Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    02 Aug '08 16:58
    I have a hypothesis that a nation's increase in per capita income is inversely proportional (or otherwise inversely related) to it's fertility. That is, nations with low fertility will tend to rise in PCI, while high fertility nations will not.

    What do you think? Anyone have evidence for or against my hypothesis?
  2. 02 Aug '08 17:24
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    I have a hypothesis that a nation's increase in per capita income is inversely proportional (or otherwise inversely related) to it's fertility. That is, nations with low fertility will tend to rise in PCI, while high fertility nations will not.

    What do you think? Anyone have evidence for or against my hypothesis?
    This is a matter of "the hen or the egg".

    Is it (a) low fertility tend to rise in PCI, or (b) rise in PCI tend to lower need of fertility?
  3. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    02 Aug '08 17:27
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    This is a matter of "the hen or the egg".

    Is it (a) low fertility tend to rise in PCI, or (b) rise in PCI tend to lower need of fertility?
    I'm arguing (a). I think (b) has already been demonstrated.
  4. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    04 Aug '08 09:53
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    I have a hypothesis that a nation's increase in per capita income is inversely proportional (or otherwise inversely related) to it's fertility. That is, nations with low fertility will tend to rise in PCI, while high fertility nations will not.

    What do you think? Anyone have evidence for or against my hypothesis?
    I think it will be proven the high fertility nations just like to screw.
  5. 04 Aug '08 14:29
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I think it will be proven the high fertility nations just like to screw.
    Or they cannot afford the rubber.
  6. Standard member Wheely
    Instant Buzz
    04 Aug '08 19:14
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    I have a hypothesis that a nation's increase in per capita income is inversely proportional (or otherwise inversely related) to it's fertility. That is, nations with low fertility will tend to rise in PCI, while high fertility nations will not.

    What do you think? Anyone have evidence for or against my hypothesis?
    You are correct. However, I believe you have the cause mixed up with the effect.
  7. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    04 Aug '08 19:32 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Wheely
    You are correct. However, I believe you have the cause mixed up with the effect.
    If I have the cause and effect mixed up I am not correct. Notice my second post. Which is it? Am I correct or not?
  8. 05 Aug '08 11:27
    In my experience, poor people do not plan very far ahead. They spend much of their effort trying to make ends meet in the here and now. This means that they often do not plan for children but simply have them without planning. Also, since they are poor and do not plan to spend a lot on their children, they do not see their children as a major cost (and in some cases they are correct). When I was growing up, children in Zambia were seen as an investment in the future, not a potential expense. As people get wealthier that culture is changing and people are having less children.
    There are many more factors involved of course.

    A similar situation exists when it comes to the spread of HIV. If you don't know where your next meal is coming from then you do not worry about getting sick next year.

    When I moved to South Africa, from Zambia, I was amazed at how the people I met here plan much farther ahead. In Zambia, a typical poor person does not buy nappies or even think about them till after the baby is born (no I am not joking, that is a fact). In South Africa, a typical middle-class to wealthy person plans their childrens schooling before the baby is even born and sometimes before it is even conceived.
  9. 05 Aug '08 12:47
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    I have a hypothesis that a nation's increase in per capita income is inversely proportional (or otherwise inversely related) to it's fertility. That is, nations with low fertility will tend to rise in PCI, while high fertility nations will not.

    What do you think? Anyone have evidence for or against my hypothesis?
    Here's something to consider:

    A nation of two couples with each couple having an income of $100 would have a per capita income of $50. If each couple had the same income and 3 children, the per capita income would be $20.
  10. Standard member Wheely
    Instant Buzz
    05 Aug '08 13:09
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    If I have the cause and effect mixed up I am not correct. Notice my second post. Which is it? Am I correct or not?
    No, you are correct because your first post only links the two things together. It doesn't specify them as a cause and effect. I admit that your text is worded to be biased towards the high fertility being a cause of low per capita income but doesn't actually state it.

    That aside, there is a correlation between fertility rate and pre capita income and in most, but not all cases, cultures grow and get richer by increasing population. At a certain level, this is replaced by a process where per capita income is a driving force for fertility rates.
  11. 05 Aug '08 15:45
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    I have a hypothesis that a nation's increase in per capita income is inversely proportional (or otherwise inversely related) to it's fertility. That is, nations with low fertility will tend to rise in PCI, while high fertility nations will not.

    What do you think? Anyone have evidence for or against my hypothesis?
    That makes sense to me, because as economic activity decreases you have to wile away the hours doing something.
  12. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    05 Aug '08 16:27
    Originally posted by Wheely
    No, you are correct because your first post only links the two things together. It doesn't specify them as a cause and effect. I admit that your text is worded to be biased towards the high fertility being a cause of low per capita income but doesn't actually state it.

    That aside, there is a correlation between fertility rate and pre capita income and in ...[text shortened]... this is replaced by a process where per capita income is a driving force for fertility rates.
    Ok, sorry, I was not clear. I am arguing that fertility causes poverty. I also assert that the opposite is well known and accepted as well, but I am arguing that fertility is also a cause.
  13. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    05 Aug '08 16:29
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    Here's something to consider:

    A nation of two couples with each couple having an income of $100 would have a per capita income of $50. If each couple had the same income and 3 children, the per capita income would be $20.
    That's true. That's a short term factor. I think that it's more than that; those couples would make more money in the long run without kids because they'd be investing their money profitably instead of making mouths to feed and then making them grow bigger and bigger. By the time the child is capable of work, he's typically uneducated and not valuable as an employee because his parents did not invest in him as much as they could have if they'd waited longer and had less kids. Children end up being a net financial loss.
  14. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    05 Aug '08 16:30
    Originally posted by Wheely
    No, you are correct because your first post only links the two things together. It doesn't specify them as a cause and effect. I admit that your text is worded to be biased towards the high fertility being a cause of low per capita income but doesn't actually state it.

    That aside, there is a correlation between fertility rate and pre capita income and in ...[text shortened]... this is replaced by a process where per capita income is a driving force for fertility rates.
    in most, but not all cases, cultures grow and get richer by increasing population

    You seem to be arguing exactly the opposite - that fertility causes economic growth. Is that true?
  15. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    05 Aug '08 16:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
    That makes sense to me, because as economic activity decreases you have to wile away the hours doing something.
    No no no. That would be poverty causing fertility. I'm arguing fertility causes poverty.

    Poor people often keep themselves poor by breeding instead of investing in themselves.