December 22, 2005

THE DEFEATED IN DECLINE:

Population already contracting (Japan Times, 12/23/05)

Japan's population has started shrinking for the first time this year, health ministry data showed Thursday, presenting the government with pressing challenges on the social and economic front, including ensuring provision of social security services and securing the labor force.

The Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry's annual survey estimates the balance of domestic births of Japanese against deaths in 2005 to be minus 10,000, marking the first natural decline since the government first began compiling the data in 1899.

Even on an aggregate population basis, including foreign residents, the balance is projected to be minus 4,000 in 2005, registering a fall one year earlier than projected by the National Institute of Population and Social Security Research, which had predicted a decline after 2006.

Japan joins Germany and Italy in the ranks of countries where a decline in population has already set in.


Hardly surprising these three lead the way into the abyss.

Posted by Orrin Judd at December 22, 2005 9:14 PM
Comments

That's what happens when the war crime is committed: defeat-despair-recession-Untergang.

This should give us something to think about when setting our course in the clash of civilizations.

Posted by: Lou Gots at December 22, 2005 9:36 PM

Interesting too that in this country, it's the folks who insist that our nation is a bunch of war criminals,the Chomskybots in the major urban centers and their allies in the college towns, are creating their own abyss. Lucky for us that no one pays much attention to them.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at December 22, 2005 9:45 PM

Isn't the loser of WWIII also in population decline (although for slightly different reasons, of course)?

Posted by: b at December 22, 2005 10:37 PM

Haven't there been commenters here who have hotly stated that Japan's population is not shrinking? When the nation's own ministries start saying it....

Russia is well ahead of the others, and life expectancy (for men) is under 57 now, I believe. So perhaps they will avoid the pension problems of Japan and the Europeans.

In regards to Jim's comment - just today, a piece in USA Today stated that NY State is losing population everywhere (except in the areas around the City). The population in MA is shrinking in absolute terms. I wouldn't be surprised to see the same in PA soon. Even CA's population would have shrunk without immigration.

Posted by: jim hamlen at December 22, 2005 11:51 PM

I notice that these are the original "axis" partners. There may be something significant about that.

But see...

Isn't Russia in just as bad shape?

Posted by: Bruno at December 23, 2005 12:39 AM

Bruno Yes.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at December 23, 2005 1:51 AM

Why is it such a bad thing?

Posted by: Grog at December 23, 2005 2:34 AM

NY - blue

Taxachusettes - blue

Kalifornia - blue and really wacko

Hmmm, could there be a pattern????

Posted by: Sandy P at December 23, 2005 2:50 AM

Poland's population is also shrinking by over 1% annually, and a big part of that is emigration, which removes from society the very people that are needed to support the rest.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 23, 2005 3:37 AM

Michael: I would think that it is the changing age ratios that matter more than actual population loss.

Posted by: Grog at December 23, 2005 3:57 AM

Yes, of course.

If the population shrank because all of the retirees dropped dead, that would be an emotional tragedy and an economic boost.

However, in all of these cases except possibly Russia, it's a dearth of younger people that's causing population loss.
And, regardless of what's happening now, Russia's future will include a LOT of deaths of young and middle aged people due to AIDS - possibly 3 million over the next decade, and not less than 1 million.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 23, 2005 4:41 AM

Thoses three countries are named because they are more 'visible', reporting-wise, than countries are shrinking even faster.

Populations of Russia, the Ukraine, Belarus etc are not only shrinking, they are imploding. Poland, Romania, Bulgaria are in a bit better shape, but not all that much.

War has nothing to do with it, the welfare state is much more of a factor: Italy the one Western country whose population is shrinking fastest, and whose average age is highest, because it's spo expensive to raise kids there. It's also very hard to find a place of your own. There are a lot of Italians in their 40s still living with their parents, which makes it kind of hard to have a family of their own. The Italian pensions system is very expensive, and paying for it overwhelms the younger generations.

Germany has similar problems, if not quite as bad.
In Japan it also is very hard to raise kids. That's the factor those three have in common. Don't forget, the generations who actually were adults during the war made like bunnies afterwards. There wasn't just a babyboom in America.

Posted by: Ralf Goergens at December 23, 2005 6:57 AM

And why just look at Europe and Japan?


the demographic position of the Islami world has set a catastrophe in motion. It is hard enough for rich nations to care for a growing elderly population, but impossible for poor nations to do so. Iran, along with most of the Muslim world, faces a population bust that will raise the proportion of dependent elderly in the population to 28% in 2050, from just 7% today.


If America faces discomfort, and Europe faces crisis, Muslim countries face breakdown. America now has a per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of US$40,000 and a diversified economy. Iran has a per capita GDP of just $7,000 and depends on oil exports for the state subsidies that keep its population fed and clothed - and Iran will no longer be able to export oil after 2020, according to some estimates.


...


In the case of Iran, Algeria and many other Muslim countries, the fertility rate in 2050 is expected to fall below two children per woman. Replacement is 2.1. Even Saudi Arabia, the bastion of Islamic conservatism, will show a fertility rate below the replacement level, according to UN projections. I think the UN estimates err on the high side. Modernization is likely to push fertility down further than the demographers now calculate.

If you forget about oil, which the Muslim countries won't have much of after 2050, Iran and the Arab countries have a mere fraction of the productivity of Western countries. In other words, they need lots and lots of cheap labor to keep going, and they'll face a complete breakdown long before they reach replacement level. Besides, more than half of young Arabs want to leave for Europe and America, speeding things up. If those emigrants cause even more trouble here in Europe, they'll be expelled or worse, while economic ties with the Arab world will weaken or break altogether.

You can talk of 'Eurabia' all you like, but the Arabs are completely at our mercy - as soon as we stop propping them up they are doomed, long before 2050.

By contrast, Europe will be able to squeeze by, even if it's going to be very uncomfortable.

Posted by: Ralf Goergens at December 23, 2005 7:15 AM

Of all the western nations, France (that's right, secular France) is leading the way to higher birthrates:

"France has a long-standing family policy and, after Ireland, has the highest total fertility rate in the EU at 1.9 children per woman of child-bearing age," says Prof Boyle. "The French government has announced a further ‘birth bonus’ and promised 20,000 crèche places."

The French TFR already exceeds that of the highly religious Muslim world (which as Ralf correctly noted is collapsing). The French turn around is the result of secular, pro-natalist government mandated policies that financially promote larger families. And no, the French TFR is NOT the result of just Muslim immigrants having babies:

Some readers will suspect that immigration is the main factor, but this doesn’t seem to be the case. Net annual immigration is running at about 100,000, which if it continues for 45 years (and assuming the immigrants reproduce themselves) would only account for 4.5 million. Moreover, net immigration of 50,000 a year had already been allowed for in population forecasts, so the higher observed rate only accounts for about 2.25 million of the increase in the estimate. (http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/004007.html)

And:

Demographers and sociologists attribute the increase in the birth rate to various of causes. One is an "automatic" rebound effect caused by the gradual increase of the parents’ age at the birth of their first child. The average age for women to have their first child is now 28 years, compared with 23 years two decades ago. "It’s mostly after 30 that women have more children," stated the report. Thus, younger women who did not have children a few years ago (and who then contributed to the decreasing birth rate) are older and are having them now, boosting the minor baby boom. The government’s traditional policy of encouraging couples to have children—giving children's allowances, a premium for the third child, and subsidised facilities for children while mothers continued to work—probably played a role, as did a decrease in unemployment among young people. A more surprising observation is that, after a steady decrease in the number of weddings, marriage seems to be regaining some favour. Legislation in France now offers no material advantages to married parents over unmarried parents and their children, and the number of children born outside marriage has been steadily increasing—reaching 43% of all births last year. Yet 305 000 couples got married last year—a ratio of more than five marriages per 1000 population, the highest in 15 years. The institute also reported that France’s migratory balance (the number of people coming to live in the country minus the number leaving the country) was estimated at about 60 000, the lowest in Europe. Immigrants account for about a fifth of the population increase in France. (quote from INSEE Report found at http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/324/7334/385/a)

And again:

As in 1990, foreigners living in France in 1999 have on average three children. The Spanish and Italians have fewer children than Frenchwoman, and Africans remain the most fertile. The older the immigration, the closer the behaviour of the foreigners is close to that of Frenchwomen. Like the French, the foreigners become mothers later than before. The schedule of births of Algerians and Moroccans, already close to that of Frenchwomen, has changed little. That of Tunisians approaches that of Frenchwomen. (another INSEE quote found at http://www.livejournal.com/users/rfmcdpei/408410.html)

Now this is going to stick in the craw of certain people here, but the fact is a secular government program run by the French is doing a better job of maintaining birth rates than religious and theocratic societies. Deal with it.


Posted by: bplus at December 23, 2005 8:45 AM

Well said Ralf. The secular French are doing a much better job of maintaining birth rates than the religious Muslims.

Posted by: bplus at December 23, 2005 8:59 AM

Ralf - Spengler is speculating about Islamic demography. Just check out the CIA World Factbook, percentage of population aged 0-14:

Algeria 29%
Egypt 33%
Syria 37%
Yemen 47%
Saudi Arabia 38%
Iran 27%
Pakistan 40%
Indonesia 29%

United States 21%

Italy 14%

Which of these nations is in danger of demographic collapse?

The total fertility rate (children born per woman aged 15-44) is skewed downward in Islamic countries by the extreme population growth -- since most children are born to women aged 25-35, but the 15-24 age group is so large in these countries compared to the 25-44 age group, and teen pregnancy rates are very low in Islamic countries compared to the U.S., the girls increase the denominator without increasing the numerator and depress the fertility rate. Take out teenage births in both the US and Islamic countries, and our fertility would look relatively much worse.

Spengler has to project out to 2050 before the total fertility rate falls below replacement rate in even the least fertile Muslim countries. That's a long way out to project culture.

Posted by: pj at December 23, 2005 9:08 AM

bplus:

Sure, it's easy to maintain higher rates if you import foreign women of child-beraring age. That's why the future of France is Islamic. It's a brighter future than their past two hundred years have been.

Posted by: oj at December 23, 2005 9:08 AM

Mr. Goergens:

Yes, that's why Reforming Islam is vital. Once they have societies that are worth living in and have a religious basis they can stabilize their demographics.

Posted by: oj at December 23, 2005 9:11 AM

OJ,

As in 1990, foreigners living in France in 1999 have on average three children. The Spanish and Italians have fewer children than Frenchwoman, and Africans remain the most fertile. The older the immigration, the closer the behaviour of the foreigners is close to that of Frenchwomen. Like the French, the foreigners become mothers later than before. The schedule of births of Algerians and Moroccans, already close to that of Frenchwomen, has changed little. That of Tunisians approaches that of Frenchwomen.

(INSEE report quoted at http://www.livejournal.com/users/rfmcdpei/408410.html)

Posted by: bplus at December 23, 2005 9:26 AM

Again OJ,

Demographers and sociologists attribute the increase in the birth rate to various of causes. One is an "automatic" rebound effect caused by the gradual increase of the parents’ age at the birth of their first child. The average age for women to have their first child is now 28 years, compared with 23 years two decades ago. "It’s mostly after 30 that women have more children," stated the report. Thus, younger women who did not have children a few years ago (and who then contributed to the decreasing birth rate) are older and are having them now, boosting the minor baby boom. The government’s traditional policy of encouraging couples to have children—giving children's allowances, a premium for the third child, and subsidised facilities for children while mothers continued to work—probably played a role, as did a decrease in unemployment among young people. A more surprising observation is that, after a steady decrease in the number of weddings, marriage seems to be regaining some favour. Legislation in France now offers no material advantages to married parents over unmarried parents and their children, and the number of children born outside marriage has been steadily increasing—reaching 43% of all births last year. Yet 305 000 couples got married last year—a ratio of more than five marriages per 1000 population, the highest in 15 years. The institute also reported that France’s migratory balance (the number of people coming to live in the country minus the number leaving the country) was estimated at about 60 000, the lowest in Europe. Immigrants account for about a fifth of the population increase in France.

(http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/324/7334/385/a)

Posted by: bplus at December 23, 2005 9:29 AM

Sorry for the extra posts, but the facts agree on one thing: the higher french birth rates are NOT the result of Muslim immigrants having larger families.

All immigrants everywhere INITIALLY have large families. Succeeding generations have smaller and smaller families until they conform with the local norm. It's an unchanging historical demogrpahic pattern that is repeating itself once again, this time in France.

Posted by: bplus at December 23, 2005 9:32 AM

PJ, the TFRs in Tunisia, Algeria and Iran (for example) are already below replacement levels. France already has a higer TFR than these Muslim nations.

Posted by: bplus at December 23, 2005 9:35 AM

Are immigrants 20% of the French population?

Posted by: oj at December 23, 2005 9:36 AM

bplus:

You have provided some extremely interesting and informative posts over the last week.

Your handle should be A+

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at December 23, 2005 9:41 AM

Are immigrants 20% of the French population?

I have no direct data on that, but it is well to remember that Muslims are not the ONLY immigrants moving to France.

As one of my posts sited, French immigrant groups include large numbers of Spanish, Italians, Poles (and even retired Brits). You may as well claim that France's future is Catholic (not Muslim) because of the Polish, Italian and Spanish immigrants.

And like all immigrants, they're having lots of kids.

Posted by: bplus at December 23, 2005 10:15 AM

There is one major reason for decline in birth rates: urbanization. Europe and Japan are urbanized to an extent the few Americans outside of the BosWash Corridor can appreciate. By contrast, most of America is empty to an extent few Europeans outside the Russian Steppes can appreciate.

On rural farms children are economic assets. In dense urban areas, children are economic liabilities. It's extrememly expensive to raise kids in places like New York, Tokyo, Munich, Rome, San Francisco and London. So is it any surprise that densely populated urban areas have lower birth rates? Japan and Western Europe or just big urban areas with a scattering of relatively small parks, forests and farms. All cities throughout history have always filled more graves than cribs each year. All cities have always required a continuous inflow of peasants from the countryside or immigrants from abroad to make up the difference.

Lower birth rates stem from pocket book economics, not secular morality. So if you want to increase birth rates, do what France is doing: financially subsidize through stipends and/or tax breaks larger families.

Before Clinton's welfare reform, Conservatives liked to claim that welfare was subsidizing out of wedlock births. They were right. Welfare reform removed the financial incentive to have children outside of marriage. The subsequent decline in teen pregnancy nationwide is a result of welfare reform.

The same financial principles apply to all types of birth rates. If you want to increase any activity (including making more babies) then subsidize it. If the Muslim countries are any indication, reliance on religious faith is not going to cut it.

Posted by: bplus at December 23, 2005 10:30 AM

bplus:

So the Muslims at 5-10% of the French population are contributing 20% of the fertility rate, which is the only reason the overall French rate differs from that of other European nations. Since the country as a whole isn't at replacement rate and isn't reforming the massive welfare state it will be ever more dependent on such immigrants who bring with them the higher fertility rates.

Posted by: oj at December 23, 2005 10:37 AM

bplus: 200 years ago, maybe. There are now no children on the northern plains.

Posted by: David Cohen at December 23, 2005 10:45 AM

OJ, since the French census does not include information on religious affiliation the number of Muslims is consistently understated. 10% is probably on the low side.

Be that as it may, if Muslim immigrants were causing most of France's birth rate increase the following statements (from my previous posts) would not be true:

As in 1990, foreigners living in France in 1999 have on average three children. The Spanish and Italians have fewer children than Frenchwoman, and Africans remain the most fertile. The older the immigration, the closer the behaviour of the foreigners is close to that of Frenchwomen. Like the French, the foreigners become mothers later than before. The schedule of births of Algerians and Moroccans, already close to that of Frenchwomen, has changed little. That of Tunisians approaches that of Frenchwomen.

Almost all of France's Muslim immigrants come from their former colonies in the Magrehb. These are the same Algerians, Morrocans and Tunisians with low birth rates described above.

Posted by: bplus at December 23, 2005 10:53 AM

David what you say is true. With the demise of the family farm, children aren't the rural economic assets that they used to be. This one of the many reasons the Red States of the Great Plains are depopulating.

Also, with the advent of modern sanitation, sewers and clean water the death rate imbalance in urban areas is not as bad as it once was (in pre-industrial times people in cities were exposed to more vermin and disease vectors than people in the countryside). However, cities still fill more graves than cribs each year.

Posted by: bplus at December 23, 2005 10:59 AM

bplus;

Yes, it's certainly not true. Best estiumates put Muslim fertility rates at twice native.

Posted by: oj at December 23, 2005 11:05 AM

pj,

Muslim societies would have to change more than they ever did to avoid the fate Spengler has plotted out for them. The economic and demogrpahic crunch can only be avoided by increasing productivity darstically, or else Muslims can't afford kids anymore.

Unfortunately for them it takes about 35 years to double productivity economy-wide. In 2050 their productivity will be, at best, 110 percent of what it is now, not nearly enough.

Posted by: Ralf Goergens at December 23, 2005 11:11 AM

oj,

the trouble with reforming Islam is a very tedious and drawn-out affair, for reformers are liable to turn up dead.

Posted by: Ralf Goergens at December 23, 2005 11:12 AM

Like the Chinese and Indians, or Germans and Japanese after WWII, they're starting from such low levels that they can easily post incredible seeming growth numbers.

Posted by: oj at December 23, 2005 11:14 AM

OJ, the best estimates put IMMIGRANT birth rates at twice native. This is normal for all immigrants everywhere throughout history.

Not all (not even most) of the immigrants are Muslim.

Second generation Muslims (who are no longer "immigrants") are having as few kids as the native French.

Posted by: bplus at December 23, 2005 11:23 AM

Most immigrants to Europe generally and France specifically are indeed Muslim and they have fertility rates twice those of the natives. France has the highest percentage of Muslim immigrants. Natives reproduce well below replacement rate, Muslims immigrants well above. More Muslims are coming. No more French are.

Posted by: oj at December 23, 2005 11:34 AM

How ironic. It turns out that being defeated and invaded by the United States is a bad thing.

Posted by: David Cohen at December 23, 2005 11:46 AM

OJ,

Definition: Cognitive dissonance is a mental process in which people either reject, consciously or unconsciously, new facts that are contrary to their existing beliefs, prejudices and preconceived ideas, and / or their habits, tastes and commitments.

Posted by: bplus at December 23, 2005 12:51 PM

David,

If being defeated and occupied by the US was a bad thing then why did The Duchy of Grand Fenwick declare war on us?

Posted by: bplus at December 23, 2005 12:54 PM

OJ,

The number of Muslim immigrants to Europe is about to fall considerably as birth rates in the Muslim home countries continue to implode. Muslim immigration to Europe has already reached high tide and begun to ebb.

Posted by: bplus at December 23, 2005 12:57 PM

That's why it's ironic.

Posted by: David Cohen at December 23, 2005 1:00 PM

bplus - Re your point on the low TFR in Tunisia, Algeria, and Iran, you missed my point that TFR is a skewed measure.

In Iran, the median age is 24, and 23% of the population is aged 15-24, 27% aged 0-14. The 15-24 age cohort, which does not have children, is twice as dense (women/yr) as the 25-44 age cohort which is having children. This depresses TFR by almost a factor of 2 compared to the US, where childbearing rates and population are much more evenly spread across the 15-44 age levels.

Similarly, in Algeria the median age is 24, 29% of the population is 0-14 and 21% is 15-24.

Both of these countries are experiencing rapid population growth, and in fact are more than replacing themselves, despite standard TFR below 2.1. If TFR were calculated per woman age 25-39, these countries would have a TFR above 3, higher than the US rate. The reported TFR will increase in these countries to at least 2.5 as more populous age cohorts move into their peak childbearing years.

I don't doubt that fertility could decline further in these countries and Spengler could in 2050 be proven right, but it's far from a sure or even a likely thing.

Posted by: pj at December 23, 2005 1:27 PM

Ralf - Your theory that more economic growth is needed to support more children is the opposite of demographic experience. Global experience is that more economic growth leads to fewer children, while impoverished nations have more children. If Muslim nations are going to be as poor as you predict, it's not likely their fertility will decline so much.

Posted by: pj at December 23, 2005 1:31 PM

One more note. Iran and Algeria, had a "baby boom" in the 1970s and 1980s, followed by a mild baby bust in the 1990s/200s. The baby busts may have been related to the Algerian civil war (1 million dead 1992-1998) and the Iran-Iraq war (1.5 Iranian casualties, mainly males age 15-25 about ten years shy of their peak childbearing years, in 1980-1988). Even so, their baby bust period has been much more fertile than America's baby bust decades. It remains to be seen if the decline in fertility was a temporary phenomenon.

This decline in fertility doesn't seem to be confirmed in other Muslim countries not affected by war -- where, e.g., Yemen has a TFR of 6.67 children/woman, Saudi Arabia a TFR of 4.05, Syria of 3.5, Pakistan of 4.14.

It seems to me as dubious to extrapolate the recent fertility trends of Iran and Algeria to extremely low fertility in 2030-2050 as it would have been to extrapolate the US baby boom-bust experience 1945-1979 to predict non-existent US fertility in 2005.

Posted by: pj at December 23, 2005 1:45 PM

bplus:

Then where will Europe get workers?

Posted by: oj at December 23, 2005 2:35 PM
Ralf - Your theory that more economic growth is needed to support more children is the opposite of demographic experience. Global experience is that more economic growth leads to fewer children, while impoverished nations have more children. If Muslim nations are going to be as poor as you predict, it's not likely their fertility will decline so much.

Countries stayingt poor probably won't experience a decline of the birthrate, but poor countries becoming a lot poorer yet will.

Posted by: Ralf Goergens at December 23, 2005 7:29 PM

daniel duffy (calling him 'bplus' is just silly): Your posts are blatantly self-contradictory. The Arab population of France has ~3 children/woman, as far as I can tell from what you state. The overall number for the nation of France is ~1.9 children/woman. You concede that 10% is probably too low for the number of Arabs in France. So let's call it 20%. Therefore, let's do some simple algebra:

0.20*3 + 0.8*x = 1.9
0.8*x = 1.3
x=1.625

Well below replacement. What was your point again?

Posted by: b at December 24, 2005 1:03 AM

daniel duffy: "Immigrants account for about a fifth of the population increase in France."

You are completely misrepresenting what this statement means, daniel, and you did the exact same thing a few days ago. This statement does NOT NOT NOT mean that the higher reproduction rate of immigrants is only a small factor in France's population increase. It means that immigration, i.e. people moving to France, is only a small factor. The high birth rate of those immigrants IS the major factor.

You have quoted lots of secondary sources, and misinterpreted or misrepresented most of them. Also, most of them (for reasons I have no insight into) are in complete conflict with the few primary sources that you do quote (as I show above). This is the 21st century--you can't just quote analysis and expect people to buy it without question. Show the numbers that the other guy used for his analysis. When you do so, it's quite clear that the French are dying out just as the rest of Europe is. Sorry, but those are the facts.

Posted by: b at December 24, 2005 1:17 AM

Whatever the true fertility rate and demographic destiny of the Persian Gulf nations is, one fact remains crystal clear: They're going to run out of oil revenues before they run out of people.*

Spengler is undeniably correct when he asserts that, as is, very few of the Middle Eastern/Northern African petro-states could support their populations without their oil revenues.

Therefore, within the 21st century all of them will be saved by democratic capitalism - either by adopting it, or through donated foodstuffs from the world's democratic/capitalist nations.

* They won't run out of oil, but they will gradually be producing less of it, as time goes by.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 24, 2005 6:02 AM

Then where will Europe get workers?

They won't, and their economy is screwed unless improvements in productivity and automation compensate for the dwindling (relatively speaking) labor pool and the need for ever increasing social pension payments to a graying population. And that is possible. For example, the current American work force is only twice the size it was in 1945 bu the economy is 6 times large in real terms - all thanks to productivity increases.

But what else are they going to do? When kids get too expensive to have (due to high density urbanization) people won't have kids. Unless they are subsidized like the French.

Posted by: bplus at December 24, 2005 6:33 AM

b,

You completely misread my posts:

FOREIGNERS (not MUSLIMS) have three kids. The birth rates of Algerians, Morroccans and Tunisians already equal or are approaching those of the native French.

IMMIGRANTS to France (all immigrants to France, accounting for 1/5 of the population increase) include large numbers of Africans, Spanish, Italians and Poles. And it is the Africans, not the Muslims that are the most fertile.

And while the Mulsim population of Frencs is probably not lower than 10% it most certainly is not currently at 20%.

The French demographic picture is much more complicated than you Darwinists make it out to be.

Posted by: bplus at December 24, 2005 6:44 AM

PJ,

You confuse TFR with AFR:

Total fertility rate (TFR) — The average number of children that would be born to each woman if all women lived to the end of their childbearing years and bore children according to the fertility patterns of the current year. A TFR of 2.1 is considered to be the replacement rate for the population — i.e., the rate necessary to maintain the current population size.

Age-specific fertility rate (AFR) — The number of live births per 1,000 women in each age group.

TFR is a lifetime metric, not an age group metric. If the same age group scewing of the numbers that you claim applies to Iran also applied to Germany, Italy and Japan, their real TFRs would be twice their "skewed" TFRs and wll above 3.5. Which means they are actually replacing themselves

Posted by: bplus at December 24, 2005 6:53 AM

daniel:

Most immigrants to France are Muslim. They have a birthrate twice that of natives--theirs being well over replacement level, natives far below. For instance, as you point out, despite being less than 10% of the current population of France immigrants account for 20% of the TFR.


The idea that the natives will starve rather than import workers flies in the face of two hundred years of increasing French dependence on the State.

Posted by: oj at December 24, 2005 8:17 AM

OJ: Europe eiher has an intractible unemployment problem, or it needs to find more workers.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at December 24, 2005 3:22 PM

Their employment problem is the same as the nativists here--some jobs ain't fit for white folk....

Posted by: oj at December 24, 2005 5:11 PM
« TOO BAD THERE ARE SO FEW MODERATE LIBERALS: | Main | THERE'S ONLY ONE WAY FORWARD: »