3 ms·

Relationship between furtility rates and condition of women is very well documented and something I studied in advanced Econ classes in university. Google would

Relationship between furtility rates and condition of women is very well documented and something I studied in advanced Econ classes in university. Google would be a good source for that. Here's one example of a paper on the subject: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/padr.12037/full#padr12037-tbl3-note-0001 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/padr.12037/full#p... "Immigrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh in the UK and immigrants from Turkey in France, Belgium, and Germany have significantly higher first birth rates than most other population subgroups, which is expected given that they arrived in Europe from high-fertility societies." Note that there is a decaying towards the national average with each successive generation. Please show statistics that demonstrate that the ultra wealthy do not have more children than the national average.

AstralStorm 9y ago
This is dodging the issue. There must be another reason than "not immigrant". The direct inverse correlation is with income per capita (PPP and adjusted for social services) and nothing else. Not education levels, GINI, freedom of women. Even in countries where contraceptives are rarely used and women have limited rights, such as Saudi Arabia. Try stats from, say, gapminder. The biological theories suggest birth rate selection based on living conditions.
eesmith 9y ago
I agree with AstralStorm's response, so take the follow-up discussion there. You asked: "Please show statistics that demonstrate that the ultra wealthy do not have more children than the national average." First, my argument is that people will decide to not have children even if there are no financial costs limiting them from having more children. This suggests that the cultural costs to have children may be quite high, and therefore it is not always rational to have more children, even for people who might receive money for having children. To use the same source as before, the Daily Mail, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2759353/Are-YOU-just-like-typical-billionaire.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2759353/Are-YOU-just... : > The average billionaire is male, 63 years old and married with two kids https://www.statista.com/statistics/299077/billionaires-children/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/299077/billionaires-chil... breaks it down further with the table "Average number of children of billionaires around the world in 2013": 16% of billionaires have no children, 22% have 1 child, 27% have 2 children, 20% have 3, 9% have 4, and 6% have 5 or more. Assuming the last category is only 5 children, this places a lower bound of 1.8 children per billionaire, so two kids is reasonable. "The national average" requires picking a nation. I'll choose the US, because billionaires prefer New York over other cities. This analysis is faulty as Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is a billionaire with over 35 children, and Sulaiman Abdul Aziz Al Rajhi has at least 25 children. Neither are from one of the women's rights culture that I mentioned earlier, so the relevant fertility rate is slightly lower. "The national average" also requires a time, as the fertility rate has changed over time. Those 63+ year olds did not all have children now, so it's invalid to compare the "2 children" to the current rate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate says that in 1999 the fertility rate in the US was 2 children per woman. A more complete analysis would need also to look at when the children were born. Still, I believe this is enough to show that hyperrich Westerners - those whose wealth places effectively no limit on the number of children they have - are not appreciably more fertile than other Westerners.

AstralStorm 9y ago

This is dodging the issue. There must be another reason than "not immigrant". The direct inverse correlation is with income per capita (PPP and adjusted for social services) and nothing else. Not education levels, GINI, freedom of women. Even in countries where contraceptives are rarely used and women have limited rights, such as Saudi Arabia. Try stats from, say, gapminder. The biological theories suggest birth rate selection based on living conditions.

eesmith 9y ago

I agree with AstralStorm's response, so take the follow-up discussion there. You asked: "Please show statistics that demonstrate that the ultra wealthy do not have more children than the national average." First, my argument is that people will decide to not have children even if there are no financial costs limiting them from having more children. This suggests that the cultural costs to have children may be quite high, and therefore it is not always rational to have more children, even for people who might receive money for having children. To use the same source as before, the Daily Mail, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2759353/Are-YOU-just-like-typical-billionaire.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2759353/Are-YOU-just... : > The average billionaire is male, 63 years old and married with two kids https://www.statista.com/statistics/299077/billionaires-children/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/299077/billionaires-chil... breaks it down further with the table "Average number of children of billionaires around the world in 2013": 16% of billionaires have no children, 22% have 1 child, 27% have 2 children, 20% have 3, 9% have 4, and 6% have 5 or more. Assuming the last category is only 5 children, this places a lower bound of 1.8 children per billionaire, so two kids is reasonable. "The national average" requires picking a nation. I'll choose the US, because billionaires prefer New York over other cities. This analysis is faulty as Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is a billionaire with over 35 children, and Sulaiman Abdul Aziz Al Rajhi has at least 25 children. Neither are from one of the women's rights culture that I mentioned earlier, so the relevant fertility rate is slightly lower. "The national average" also requires a time, as the fertility rate has changed over time. Those 63+ year olds did not all have children now, so it's invalid to compare the "2 children" to the current rate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate says that in 1999 the fertility rate in the US was 2 children per woman. A more complete analysis would need also to look at when the children were born. Still, I believe this is enough to show that hyperrich Westerners - those whose wealth places effectively no limit on the number of children they have - are not appreciably more fertile than other Westerners.