3 ms·

> If it would be just question of money, rich folks would be all having 10-15 kids Well, Musk certainly does... the thing is, for the really rich, more kids m

> If it would be just question of money, rich folks would be all having 10-15 kids Well, Musk certainly does... the thing is, for the really rich, more kids means more complex inheritance schemes and the risk of their wealth going down the drain in inheritance fights. Here in Germany for example, there was a ridiculous multi year fight in the empire of the Albrecht clan (the ones behind Aldi, I think in the US it's Trader Joe's?).

lotsofpulp 2y ago
The number of kids a man has is irrelevant for population statistics because it simply offsets another man’s child. That’s why total fertility rate only takes into account how many children a woman has, since they are the rate limiting factor.
- LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
  Depends on your point of view, and which statistics, I guess? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Jacob_Meijer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Jacob_Meijer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habsburg_family_tree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habsburg_family_tree https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/distinctive-habsburg-jaw-was-likely-result-royal-familys-inbreeding-180973688/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/distinctive-habsbu...
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    I don’t see how this math could depend on a point of view. You can have 100 men and 1 woman, and predicting future population will have nothing to do with how many men there are (as long as there is at least 1 fertile man). But if you have even just 1 man, having 10 women versus 100 women makes an enormous difference in potential future population.
    - LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
      But those asymmetries are artificial, made up.
      - lotsofpulp 2y ago
        The only other way I can explain this is that to project population, all you need to know is the the number of women now and the rate at which women are giving birth (assuming births are 50/50 male/female). At least, those are the more direct parameters to use than the number of men or the rate at which men impregnate women.
michaelcampbell 2y ago
There are Aldi's in the US also.

lotsofpulp 2y ago

The number of kids a man has is irrelevant for population statistics because it simply offsets another man’s child. That’s why total fertility rate only takes into account how many children a woman has, since they are the rate limiting factor.

LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
Depends on your point of view, and which statistics, I guess? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Jacob_Meijer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Jacob_Meijer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habsburg_family_tree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habsburg_family_tree https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/distinctive-habsburg-jaw-was-likely-result-royal-familys-inbreeding-180973688/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/distinctive-habsbu...
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  I don’t see how this math could depend on a point of view. You can have 100 men and 1 woman, and predicting future population will have nothing to do with how many men there are (as long as there is at least 1 fertile man). But if you have even just 1 man, having 10 women versus 100 women makes an enormous difference in potential future population.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
    But those asymmetries are artificial, made up.
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      The only other way I can explain this is that to project population, all you need to know is the the number of women now and the rate at which women are giving birth (assuming births are 50/50 male/female). At least, those are the more direct parameters to use than the number of men or the rate at which men impregnate women.

michaelcampbell 2y ago

There are Aldi's in the US also.