It seems President Trump has been paying closer attention to Australia than some of us might have given him credit for. He told reporters on Wednesday that his Administration is looking at the Australian-style superannuation system to fund retirement as a way of lifting the nation's rapidly declining birth rate.

Implementing superannuation schemes in America would be a right-sight better than whatever hodgepodge they've got over there now (as I'll get into). But using super schemes to increase the birth rate? I'm not sure the numbers stack up here for the Donald.

He said what?

The President made the rather off-the-cuff comments in praise of super at an event where billionaire Michael Dell and his wife announced a $US6.5 billion endowment to benefit American kids under the so-called "Trump Accounts" scheme. It's worth pointing out that the donation by the Dell's to America's youth represents the second largest in American history behind that of Warren Buffett to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.

Trump Accounts is just one lever the President has pulled to help expand the birth rate in the US. One idea he previously landed on after just retaking office was giving American women who had eight or more children a literal medal for doing so.

Reporters from the press pool asked what else the Administration would be working on to lift fertility rates, and he talked specifically in favour on Australia's  Superannuation scheme.

"We are looking at programs. There’s a certain Australian plan that people are liking and they’re talking about … not for children, necessarily, but it’s for people, working people," adding "we're looking at it very seriously, it has worked out very well.

"It's a good plan," he concluded.

It's no secret the US retirement system is a mess compared to something like superannuation. So how would it work if Trump wanted to switch it up for a more green and gold-style approach to retirement? And what does money when you're old have to do with having kids?

Could superannuation supercharge the US birth rate?

We've currently got more people alive on earth than ever, right now. By 2026 the global population is estimated to be around 8.3 billion folks getting about. Almost 350 million of those live in the USA. 

But despite the big numbers, it's the little ones that has Trump and his Administration concerned. The US fertility rate is now at around 1.63 children per woman as of 2023, and slid to 1.60 in 2024 according to US health data. That's the lowest it has ever been, and it's below the bar for what's known as the 'replacement' birth rate. 

The replacement birth rate refers to the number of kids needed per woman to literally "replace" the generation that came before them while still growing the population. In most developed countries, that number is at 2.1. It's worth noting, however, that the World Bank puts the replacement rate at 2.3 and the UN puts it at 2.24.

But what does all this have to do with retirement accounts and super?

401(K)s versus superannuation: how does the US differ from Australia?

I'm no economist, but from my spot up here in the cheap seats, the system for funding retirement in the US looks like a right mess. 

Talking about super in an American context means talking about two very different creatures. A 401(k) is essentially a voluntary savings account with tax perks. Australian super is a compulsory, whole-of-workforce retirement architecture. They might both be “retirement accounts” on paper, but they behave very differently in the real world.

In the US, a 401(k) only exists for you if your employer offers one, and if you personally choose to participate. That sounds like you're speaking a foreign language to Australians, some of whom have had super since the 1980s. Contributions to a US 401(k) account come from your pay, and sometimes your employer matches a portion. 

As a result, not everyone has super to fall back on in America. Big companies tend to offer a generous 401(k) and a matching contribution as a perk to attract new talent. But small- to medium-sized businesses often don't match contributions or offer 401(k) accounts at all.

Those who do have a 401(K) are then asked to figure out how they want the funds invested. As opposed to the Australian system where many folks simply let a big bank or funds manager sort it out for them.

That's why Trump's praise for Aussie super is kind of weird. He's a lover of the free-market, hater of so-called 'big government, a worshipper at the altar of Wall Street and campaigned on increasing the take-home pay of his constituents. Implementing an Australian-style super guarantee would see less money in the pay checks of ordinary Americans overall.

But weirdness aside, adding financial stability for your post-retirement years - Trump would argue - likely leads to reduced long-term financial anxiety and increases funds available overall at a household level to start or grow a family.

But is it that simple? Looking at our data, I'm not so sure.

Has Australia's super scheme boosted the birth rate?

Former Treasurer Peter Costello once famously and horrendously said on TV back in the 90's that Australian mothers should have "one for mum, one for dad, and one for the country". This was back when he announced the baby bonus back in 2004 hat was designed to similarly lift the local birth rate. 

I can't say that particular turn of phrase - nor its user - influenced anyone to hop into the baby-making process, but stats back me up here.

The ABS says Australia has been below the 2.1 replacement rate since about 1976, and it continues to precipitously fall, regardless of what the government does to increase mandatory super contributions from employers.

The Howard Liberal government upped the super contribution to 9% in 2003, while the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government successfully proposed a staged rise of 0.5% per year up to 12% starting from 2015. Tony Abbott's government delayed the scheme, but eventually we ended up in 2025 with a super guarantee of 12%.

In the background of all this argy-bargy over super, however, the local birth rate continued to decline. And decline, and decline.

Source: ABS

When Keating kicked off the mandatory super guarantee in 1992, the total fertility rate was 1.89. But that had slumped to 1.76 by the time Howard and Costello gave super a boost in 2003. Admittedly, the rate then climbed until 2007 (1.99) when the global financial crisis hit home. Rates in 2025 - despite a 12% super guarantee - now sit at 1.48. Yep: we're lower than the US which by its President's own admission, is experiencing something of a birthing crisis.

It's no surprise that just tweaking someone's retirement guarantee doesn't immediately have them looking at schools and shopping for prams. Demographers note that things like housing affordability, cost of living, childcare costs and parental leave all contribute far more to the fertility rate than superannuation guarantees do.

But nobody suggested this is a silver bullet, after all. There are many levers on which government can pull, and this is just one such lever. Reducing long-term financial anxiety can go a long way towards benefiting an economy in the short- to medium-term as well as in the long term.

And whether it helps the birth rate or not, it'd likely see many senior Americans (mostly women, I might add) not having to work until they drop dead on the job, or worse, turfed out onto the streets into poverty.

Have at it, Donald.