On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 10:38:02PM +0200, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote: > On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 11:00 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > Notice that France largely profits from high birth rate in the black > > this sounds like the mythical nonsense of neo-con eurabia. while france
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France As you see, the natives are way subreplacement (around 2.1). I don't think it's sustainable. As I said, long term there will a trend reversal, when extremely fertile subgroups autoamplify to the point where they will become visible in the statistics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility see The American and the Israeli exception. > does not collect figures on race and religion, assuming a 10% non-white > population [1], and assuming that the white french population has the > same fertility rate as white germans, the difference in ratios between > germany's 1.39 and france's 2.0 would have to be explained by non-white > french women having 7.5 children each, on average. I never claimed France is Germany. > for reference, german fertility by ethnicity is 1.39 for whites and 2.4 > for turks [2]. in fact, the same source notes that french-born french > fertility (which would include some non-whites) is 1.7, compared to 2.6 > for french women born in algeria. I believe this was my point. > if you like, the link i suggested, that low fertility is a result of > social support for women not keeping up with opportunities for women > could be applied just to native-borns (to control for opportunities for > women) - and you still see (in the same source) the large difference > between germany, italy, spain on the one hand, and france, sweden, > netherlands and england on the other. I don't understand you. My point was that a family with two career parents have to make enough to afford full-time child care. Formerly, a single wage earner would have been enough. Now, two full-time career professionals can't afford that. Since family network support has disappeared, there is zero surprise. > note that in england, and norway, unlike france, some "non-white" > populations have much higher fertility - e.g. in 1996, women born in > pakistan and bangladesh living in england had 4.9 children vs 1.7 for > those born in england. in 1998 in norway it was 5.2 for somali-born > women and 1.7 for native-born norwegians. this could be explained by > these women not having the opportunities available to the native > population. No disagreement. > btw, my argument on the relationship between social support for women's > opportunities and fertility is hardly original. a paper from the > wonderfully titled Centre for Household, Income, Labour and Demographic > Economics (CHILD) makes the same point, with lots of data [3]. > > -rishab > > 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France > 2. http://paa2007.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=70869 > 3. http://iserwww.essex.ac.uk/epunet/2003/docs/pdf/papers/pronzato.pdf > -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
