OT: Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”

[CA renter]

I second (third) that, Davelj. Believe it or not, I agree very much with all of your posts on this thread.

Thanks to Concho for his posts, too.

Great thread.

[njtosd]

One thing that the Vanity Fair article ignores is the fact that income is inversely proportional to child bearing.

According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, in 2000, the fertility rate was highest (86.8 births per 1,000 women age 15 to 44 years) for women with annual family incomes below $10,000, second highest for women with family incomes between $25,000 and $30,000, and lowest in families with incomes of $75,000 and over (60.1 births per 1,000 women age 15 to 44 years).

If you assume a starting point with equal income distribution, the only variable being the number of children a family has, the result is pretty easy to see. Those who have fewer kids will be able to invest more per child, expend more attention and guidance per child (therefore maximizing the likelihood that the child will do better in school, etc.) and potentially leave a higher portion of an estate to each of them. Those kids who grow up with more would once again be expected to have a higher income and the cycle would continue. In a very few cycles, you would end up with huge wealth disparities, without any of the complicated reasons that are bandied about.

The question is, what would cause the disparity in child bearing in the first place? And by the way, I’m not saying this as a justification for unequal income distribution. At all. I like population genetics (a field that has much in common with economics) and I wonder sometimes why these basic factors are ignored.

[njtosd]

One thing that the Vanity Fair article ignores is the fact that income is inversely proportional to child bearing.

According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, in 2000, the fertility rate was highest (86.8 births per 1,000 women age 15 to 44 years) for women with annual family incomes below $10,000, second highest for women with family incomes between $25,000 and $30,000, and lowest in families with incomes of $75,000 and over (60.1 births per 1,000 women age 15 to 44 years).

If you assume a starting point with equal income distribution, the only variable being the number of children a family has, the result is pretty easy to see. Those who have fewer kids will be able to invest more per child, expend more attention and guidance per child (therefore maximizing the likelihood that the child will do better in school, etc.) and potentially leave a higher portion of an estate to each of them. Those kids who grow up with more would once again be expected to have a higher income and the cycle would continue. In a very few cycles, you would end up with huge wealth disparities, without any of the complicated reasons that are bandied about.

The question is, what would cause the disparity in child bearing in the first place? And by the way, I’m not saying this as a justification for unequal income distribution. At all. I like population genetics (a field that has much in common with economics) and I wonder sometimes why these basic factors are ignored.

[njtosd]

One thing that the Vanity Fair article ignores is the fact that income is inversely proportional to child bearing.

According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, in 2000, the fertility rate was highest (86.8 births per 1,000 women age 15 to 44 years) for women with annual family incomes below $10,000, second highest for women with family incomes between $25,000 and $30,000, and lowest in families with incomes of $75,000 and over (60.1 births per 1,000 women age 15 to 44 years).

If you assume a starting point with equal income distribution, the only variable being the number of children a family has, the result is pretty easy to see. Those who have fewer kids will be able to invest more per child, expend more attention and guidance per child (therefore maximizing the likelihood that the child will do better in school, etc.) and potentially leave a higher portion of an estate to each of them. Those kids who grow up with more would once again be expected to have a higher income and the cycle would continue. In a very few cycles, you would end up with huge wealth disparities, without any of the complicated reasons that are bandied about.

The question is, what would cause the disparity in child bearing in the first place? And by the way, I’m not saying this as a justification for unequal income distribution. At all. I like population genetics (a field that has much in common with economics) and I wonder sometimes why these basic factors are ignored.

[njtosd]

One thing that the Vanity Fair article ignores is the fact that income is inversely proportional to child bearing.

According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, in 2000, the fertility rate was highest (86.8 births per 1,000 women age 15 to 44 years) for women with annual family incomes below $10,000, second highest for women with family incomes between $25,000 and $30,000, and lowest in families with incomes of $75,000 and over (60.1 births per 1,000 women age 15 to 44 years).

If you assume a starting point with equal income distribution, the only variable being the number of children a family has, the result is pretty easy to see. Those who have fewer kids will be able to invest more per child, expend more attention and guidance per child (therefore maximizing the likelihood that the child will do better in school, etc.) and potentially leave a higher portion of an estate to each of them. Those kids who grow up with more would once again be expected to have a higher income and the cycle would continue. In a very few cycles, you would end up with huge wealth disparities, without any of the complicated reasons that are bandied about.

The question is, what would cause the disparity in child bearing in the first place? And by the way, I’m not saying this as a justification for unequal income distribution. At all. I like population genetics (a field that has much in common with economics) and I wonder sometimes why these basic factors are ignored.

[njtosd]

One thing that the Vanity Fair article ignores is the fact that income is inversely proportional to child bearing.

According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, in 2000, the fertility rate was highest (86.8 births per 1,000 women age 15 to 44 years) for women with annual family incomes below $10,000, second highest for women with family incomes between $25,000 and $30,000, and lowest in families with incomes of $75,000 and over (60.1 births per 1,000 women age 15 to 44 years).

If you assume a starting point with equal income distribution, the only variable being the number of children a family has, the result is pretty easy to see. Those who have fewer kids will be able to invest more per child, expend more attention and guidance per child (therefore maximizing the likelihood that the child will do better in school, etc.) and potentially leave a higher portion of an estate to each of them. Those kids who grow up with more would once again be expected to have a higher income and the cycle would continue. In a very few cycles, you would end up with huge wealth disparities, without any of the complicated reasons that are bandied about.

The question is, what would cause the disparity in child bearing in the first place? And by the way, I’m not saying this as a justification for unequal income distribution. At all. I like population genetics (a field that has much in common with economics) and I wonder sometimes why these basic factors are ignored.

[Arraya]

[quote=njtosd]
The question is, what would cause the disparity in child bearing in the first place? [/quote]

This is simple. The most powerful predictor of birth rates is education level of women. This is true around the world, irrespective of culture. This goes hand and hand with going from an agricultural setting to an urban one. In an agricultural environment more children were almost like “profit”. Just a 80 years ago most of the first world was living in an agricultural setting.

Observational studies have shown that this usually takes 1-2 generation removed from the countryside to set in. By the time you get to the second urban generation , family sizes decrease dramatically. You can see a perfect example of this in Western Europe, where native populations are now shrinking and have to be replaced with immigrant populations. As technology improved after WW2, less people were needed for farming and there was a mass migration to the cities. Now, two generations later, they have a negative growth rate.

This trend will increase across the planet. We are living in the first time in history where more people live in cities than in countries and the exodus to the cities is accelerating. As this continues, birth rates will continue to decline and ultimately , the population will level off and decline. Most estimates are at around 9 billion.

[Arraya]

[quote=njtosd]
The question is, what would cause the disparity in child bearing in the first place? [/quote]

This is simple. The most powerful predictor of birth rates is education level of women. This is true around the world, irrespective of culture. This goes hand and hand with going from an agricultural setting to an urban one. In an agricultural environment more children were almost like “profit”. Just a 80 years ago most of the first world was living in an agricultural setting.

Observational studies have shown that this usually takes 1-2 generation removed from the countryside to set in. By the time you get to the second urban generation , family sizes decrease dramatically. You can see a perfect example of this in Western Europe, where native populations are now shrinking and have to be replaced with immigrant populations. As technology improved after WW2, less people were needed for farming and there was a mass migration to the cities. Now, two generations later, they have a negative growth rate.

This trend will increase across the planet. We are living in the first time in history where more people live in cities than in countries and the exodus to the cities is accelerating. As this continues, birth rates will continue to decline and ultimately , the population will level off and decline. Most estimates are at around 9 billion.

[Arraya]

[quote=njtosd]
The question is, what would cause the disparity in child bearing in the first place? [/quote]

This is simple. The most powerful predictor of birth rates is education level of women. This is true around the world, irrespective of culture. This goes hand and hand with going from an agricultural setting to an urban one. In an agricultural environment more children were almost like “profit”. Just a 80 years ago most of the first world was living in an agricultural setting.

Observational studies have shown that this usually takes 1-2 generation removed from the countryside to set in. By the time you get to the second urban generation , family sizes decrease dramatically. You can see a perfect example of this in Western Europe, where native populations are now shrinking and have to be replaced with immigrant populations. As technology improved after WW2, less people were needed for farming and there was a mass migration to the cities. Now, two generations later, they have a negative growth rate.

This trend will increase across the planet. We are living in the first time in history where more people live in cities than in countries and the exodus to the cities is accelerating. As this continues, birth rates will continue to decline and ultimately , the population will level off and decline. Most estimates are at around 9 billion.

[Arraya]

[quote=njtosd]
The question is, what would cause the disparity in child bearing in the first place? [/quote]

This is simple. The most powerful predictor of birth rates is education level of women. This is true around the world, irrespective of culture. This goes hand and hand with going from an agricultural setting to an urban one. In an agricultural environment more children were almost like “profit”. Just a 80 years ago most of the first world was living in an agricultural setting.

Observational studies have shown that this usually takes 1-2 generation removed from the countryside to set in. By the time you get to the second urban generation , family sizes decrease dramatically. You can see a perfect example of this in Western Europe, where native populations are now shrinking and have to be replaced with immigrant populations. As technology improved after WW2, less people were needed for farming and there was a mass migration to the cities. Now, two generations later, they have a negative growth rate.

This trend will increase across the planet. We are living in the first time in history where more people live in cities than in countries and the exodus to the cities is accelerating. As this continues, birth rates will continue to decline and ultimately , the population will level off and decline. Most estimates are at around 9 billion.

[Arraya]

[quote=njtosd]
The question is, what would cause the disparity in child bearing in the first place? [/quote]

This is simple. The most powerful predictor of birth rates is education level of women. This is true around the world, irrespective of culture. This goes hand and hand with going from an agricultural setting to an urban one. In an agricultural environment more children were almost like “profit”. Just a 80 years ago most of the first world was living in an agricultural setting.

Observational studies have shown that this usually takes 1-2 generation removed from the countryside to set in. By the time you get to the second urban generation , family sizes decrease dramatically. You can see a perfect example of this in Western Europe, where native populations are now shrinking and have to be replaced with immigrant populations. As technology improved after WW2, less people were needed for farming and there was a mass migration to the cities. Now, two generations later, they have a negative growth rate.

This trend will increase across the planet. We are living in the first time in history where more people live in cities than in countries and the exodus to the cities is accelerating. As this continues, birth rates will continue to decline and ultimately , the population will level off and decline. Most estimates are at around 9 billion.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]

This trend will increase across the planet. We are living in the first time in history where more people live in cities than in countries and the exodus to the cities is accelerating. As this continues, birth rates will continue to decline and ultimately , the population will level off and decline. Most estimates are at around 9 billion.[/quote]

Does that mean that we are actually living is a sustainable world or perhaps that with population decreases, we can achieve sustainability?

I believe, in the future, as the populations in developed countries shrink, there will be competition to attract immigrants to drive economic growth.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]

This trend will increase across the planet. We are living in the first time in history where more people live in cities than in countries and the exodus to the cities is accelerating. As this continues, birth rates will continue to decline and ultimately , the population will level off and decline. Most estimates are at around 9 billion.[/quote]

Does that mean that we are actually living is a sustainable world or perhaps that with population decreases, we can achieve sustainability?

I believe, in the future, as the populations in developed countries shrink, there will be competition to attract immigrants to drive economic growth.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]

This trend will increase across the planet. We are living in the first time in history where more people live in cities than in countries and the exodus to the cities is accelerating. As this continues, birth rates will continue to decline and ultimately , the population will level off and decline. Most estimates are at around 9 billion.[/quote]

Does that mean that we are actually living is a sustainable world or perhaps that with population decreases, we can achieve sustainability?

I believe, in the future, as the populations in developed countries shrink, there will be competition to attract immigrants to drive economic growth.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]

This trend will increase across the planet. We are living in the first time in history where more people live in cities than in countries and the exodus to the cities is accelerating. As this continues, birth rates will continue to decline and ultimately , the population will level off and decline. Most estimates are at around 9 billion.[/quote]

Does that mean that we are actually living is a sustainable world or perhaps that with population decreases, we can achieve sustainability?

I believe, in the future, as the populations in developed countries shrink, there will be competition to attract immigrants to drive economic growth.

[Author]

Posts