Display:
Why do you start with a fertility rate (since what you are calling birth rate is actually half of fertility rate, i.e. number of children per woman, whereas birth rate is computed compared to population) of 3.0 ? That's more than brisk...

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Thu Jun 26th, 2008 at 11:18:15 AM EST
Well, since I do such a rough approximation, I though I'd start at a large rate and move to a slower one over a fixed number of years (linearly decreasing) and then hold steady. Just to get some rough ideas of how numbers play out. Going further, doing a possibly longer, smoother decline, computing birth rates with a weighted averaging over all age groups, counting productive vs. unproductive aged and youth in a weighted manner by age rather than by sharp cutoffs, etc. etc. could all be done. However, I wanted to slap something together in an afternoon, without consulting too many statistical sources that would take a lot of time. I though a strong initial rate with a rather fast decline was a good way to show the idea that maybe this kind of demographic development is not as detrimental as often assumed.
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Thu Jun 26th, 2008 at 11:25:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series