have also fallen in recent decades. The global total fertility rate was 2.3 children per woman in 2023, down from 2.6 in 2007 and far below the peak of 5.3 in 1963. Experts point to a variety of factors for the declining rate, such as women choosing to have children later in life compared to past generations, increased access to contraception, economic uncertainty for people in childbearing years, and new cultural attitudes toward parenthood, among others. However, the trend varies across demographic groups in the US with fertility rates increasing among Hispanic and Asian women in 2024 while declining in other racial and ethnic groups. The White House has not officially indicated which proposals, if any, it is considering adopting, but several prominent members of the administration have long advocated for urgent action to address the Trend. Vice President J.D. vance has centered the issue since his first campaign for public office and regularly decried an anti child ideology in the US on the campaign trail in 2024. Separately, in March, White House advisor Elon Musk suggested civilization will disappear if countries do not take action to reverse the trend in birth rates. Recent administrations have taken steps to support new parents, primarily in the form of a child tax credit for families below a set income threshold 200,000 for individuals, 400,000 for joint filers. During his first term, President Trump doubled the credit from $1,000 to $2,000. This increase will sunset in 2025 unless Congress passes an extension. In 2021, President Joe Biden temporarily raised the credit from $2,000 to to $3,600 for qualifying children under age 6 and to $3,000 for qualifying children under the age of 18, but Congress did not renew the increase at the end of the fiscal year. Other countries have implemented financial incentives for childbirth in recent years, though the results have been mixed. In Australia, the government introduced 3,000 Australian dollar payouts to parents for each birth in 2004, which was followed by a slight temporary increase in the national birth rate. Similarly, Hungary has offered incentives to new parents for over a decade, which initially coincided with an increased birth rate. However, the country's rate has decreased since 2021. Today we'll dive into the debate over the US birth rate and incentives for new parents with views from the right and the left, and then Isaac's take.
- [09:51]
Isaac Stahl
We'll be right back after this quick break.
- [09:58]
Maybelline Advertiser
Motherhood is a journey filled with big milestones but also countless little moments that truly matter. That's why Little Bellies is making snack time easier with our wholesome and delicious snacks. Perfect for every age and stage from 6 to 12 plus months so you can focus on enjoying these precious motherhood moments. Check out our full range of organic snacks@littlebellys.com Little bellies do what's natural this.
- [10:28]
Isaac Saul
Is Paige, the co host of Giggly Squad. I use Uber Eats for everything and I feel like people forget that you can truly order anything, especially living in New York City. It's why I love it. You can get Chinese food at any time of night, but it's not just for food. I order from CVS all the time. I'm always ordering from the grocery store. If a friend stops over, I have to order champagne. I also have this thing that whenever I travel, if I'm ever in a hotel room, I never feel like I'm missing something because I'll just uber eats it. The amount of times I've had to uber eats hair items like hairspray, deodorant, you name it, I've ordered it. On Uber Eats, you can get grocery alcohol everyday essentials in addition to restaurants and food you love. So in other words, get almost anything. With Uber Eats. Order now for alcohol you must be legal drinking age. Please enjoy responsibly. Product availability varies by region. See app for details.
- [11:35]
eBay Advertiser
All right, first up, let's start with what the right is saying the right is mixed on the baby bonus proposal, with some saying it would help families. Others suggest that cultural shifts away from traditional families have caused declining fertility rates. Still others say that Trump needs to give younger generations optimism about the future to boost the U.S. birth rate. In the Deseret News, Leah Labresco Sargent made the case for a baby bonus. The current child tax credit helps children by trusting their parents, most of whom use the credit for essentials like food and housing. However, when the government overcomplicates our benefits program or tries to dictate specific parenting approaches, working families often get left behind with every overengineered detail. The initial intent of the program is easily overshadowed, sargent wrote. A baby bonus is an effective way to provide support to more families with fewer complications. Every family has unique needs, and flexible assistance can help parents serve the best interests of their children in their particularity. For a worker with only guaranteed unpaid Family and Medical Leave act time off after the birth of a child, a baby bonus can act as paid family leave for another family. It could help defray the costs of converting a guest room for a grandmother to stay long term to help older kids adjust to a new baby. In another family's case, a baby bonus might cover additional childcare for an older child when the mother is hospitalized to reduce the risk of a preterm delivery, Sargent said. Support for families is most effective when it follows the principles of subsidiarity, trusting parents to wisely use the funds they receive for their children, the Washington examiner editorial board argued. A baby bonus won't solve our fertility crisis. Marriage will. Data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention this week show that despite a 1% increase in the birth rate, people are still not having enough babies to prevent the US Population from declining. President Donald Trump acknowledged the problem Tuesday, saying he wants to reverse the trend. In a welcome change from the last administration, the board wrot the New York Times suggests the falling birth rate is a good thing, as it is being driven by a decline in teen pregnancies. This is simply false. Teenage pregnancy rates are falling, which is a good thing. But even at their height in the 1970s, they accounted for just 6% of all births. The decline in overall birth rates is actually being driven by women between the ages of 18 and 33, and it is not due to women wanting smaller families. According to Gallup, more people want big families today than in 1971, and women are more likely to want three or more children than men. What is really causing the birth rate to collapse is the decline in marriage, the board said. As recently as 2007, when women were having enough babies to sustain our population, 55% of women between the ages of 20 and 44 were married. Today, just 45% are, and the fall has been the steepest for women under 30. If Trump, like Vice President J.D. vance, wants more babies born in the U.S. his administration should focus on helping young men and women get and stay married. In the Spectator, Christina Marquette wrote about how Trump could reverse America's baby bust. Across the world, countries are trialing increasingly creative and dynamic policies to try to reverse the fertility decline. In Hungary, where Prime Minister Viktor Orban's self proclaimed mission is procreation, not immigration, mothers with two or more children are now exempt from income tax for life, yet none of them have shown any signs of real success, marquette said. The reason these initiatives fail is that low birth rates are an existential problem, not an economic one. Government interventions do not work because they do not compensate for the opportunity cost of having children. Modern life frames parenthood in terms of what you give up rather than what you gain, not only in terms of your career but in every aspect of your lifestyle. We have removed the extended family and community networks that make parenting more manageable, and no subsidy can compensate for these huge social and cultural changes. If Trump wants to boost the birth rate, then he needs to make parenting joyful again. Doom mongering about economic downturns and impending social collapse is unlikely to inspire anyone to have more children, a decision that normally signals confidence in the future, merket wrote. Yet joy is a hard thing for a policy to promise. How can the state deal with intangible incentives like purpose, belonging or love? Parenting is about finding meaning, and this is something that money can't buy. All right, that is it for what the right is saying. Which brings us to what the left is saying. The left argues other Trump administration policies undercut its desire to boost the fertility rate. Some say the government should prioritize helping women navigate the complexities of having children over financial incentives. Others argue the pronatalist movement is driven by ulterior motives. In Bloomberg, Mary Ellen Kloss wrote, a baby boom in this economy. The pronatalist push started at the Department of Transportation, where Secretary Sean Duffy, the father of nine kids, issued a memo in February dictating that communities with marriage and birth rates higher than the national average be given preference in transportation funding. President Donald Trump has proclaimed that he wants to be the fertilization. President Elon Musk, the father of an estimated 14 children and head of Trump's quasi government Department of Government Efficiency, has said civilization is going to crumble unless we raise the birth rate, klaus said. But they're trying to usher in a Trump baby boom. At the same time, Musk and Doge are slashing federal programs that help women have more kids. Doge has slashed funding for the Maternal and Child Health Bureau in the Department of Health and human services, the NIH's National Institute for Child Health and Human Development, and the center for Disease Control's Division of Reproductive Health, Kloss wrote. Of course, the choice to create a new life isn't only a financial calculation, it's also a profound act of hope. You'd think that the Trump administration would want to focus on increasing, not cutting funding to maternal and child health, repairing its self inflicted economic wounds and lowering the cost of living for working families before asking young people to forget all their troubles and bring children into the world. In the Sacramento Beat, Robin Epley argued, if Trump wants more American babies, then he needs to help more mothers. Enticing young Americans into parenthood would first require instituting federally mandated paid parental leave. It is a policy failure for the likes of which the US Is alone among many industrialized nations and an embarrassment we share with only six other countries, epley said. According to the National Partnership for Women and Families, parents paid paternal leave improves maternal and infant health, including their physical health and well being. Women who receive paid leave have a lower chance of reporting intimate partner violence, and an increase in paid parental leave decreases rates of infant mortality. Second, America needs to give parents, and especially mothers, the chance to continue their careers by making childcare more affordable. And last but not least, America needs to make pregnancy and birth safer, epley wrote. If the Trump administration truly wanted to make motherhood a compelling prospect, it would be far harder than doling out a national award for prolific mothers or giving women a class on menstrual cycles. Despite all their blustering efforts and policies reminiscent only of dystopian novels, America's birth rate will stay stagnant as long as American parenthood remains a prohibitive cost. In the Washington Post, Philip Bump suggested the pronatalism movement often contains more than a hint of great replacement theory rhetoric. I am an advocate of having children. I understand that parenting isn't easy and that I am advantaged in doing so by having a partner and a steady income. What I do not understand, though, is the prevalent idea that having children is an essential element of reconstructing some idealized version of America, that having a clutch of kids is how we make America great again in all the ways that phrase manifests bumps. Said women are not dependent on men in the ways they were a century ago, a shift away from a traditional ideal that can be grating to conservatives. But the underlying politics has another dimension. That fewer Americans are having babies means the nation is more reliant on immigration to backstop population trends. Many of pronatalism's proponents object as much or more to who is having babies in America than to the fact that Americans are having fewer babies. For every 1,000 white women in 2024, there were 51.7 babies. For every 1,000 Hispanic women, there were 66.1 births. There does not appear to be a robust effort from pronatalists to learn how Hispanic U.S. residents are succeeding where white residents are failing. Because the idea that Americans are being replaced is centered on the idea that it is non white babies who are serving as the replacement. All right, let's head over to Isaac for his take.
- [21:05]
Isaac Stahl
All right, that is it for what the left and the right are saying. Which brings us to my take. So if we covered this story four months ago, before I had my first child, I think my opinion would have been pretty different than it is now. Generally speaking, I've been supportive of policies like the bipartisan child tax credit, the baby bonus the Trump administration is considering, and the idea that easing the affordability issues of parenting are the best ways to encourage births. And I'll say up front that like J.D. vance and Elon Musk and many others across the political spectrum, I do think the declining fertility rate is a huge issue that we would be wise to try to reverse. But now that I've become a parent myself, that I've spoken to other parents and read some of the studies of programs designed to address these issues, I'm just way less convinced that they will actually help move the needle. That's related to the fertility rate question. It's not a reason not to do them. It's just to say that they might not be helpful in this specific pursuit. So let me explain why. First, my own experience. My wife Phoebe and I are fortunate enough that we did not have debilitating financial burdens by just having a child. Our son's a little over three months old, so most of our cost burden was his actual birth. The hospital billed us $40,000, almost all of which was covered by insurance. The rest has been clothes, the little necessities like a car Seat or stroller or bassinet. And of course the toys that dominate the day, the books or the playpen or whatever else. Some items like a new stroller or a car seat, they can cost as much as a used car. But for the most part, these items are easy to find, use or cheap. At least pre tariffs. They're gifted to you and they still won't add up to more than maybe $5,000 even for the top of the line options across the board. The real costs for us, they're still coming. They'll start in September, when Phoebe and I are both going to be working and our son will need daily child care. Putting him in a daycare alone, walking distance from us in Philadelphia will add a staggering $35,000 a year in childcare costs. Soon he'll start to outgrow all the stuff we were gifted or started with. Then he'll start eating solid food and eventually we'll need to find a new place to live with more space. All of that stuff will increase our costs over time. Up to this point though, the biggest stress of having him has not been a monetary cost, but the time cost. It's about having limited access to childcare. Now in our case, our parents don't live in the house with us or around the corner. In some cases even within driving distance. We moved from New York to Philadelphia so Phoebe could attend law school. So we also don't have our village. The friends that are closest with us that made in our 20s, they don't live here. We are like so many potential and new young parents, victims of modern life, living in an urban area, starting our own nuclear family unit. I don't know any policy prescription that can solve that problem. Which kind of brings me to the three challenges that I hear most often from other parents. It's finding affordable childcare, finding affordable housing, and losing time for your career and social life. Again, I don't think there is much of a policy prescription that can change how someone feels about having less time to see their friends or traveling or pursuing career goals. A baby bonus or a child tax credit can maybe put a meaningful dent in finding affordable childcare. But a few thousand dollars is small potatoes on the kinds of bills that I'm staring down. And I don't think a one time payout would affect many people's decisions to have a child. To me, by far the most impact the government can have on encouraging more births would be implementing abundance like policies aimed at making housing more affordable. Now finally for the data, like a lot of new parents before we had our first kid, I started reading economist and parenthood writer Emily Oster, the author of several popular books on parenting. Just this week. In her newsletter Parent Data, she examined the effectiveness of paying people to have babies as a way of increasing the fertility rate. Asser's conclusion was equal parts jarring and convincing. I want to give a reality check about how much these policies might matter, she said before sharing a chart on fertility rates. In the chart, she compares the United States, Sweden, Norway, and Canada and their fertility rates from 2000 to 2022. What it shows across the board is that despite the variation in family support, fertility rates have consistently declined across all four of these countries. In fact, she says, in 2022 the US had the highest fertility rate. Despite Norway and Sweden being countries with clearly excellent family supports, the US now famously is not, and Canada is somewhere in the middle. Since randomized experiments don't exist for this question, Oster looked at how many people change their behavior when policy changes. She examined several studies on social programs from countries like Russia, Canada, South Korea, and Israel and concluded that, quote, if we are looking for a policy answer to why global fertility rates have declined, these are not it. End quote. She does say the policies that provide childcare or paid maternity leave or fertility access can increase fertility rates, but often temporarily and marginally. More than anything, she says, they are just good for infant health, parents earnings, and gender equality, which are reasons to still pursue them. The jarring reality is that there isn't a country on Earth whose policies have solved this problem in a sustained way. And that's to say nothing of how the specifically American issues of obesity and poor diets and environmental chemicals and access to birth control could be impacting fertility rates. My estimation is that these forces are less important than the social and economic forces, but they are there nonetheless, and at the margins, they're likely to constrain the success of policy initiatives like this one. Ultimately, I found Aser's data and her analysis convincing, and it conveniently aligns with my personal experience. I think there are plenty of good reasons to pursue policies like a baby bonus, but I don't think encouraging more births is one of them. The decreasing fertility rate seems so much deeper than just a financial question. It is, in my view, primarily a social and cultural issue. Young Americans live different lives than they did 50 years ago, with different goals, different dreams, and different pursuits. Both parents are often focused on their careers, which diasporizes their family and friend village. And on top of that, young Americans have growing numbers of peers who don't want kids so they can be free to travel, socialize and pursue their careers without limitations. It's those pressures, to me, more than just the financial ones, that need to change if we're going to see fertility rates turn around. We'll be right back after this quick break.
- [27:54]
Dr. Patrick McGrath
What if I told you that right now millions of people are living with a debilitating condition that's so misunderstood, many of them don't even know that they have it. That condition is Obsessive compulsive disorder, or OCD. I'm Dr. Patrick McGrath, the chief clinical officer of NOCD, and in the 25 years I've been treating OCD, I've met so many people who are suffering from the condition in silence, unaware of just what it was. OCD can create overwhelming anxiety and fear around what you value most, make you question your identity, beliefs and morals, and drive you to perform mentally and physically draining compulsions or rituals. Over my career, I've seen just how devastating OCD can be when it's left untreated. But help is available. That's where NOCD comes in. NOCD is the world's largest virtual therapy provider for obsessive compulsive disorder. Our licensed therapists are trained in exposure and Response prevention therapy, a specialized treatment proven to be incredibly effective for OCD. So visit nocd.com to schedule a free 15 minute call with our team. That's nocd.com thumbtack presents the INS and.
- [28:57]
Maybelline Advertiser
Outs of caring for your home. Out uncertainty self doubt stressing about not knowing where to start in plans and guides that make it easy to get home projects done. Out word art Sorry. Live laugh lovers in knowing what to do, when to do it and who to hire. Start caring for your home with confidence. Download thumbtack today.
- [29:29]
Isaac Stahl
All right, that is it for my take. Which brings us to your questions answered. This one is from Matt in San Antonio, Texas. Matt said I was excited about Isaac's my take in the Harvard versus Trump funding question because I knew he'd first explain why in the hell Harvard gets billions of dol taxpayers in the first place. I don't understand federal endowments to Ivy League schools at all. Harvard is rich, isn't it? Why not send billions to community colleges who need it? So the key term here is endowments. Harvard actually has its own endowment, funded by private donations and managed by private investment managers in excess of $53 billion. It's that money, along with tuition that is primarily what the university uses to fund faculty salaries, academic programs, financial aid and new buildings on on campus. And though Harvard's endowment is the largest of any school in the world, it's no outlier either. The money Harvard gets from the federal government, on the other hand, is tied to individual research programs and contracts. We didn't really explain how this process works in our initial piece on the funding fight, but the university itself, its buildings, its faculty, its administration isn't subsidized by this money. Rather, postgraduate researchers and faculty at universities submit applications for grants to the federal government to fund their research initiatives. These grant proposals are then reviewed by professionals at the National Institutes of Health, nih, National Science foundation, nsf, and sometimes the Departments of Education or Defense. These programs are all overseen by the federal government, which in the past has loosely guided policy for how it approves grants. The Trump administration, in tying grant approvals to other policies at researchers institutions, is taking a different approach. This grant money funds scholarship at these schools, that is the equipment and personnel that makes universities uniquely positioned to carry out specific research. Although it might seem somewhat absurd that rich institutions like Harvard have to appeal to the government for money, government grants and private endowments are actually different things for different purposes. All right, that is it for your questions answered today. I'm going to send it back to John for the rest of the pod and I'll see you guys tomorrow. Peace.
- [31:39]
eBay Advertiser
Thanks, Isaac. Here's your under the radar story for today, folks. On his 100th day in office, President Trump has yet to nominate any federal judges. At this point in his first term, Trump's first Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, had already been confirmed, and his first federal judge nomination was moving ahead for confirmation in May. Similarly, President Biden sent his first batch of judicial nominees to the Senate in his first 100 days, and seven were confirmed by June 2021. Judiciary Committee rules mandate that the committee must wait 28 days after receiving a nomination before moving forward, so Trump's first nominees will not be voted on until June at the earliest. Axios has this story and there's a link in today's episode Description alright, next up is our numbers section. The estimated annual cost, minus tax exemptions or credits of having a child in the United States is $29,419. According to a 2025 study by LendingTree, the estimated annual cost, minus tax exemptions or credits of raising a child over 18 years in the US is 297,674. The fertility rate in the US in 1957 was 3.8, the highest yearly fertility rate since 1940, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The fertility rate in the U.S. in 2024 is 1.6. The percent decrease in the number of births per U.S. woman in the 15 to 19 age range between 2000 and 2024 is 73.4%. The% decrease in the number of births per US woman in the 2024 age range between 2000 and 2024 is 48.3%. The percentage increase in the number of births per US Woman in the 30 to 34 age range between 2000 and 2024 is 4.6%. The percentage of Americans who think the ideal number of children for a family to have is 2 and 3, respectively is 44% and 29%, according to a June July 2023 Gallup poll. And the percentage of Americans who think the ideal number of children for a family to have is 0 is 2%. And last but not least, our have a nice day story Dr. Z is beloved in his Baltimore neighborhood, where he's known for seeing patients regardless of whether they can pay for medical care. When he was diagnosed with cancer a few months ago and couldn't afford to pay for treatment, his patients rallied together. Whatever needs to be done to save Dr. Z, we're going to do it collectively, one of his patients said. And they did, sourcing nearly 1,000 donations and raising $100,000. I'm the happiest man on the planet no matter what the outcome, Dr. Z said. CBS has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. Alright everybody, that is it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, Please go to retangle.com where you can sign up for a newsletter membership, podcast membership or a bundled membership membership that gets you a discount on both. We'll be right back here tomorrow. For Isaac and the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing off. Have a great day, y'all. Peace.
- [35:01]
Isaac Stahl
Our Executive Editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our Executive producer is John Lowell. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman with Senior Editor Will Kbach and Associate Editors Hunter Castle, Jasperson, Audrey Moorhead, Bailey, Saul, Lindsay Knuth and Kendall White. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. To learn more about Tango and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website@readtangle.com.
- [35:40]
eBay Advertiser
This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies. Try it@progressive.com Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states.
- [35:59]
Maybelline Advertiser
This Mother's Day show the moms in your life just how much they mean to you with a stunning bouquet from 1-800-flowers.com for almost 50 years, 1-800-flowers has set the standard for high quality bouquets. Right now, order early from 1-800-flowers and save up to 40% on gorgeous bouquets and one of a kind arrangements guaranteed to make her day. Save up to 40% today at 1800-flowers.com acast that's 1-800-flowers.com acasth, the official florist of Mother's Day. Motherhood is a journey filled with big milestones but also countless little moments that truly matter. That's why Little Belly's is making snack time easier with our wholesome and delicious snacks. Perfect for every age and stage from 6 to 12 plus months so you can focus on enjoying these precious motherhood moments. Check out our full range of organic snacks@littlebellies.com little bellies do what's natural.