Quote:
Originally posted by dehammer: [/qb]
so the average family from a successfull type person is still close to 2.5 kids per family. at least in america. just because they wait to later to have them does not mean they dont have them. just because some only have one does not mean the family size is smaller, becuase there are a large number that have 3 or more kids. it matters less how many the people with the fewest have, its the average that matters. it also matters their life expectance is longer. poorer families are more likely to lose children early, or for them to die from violence or drugs than richer successfull families. they are more likely to die of diseases before having children.

Hi Dehammer.

so the average family from a successfull type person is still close to 2.5 kids per family.

Where did you get this figure? The Population Resource Centre says...

"Non-Hispanic whites have the lowest fertility rate of 1.8, about 14 percent below the "replacement rate" of 2.1."

http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/uspopperspec/uspopperspec.html

Are you saying that even though it is so low, successful families are managing 2.5, because as a whole you are managing only 2.1 which is just at the replacement rate? This is bucking a trend in developed nations due to your very high rate of teenage pregnancies (teenagers who become pregnant are much more likely to come from poor families) and your high religious population...

"There are several explanations for this. Much higher fertility among immigrant populations accounts for a large part of the difference. America's religious makeup limits participation in modern sex education and abortion and encourages a family-centered lifestyle. Statistically almost all of the difference between the United States and Europe can be explained by the US's higher rate of teenage pregnancy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility

just because they wait to later to have them does not mean they dont have them.

The whole point is that because they leave it so late they often don't have time for a second. Hence the sentence in the ABC News article...

- "People are having children later, which leaves less time for having the second child."

(Meaning they are less likely to have another child).

just because some only have one does not mean the family size is smaller, becuase there are a large number that have 3 or more kids.

Where do these figures come from? Are you sure this balances out? I am saying that educated career people are having less children (by far) than the uneducated. It is very easy to see in Britain - I wouldn't expect it to be so different in America.

it matters less how many the people with the fewest have, its the average that matters.

Yes - and the average fertility amongst career people is lower than that from poorer families.

it also matters their life expectance is longer. poorer families are more likely to lose children early, or for them to die from violence or drugs than richer successfull families. they are more likely to die of diseases before having children.

You make it sound as if you live in Calcutta. The simple fact is that smart people are having less children than other people. They are a diminishing population. As a whole Western Civilisation is probably regressing as opposed to evolving.

Blacknad.