European Tribune

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...

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
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
Recommended Diaries
The Purpose of Education
by rdf - Nov 20
27 comments

In Defense of the Electoral College
by danps - Nov 22
13 comments

LQD: NATO as 'convenient threat' for Russia
by marco - Nov 21
32 comments

Computational simulations in science
by tiagoantao - Nov 20
20 comments

jitter noise rumble
by emilmoller - Nov 19
18 comments

LQD: The real orgasmic Puritans
by Ted Welch - Nov 20
36 comments

The Puritan Edge
by rg - Nov 20
122 comments

Early Friday Photography Blog No. 62
by LEP - Nov 20
58 comments

Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series