The dimensional analysis justification for squaring the TFR is a total non-sequitur (TFR is unitless, so you cannot compensate for any dimensional issue this wa

The dimensional analysis justification for squaring the TFR is a total non-sequitur (TFR is unitless, so you cannot compensate for any dimensional issue this way). [1] Instead, let's look at the Pareto front [2]: Liechtenstein - GNI: 116,600, TFR: 1.3 Norway - GNI: 102,460, TFR: 1.6 Ireland - GNI: 80,390, TFR: 1.7 Iceland - GNI: 79,840, TFR: 1.7 Denmark - GNI: 73,360, TFR: 1.7 Qatar - GNI: 70,070, TFR: 1.9 Israel - GNI: 55,020, TFR: 2.9 Nigeria - GNI: 4,570, TFR: 4.6 Niger - GNI: 590, TFR: 6.1 Do you think countries on the top end or the bottom end of this front are better? If your answer is top, then you probably should not take a metric that weights up entries in the bottom half too seriously. And vice versa. [1] Whereas the author's other justification, the compounding effect, is not sensible under the author's own assumptions: "how much GNI would you trade for an additional child per woman" should not depend on the current TFR like this if the author generically values every person coming into existence as he claims. To take into account a compounding effect, one would have to do a much more complicated analysis, and place the compounding factor on total population enabling economic specialization, the sustainability of high GNI, and the actual economic complexity of each nation, certainly not on TFR. Not that I'm going to take the author's justification seriously unless their next post advocates for buying excess children from Niger, so that they can further increase the complexity of a more prosperous economy. [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_front https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_front