Not so fast ... - Debunkers

.

For your daily dose of debunking, from Steve Milloy,
visit the Junk Science Home Page.

What is Junk Science?

Special rules for this forum.

Debunkers

Math, Statistics and the Scientific Method

Not so fast ...

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: Not so fast ...
Sprengtporten Member	posted 03-20-2006 05:21 AM This is a sort of statistical thing, but anyway: bust There's just a one problem in this line of thought. The author assumes in a linear manner the extinction of blue states and burgeoning population in red states. If the way things happen here is of any reference, then the assumptions of this dude are exaggerated. Here the birth rates are 1.8 children/woman (Norway) 1.85 (Finland), 1.8 (Denmark) and 1.75 (Sweden). That's anemic. The christians (yes, there are plenty of them here too) have been waiting the capital areas in each country to extinct for years, but that just hasn't happened. For example, Stockholm - in this comparison represents a U.S blue state - does indeed not replace itself. I recall the figure being somewhere as bad as 1.3. The same applies for Oslo, Helsinki and Copenhagen. It is just that in a typical classroom in a capital area - and in industrial cities - almost half of the kids are born somewhere else. The same applies if you go to a night club. Half the public has moved from the north. The things are in such a way that the northern parts of each country are religious and way above 2.1. If one is to apply USA Today here, the north should be growing and the south extincting. However, the surplus in the north moves south to get jobs. (just to become latte-sipping hipsters themselves). I guess there is something like this going on in the U.S too. Wonder how many Californians originally come from the bible belt ? Seattle, New York and so on ? IP: Logged
tralfaz Member	posted 03-20-2006 11:20 AM Also, many people change their political views. Statistically, people grow more conservative with age. So, women who have settled down & are ready to raise children will be, on average, more conservative than those exact same women 5 years ago. The ones raising families are also more likely to move out of the high tax, liberal areas & into a more conservative neighborhood. It's similar to comparing rich & poor. Seldom does one ask if those same rich people were labelled poor when in their 20's. It's just assumed that the poor retire poor & the rich were always so. IP: Logged
LaneH Member	posted 03-20-2006 11:41 AM quote: Consequently, a segment of society in which single-child families are the norm will decline in population by at least 50% per generation and quite quickly disappear. Unbelievable, just unbelievable. Oh: quote: This essay is adapted from his cover story in the current issue of Foreign Policy magazine. Does that mean mangled though a scientifically illiterate reporter? [This message has been edited by LaneH (edited 03-20-2006).] IP: Logged
Sprengtporten Member	posted 03-20-2006 12:27 PM quote: Consequently, a segment of society in which single-child families are the norm will decline in population by at least 50% per generation and quite quickly disappear. I smell some wishful thinking here. It appears that the author would like to see some kind of reverse 1968. I don't have any figures here, but in a sense the liberal creed is a "sect" which does not fully replace itself with fertility but with recruiting. If you take the student register of Berkeley from 1966 to 2006 one could almoust certainly (and falsely) to assume that the Berkeley sect is extincting, except for the fact that recruitment fills the gap. IP: Logged
Quintain Member	posted 03-20-2006 02:51 PM quote: I smell some wishful thinking here. It appears that the author would like to see some kind of reverse 1968. I don't have any figures here, but in a sense the liberal creed is a "sect" which does not fully replace itself with fertility but with recruiting. If you take the student register of Berkeley from 1966 to 2006 one could almoust certainly (and falsely) to assume that the Berkeley sect is extincting, except for the fact that recruitment fills the gap. The real question is how does this compare with the other side that is "filling the gap" with both above-replacement-level birthrates as well as recruitment. IP: Logged

All times are ET (US)	next newest topic \| next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic \| Archive/Move \| Delete Topic
	Hop to:

Contact Us | The Debunkers

Personal Safety Notice: The discussions on this site may address activities which are inherently dangerous and other activities which could be dangerous if done improperly. Many opinions may be expressed. All or none may be valid. The management of this board has no way of assuring that any of the opinions expressed are consistent with safe practices. If you choose to follow any of the "guidance" expressed on this site and, as a result, blow three of your fingers off, please let us know about it so we can laugh at your stupidity.

Copyright Restrictions: You should know the drill by now. If you post it here, then you promise that you have the right to do so and pledge to defend and hold harmless this board and the staff which manages daily operations. The staff reserves the right to edit or delete material you submit if, in its judgment, your claim is not reasonable.

For your daily dose of debunking, from Steve Milloy, visit the Junk Science Home Page.	What is Junk Science?
	Special rules for this forum.