This article was nominated for deletion on 29 June 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kailynriedel. Peer reviewers: ACdenver6465, Lmart12.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Is no one else offended by the deeply racist and social-Darwinist rhetoric of this article?
the significance of physical and mental quality for survival declines, and the quantity type individual gain the evolutionary advantage
and really, this is the tip of the iceberg. The "quantity type individual"? Somewhere, Hitler is smiling...
John D. Croft 03:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am also deeply offended by the racist rhetoric of this article. There is a lot of unsourced speculation here that needs to be deleted, and the whole thing needs to be rewritten for WP:NPOV. However, the demographic-economic paradox is a real concept that gets non-racist attention in sociology, (e.g. [1]) so I don't think this would pass AFD. The path to take here is ruthless deletion of unsourced claims.-- Yannick 13:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I am deleting this because it cites an article which does not support the statement. Nowhere does it claim that eugenics is a pseudoscience, and it only condemns coercive practices of the past rather than condemning eugenics as a whole, which could be construed to include things like designer babies and [ [2]], which is not the intention of the article. Lysine23 23:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't eugenics related issues be placed in the eugenics article? The eugenics article clearly states Eugenics is a social philosophy, which seems to be a long standing consensus, with a mention further down the article that some consider eugenics a pseudoscience. Trying to incorporate controversial/disputable claims in (barely) related articles looks like tendentious editing to me. -- Zero g ( talk) 01:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I gather from WP:NPOV that there should be a general consensus before an NPOV tag is removed. As the article stands I don't see any controversial claims and therefore the NPOV dispute seems to be resolved. Since no mention is made of eugenics, the most recent dispute in this discussion must certainly be resolved. Anyone object to removing the NPOV tag? Featherlessbiped ( talk) 06:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The article states:
This suggests that the demographic-economic paradox applies more strongly in Catholic countries, although Catholic fertility started to fall when the liberalizing reforms of Vatican II were implemented.
The teaching of the Catholic Church both before the Council and at present is that abstinence is the only valid form of birth control.
For the paradox to apply to Catholics, it would seem that either:
Since the number of consecrated celibates has fallen in these countries, the first seems to be the explanation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jogomu ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I am deleting the sentence quoting an incorrect US fertility rate and the table that follows, which actually shows figures for Germany not the US. There is nothing wrong with saying the US media has attributed high fertility to higher religiousity. But quoting incorrect data in support of this contested proposition is not acceptable. Johncoz ( talk) 18:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I think Fertility-development controversy should be merged to Demographic-economic paradox, since they appear to have basically the same scope. The latter seems to be the one more commonly used, so it should probably be the target. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 18:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Putting aside some other problems with this article, is this really referred to as a "paradox", extensively, in the literature? Paradox is something which is self-contradictory. This is simply illustrating the fact that Malthus was wrong. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 09:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Checking sources really quick it does seem like this terminology is used sometimes in some works. Who are the people (profession wise) who use it? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 09:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Here's the list of sources the article uses. Basically, none of them actually mention the subject of this article:
1. ^ David N. Weil (2004). Economic Growth. Addison-Wesley. p. 111. ISBN 0-201-68026-2.
2. ^ http://www.econlib.org/library/Malthus/malPlong.html EconLib-1826: An Essay on the Principle of Population, - does not use the word "paradox"
3. ^ a b demographic transition - does not use the word "paradox"
4. ^ [1] - does not use the word "paradox"
5. ^ Marburg Journal of Religion (June 2006) "Religiousity as a demographic factor" - does not use the word "paradox"
6. ^ Watch on the West: Four Surprises in Global Demography - FPRI - does not use the word "paradox"
7. ^ CIA - The World Factbook -- Rank Order - Total fertility rate - does not use the word "paradox"
8. ^ Nicholas Eberstadt - America the Fertile - washingtonpost.com May 6, 2007 - does not use the word "paradox", not a reliable source
9. ^ Michael Blume (2008) "Homo religiosus", Gehirn und Geist 04/2009. pp. 32 - 41 - I don't think this uses the word "paradox" either
10. ^ Adamson, Peter; Giorgina Brown, John Micklewright and Anna Wright (July 2001). "A League Table of Teenage Births in Rich Nations" (PDF). Innocenti Report Card (Unicef) (3). ISBN 88-85401-75-9. http://www.unicef-icdc.org/publications/pdf/repcard3e.pdf. - nope, no "paradox" here either
11. ^ "National and State Trends and Trends by Race and Ethnicity" (PDF). U.S. Teenage Pregnancy Statistics (Guttmacher Institute). September 2006. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf. - or here
12. ^ Index of Economic Freedom - dead link
13. ^ CIA - The World Factbook - Rank Order - Birth rate - same source as before, no paradoxes
14. ^ Economic geography, fertility and migration Yasuhiro Sato, Journal of Urban Economics. Published July 30, 2006. Last accessed March 31, 2008. - pretty sure it's not in here either
15. ^ An Estimate of the Long-Term Crude Birth Rate of the Agricultural Population of China Chia-lin Pan, Demography, Volume 3, No. 1. Published 1966. Last accessed March 31, 2008. - or here
16. ^ [2]. Tory Gattis, houstonstrategies.blogspot.com. Published January 15, 2006. Last accessed March 31, 2008. - not a reliable source, no paradoxes
17. ^ de la Croix, David and Matthias Doepcke: Inequality and growth: why differential fertility matters. American Economic Review 4 (2003) 1091-1113. [3] - no paradoxes here
18. ^ UNFPA: Population and poverty. Achieving equity, equality and sustainability. Population and development series no. 8, 2003.[4] - whoa! The word "paradox" does appear in this source... unfortunately not in the sense that is being used in this article.
Classic OR.
VolunteerMarek 00:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
VolunteerMarek 00:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC) notes that the word “paradox” does not appear in Malthus’ article “An Essay on the Principle of Population.” Malthus’ theory was that both rich and poor could produce offspring faster than farmers could increase the supply of food. Therefore, both would be continuously under pressure finding enough to eat. The rich could cope more easily, so would not suffer, but the poor would face a life of misery. Then, when a bad harvest produced food shortages, the poor would face famine. There does not seem to be a paradox there.
As SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC) suggested, the term probably came from Herwig Birg. The term “Demo-Economic Paradox” appears in this article “ DEMOGRAPHIC AGEING AND POPULATION DECLINE IN 21st CENTURY GERMANY – CONSEQUENCES FOR THE SYSTEMS OF SOCIAL INSURANCE https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/events/pdf/expert/2/birg.pdf Birg observed that a country’s total fertility rate (TFR) tends to be lower the higher a country’s level of development, and that a similar decline in fertility rate in Germany (a TFR of 2.4 in the 1960’s vs 1.3 in 1995) endangered the German social insurance system. He then opined that: ”It still appears a paradoxical outcome that people should be less willing to have children the better they can afford them” particularly if it damages the German retirement system.
Given all of this, I propose deleting the entire “Paradox” section and replacing it with a new section based on Birg. You can find a draft here: (link deleted) Joe Bfsplk ( talk) 16:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Having seen no objection to my suggestion, I will make the change. Joe Bfsplk ( talk) 17:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Some admittedly cursory searching suggests that the original term was "Demo-economic paradox", coined by Herwig Birg. That fact, if confirmed, should be included.
Some additional sources which should be considered:
-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Goldstein, J. R., Sobotka, T. and Jasilioniene, A. (2009), The End of “Lowest-Low” Fertility?. Population and Development Review, 35: 663–699. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2009.00304.x
This may be a better article to cite in relation to the reversal of the trend of declining fertility, as opposed to the Nature article (that it cites), which seems to be very misleading in its bracketing of HDI and the language used to describe it. The EU-27 has a well-below replacement fertility and the same is true of Japan. The "lowest-low" reversals that are being talked about are all within subreplacement fertilites such as Japan's 2005 bottom of 1.26 to the present 1.39. in The U.S. white population has subreplacement fertility (already a minority in children under one year of age) and the U.S. birth rate is at the lowest level ever recorded. Immigration is not necessarily counted as fertility growth, but even counting the fertility of new arrivals would be very misleading about the relationship between development and fertility, since most of these immmigrants are not earning like the established groups. This is not the case for Asian immigrants in the U.S., but here we notice that the difference is not captured in simple mathematical models, which explain nothing, but is captured in meaningful cultural differences and mentalities.
www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2009-029.pdf
Dr. Peeters has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
Well-founded
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Peeters has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
ExpertIdeas ( talk) 15:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved Mikael Häggström ( talk) 06:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Demographic-economic paradox →
Wealth and fertility →
Income and fertility – As mentioned in
previous discussion, the name demographic-economic paradox necessitates the presence of a
paradox but we can't really say that there is one. The article compares wealth as a
fertility factor, and as such I think it would be much more intuitive to name it accordingly, just as the related articles
Fertility and intelligence and
Age and female fertility.
Mikael Häggström (
talk) 17:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Mikael Häggström (
talk) 17:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello! I am very interested and intrigued about the correlation between income and fertility, so I would like to help contribute and add more information to develop more to this article! Below I have attached some sources and further topics to that could be added to the Wikipedia article. I am eager to hear what you have to say about my feedback and please let me know what could be improved. That would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Kailynriedel ( talk) 23:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Contribution:
Starting off as the first topic within the Income and Fertility article discusses the definition of Income and Fertility combined. I personally think it would be better if there were a section for Income on its own and then Fertility on its own. This would help readers get a clear understanding of each and then be able grasp a better understanding for the other topics further included. Right now, there is not much citation within the article at the beginning, and could use more outside, reliable sources to better the article. There are other topics being discussed, but have little to no information or citation to back it up. There should also be multiple sentences and paragraphs within each of the topics. Incorporating GDP (gross domestic product), the tempo effect, social and economic viewpoints and family size are all topics that would be additional information that would be worthy of talking about in more depth.
Bibliography: (Sources that I have found are attached below)
Weeks, J. R. (2016). Population: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues (12th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. PAGANETTO, L. (2016). Wealth, income inequalities, and demography. Place of publication not identified: SPRINGER INTERNATIONAL PU. https://link-springer-com.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-05909-9 Donaldson, L. (1991). Fertility transition: the social dynamics of population change. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. https://search-proquest-com.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/docview/1934949768?pq-origsite=summon Shin, I. (2016). Change and prediction of income and fertility rates across countries. Cogent Economics & Finance, 4(1). doi:10.1080/23322039.2015.1119367 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23322039.2015.1119367 Jones, D. (2010). Contraception and family planning among HIV-seroconcordant and -serodiscordant couples in the US and Zambia. Open Access Journal of Contraception,23. doi:10.2147/oajc.s7477 http://go.galegroup.com.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=T002&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&searchType=BasicSearchForm¤tPosition=1&docId=GALE%7CA524690794&docType=Report&sort=Relevance&contentSegment=&prodId=AONE&contentSet=GALE%7CA524690794&searchId=R1&userGroupName=auraria_main&inPS=true
In April of this year (2018) a new editor, Kailynriedel, entered a series of edits to this article. According to their account, s(he) at the time was apparently a student at the U. of Colorado and taking a course in Wikipedia editing. My guess is that what they did was part of that course.
First of all, Kailynriedel, bravo for anyone who wants to study Wikipedia editing, more power to you. Wikipedia needs a steady stream of new editors who are willing to take up the cause and add value to this encyclopedia. You have apparently done everything right so far: practiced with a sandbox and discussed your approach on this talk page.
Having said that, I have a few, hopefully helpful, comments on these additions.
1. Start with the additions to the lead section. “Many countries are experiencing a rather weak correlation with income and fertility within a given household. Families with a higher income produce a lower number of children resulting in a low fertility rate whereas families with lower income produce more children with a higher fertility rate.”
“Total fertility rate is specifically the number of children who would be born per woman if she were to pass through the childbearing years bearing children according to a current schedule of age-specific fertility rates.”
“In developing or less developed countries, families need their children for labor and for economic support in the future. Many countries do not have proper pension policies, children are needed in order for the parents to have financial support in their old age.”
Other factors associated with decreased fertility
2. Additions to the Paradox section
In the Paradox section, starting with "Scientist [sic] called it the "demographic economic ..."
Plus, the picture of Malthus and the comment on where he lived is also a duplicate from the article on him.
3. Additions to Causes and related factors section "Gross domestic product stands for GDP, which is the total dollar ..."
“It is argued then that the poorer individuals have fewer children so that they can obtain more of other types of consumer goods. The wealthier, on the other hand, are able to obtain the consumer goods which they desire as well as to have more children.
“Generally, Developed country countries have a lower fertility rate while a less economic developed country has a higher fertility rate.
“You will find that in Japan a more developed country, the GDP of $32,600 in 2009 was 1.22 children born per woman. But in Ethiopia a GDP of $900 in 2009 was 6.17 children born per woman.
“The reason for more developed countries to have a lower fertility rate is because of the high standard of living which is expensive and in order to achieve that, they focus more on education rather than having a large family. Educated women and low mortality rate for children equals a smaller family and more self-centered people.
The United States Census Bureau is a fundamental and critical data collection tool that is used specifically in demography. Censuses are a count of the population and not considered a sample. Since the end of World War II, the United Nations has encouraged all countries to take a census.
“Another way to look at it is through the demographic transition model to which was designed in 1929 by demography Warren Thompson who classified countries into three major groups. Number one being high births rates and high but declining death rates, number two was the decline of birth rates and death rates (death rates dealing faster) and number three was the rapid decline in birth death rates (birth rates decline faster).
I hope that you and other Wikipedians find these comments useful. Joe Bfsplk ( talk) 21:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Joe Bfsplk
Why there is almost no mention of very strong correlation (much stronger than GDP) between increase in female economic opportunities and empowerment and decrease in fertility? This would fully explain the 'paradox' as there might be no direct relationship between income and fertility, rather they both correlate to human development.
Here is good study on it if anyone is willing to including this in the article, I am not sure if this qualifies as reliable source: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43488406?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.198.149.35 ( talk) 01:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 29 June 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kailynriedel. Peer reviewers: ACdenver6465, Lmart12.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Is no one else offended by the deeply racist and social-Darwinist rhetoric of this article?
the significance of physical and mental quality for survival declines, and the quantity type individual gain the evolutionary advantage
and really, this is the tip of the iceberg. The "quantity type individual"? Somewhere, Hitler is smiling...
John D. Croft 03:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am also deeply offended by the racist rhetoric of this article. There is a lot of unsourced speculation here that needs to be deleted, and the whole thing needs to be rewritten for WP:NPOV. However, the demographic-economic paradox is a real concept that gets non-racist attention in sociology, (e.g. [1]) so I don't think this would pass AFD. The path to take here is ruthless deletion of unsourced claims.-- Yannick 13:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I am deleting this because it cites an article which does not support the statement. Nowhere does it claim that eugenics is a pseudoscience, and it only condemns coercive practices of the past rather than condemning eugenics as a whole, which could be construed to include things like designer babies and [ [2]], which is not the intention of the article. Lysine23 23:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't eugenics related issues be placed in the eugenics article? The eugenics article clearly states Eugenics is a social philosophy, which seems to be a long standing consensus, with a mention further down the article that some consider eugenics a pseudoscience. Trying to incorporate controversial/disputable claims in (barely) related articles looks like tendentious editing to me. -- Zero g ( talk) 01:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I gather from WP:NPOV that there should be a general consensus before an NPOV tag is removed. As the article stands I don't see any controversial claims and therefore the NPOV dispute seems to be resolved. Since no mention is made of eugenics, the most recent dispute in this discussion must certainly be resolved. Anyone object to removing the NPOV tag? Featherlessbiped ( talk) 06:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The article states:
This suggests that the demographic-economic paradox applies more strongly in Catholic countries, although Catholic fertility started to fall when the liberalizing reforms of Vatican II were implemented.
The teaching of the Catholic Church both before the Council and at present is that abstinence is the only valid form of birth control.
For the paradox to apply to Catholics, it would seem that either:
Since the number of consecrated celibates has fallen in these countries, the first seems to be the explanation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jogomu ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I am deleting the sentence quoting an incorrect US fertility rate and the table that follows, which actually shows figures for Germany not the US. There is nothing wrong with saying the US media has attributed high fertility to higher religiousity. But quoting incorrect data in support of this contested proposition is not acceptable. Johncoz ( talk) 18:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I think Fertility-development controversy should be merged to Demographic-economic paradox, since they appear to have basically the same scope. The latter seems to be the one more commonly used, so it should probably be the target. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 18:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Putting aside some other problems with this article, is this really referred to as a "paradox", extensively, in the literature? Paradox is something which is self-contradictory. This is simply illustrating the fact that Malthus was wrong. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 09:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Checking sources really quick it does seem like this terminology is used sometimes in some works. Who are the people (profession wise) who use it? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 09:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Here's the list of sources the article uses. Basically, none of them actually mention the subject of this article:
1. ^ David N. Weil (2004). Economic Growth. Addison-Wesley. p. 111. ISBN 0-201-68026-2.
2. ^ http://www.econlib.org/library/Malthus/malPlong.html EconLib-1826: An Essay on the Principle of Population, - does not use the word "paradox"
3. ^ a b demographic transition - does not use the word "paradox"
4. ^ [1] - does not use the word "paradox"
5. ^ Marburg Journal of Religion (June 2006) "Religiousity as a demographic factor" - does not use the word "paradox"
6. ^ Watch on the West: Four Surprises in Global Demography - FPRI - does not use the word "paradox"
7. ^ CIA - The World Factbook -- Rank Order - Total fertility rate - does not use the word "paradox"
8. ^ Nicholas Eberstadt - America the Fertile - washingtonpost.com May 6, 2007 - does not use the word "paradox", not a reliable source
9. ^ Michael Blume (2008) "Homo religiosus", Gehirn und Geist 04/2009. pp. 32 - 41 - I don't think this uses the word "paradox" either
10. ^ Adamson, Peter; Giorgina Brown, John Micklewright and Anna Wright (July 2001). "A League Table of Teenage Births in Rich Nations" (PDF). Innocenti Report Card (Unicef) (3). ISBN 88-85401-75-9. http://www.unicef-icdc.org/publications/pdf/repcard3e.pdf. - nope, no "paradox" here either
11. ^ "National and State Trends and Trends by Race and Ethnicity" (PDF). U.S. Teenage Pregnancy Statistics (Guttmacher Institute). September 2006. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf. - or here
12. ^ Index of Economic Freedom - dead link
13. ^ CIA - The World Factbook - Rank Order - Birth rate - same source as before, no paradoxes
14. ^ Economic geography, fertility and migration Yasuhiro Sato, Journal of Urban Economics. Published July 30, 2006. Last accessed March 31, 2008. - pretty sure it's not in here either
15. ^ An Estimate of the Long-Term Crude Birth Rate of the Agricultural Population of China Chia-lin Pan, Demography, Volume 3, No. 1. Published 1966. Last accessed March 31, 2008. - or here
16. ^ [2]. Tory Gattis, houstonstrategies.blogspot.com. Published January 15, 2006. Last accessed March 31, 2008. - not a reliable source, no paradoxes
17. ^ de la Croix, David and Matthias Doepcke: Inequality and growth: why differential fertility matters. American Economic Review 4 (2003) 1091-1113. [3] - no paradoxes here
18. ^ UNFPA: Population and poverty. Achieving equity, equality and sustainability. Population and development series no. 8, 2003.[4] - whoa! The word "paradox" does appear in this source... unfortunately not in the sense that is being used in this article.
Classic OR.
VolunteerMarek 00:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
VolunteerMarek 00:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC) notes that the word “paradox” does not appear in Malthus’ article “An Essay on the Principle of Population.” Malthus’ theory was that both rich and poor could produce offspring faster than farmers could increase the supply of food. Therefore, both would be continuously under pressure finding enough to eat. The rich could cope more easily, so would not suffer, but the poor would face a life of misery. Then, when a bad harvest produced food shortages, the poor would face famine. There does not seem to be a paradox there.
As SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC) suggested, the term probably came from Herwig Birg. The term “Demo-Economic Paradox” appears in this article “ DEMOGRAPHIC AGEING AND POPULATION DECLINE IN 21st CENTURY GERMANY – CONSEQUENCES FOR THE SYSTEMS OF SOCIAL INSURANCE https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/events/pdf/expert/2/birg.pdf Birg observed that a country’s total fertility rate (TFR) tends to be lower the higher a country’s level of development, and that a similar decline in fertility rate in Germany (a TFR of 2.4 in the 1960’s vs 1.3 in 1995) endangered the German social insurance system. He then opined that: ”It still appears a paradoxical outcome that people should be less willing to have children the better they can afford them” particularly if it damages the German retirement system.
Given all of this, I propose deleting the entire “Paradox” section and replacing it with a new section based on Birg. You can find a draft here: (link deleted) Joe Bfsplk ( talk) 16:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Having seen no objection to my suggestion, I will make the change. Joe Bfsplk ( talk) 17:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Some admittedly cursory searching suggests that the original term was "Demo-economic paradox", coined by Herwig Birg. That fact, if confirmed, should be included.
Some additional sources which should be considered:
-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Goldstein, J. R., Sobotka, T. and Jasilioniene, A. (2009), The End of “Lowest-Low” Fertility?. Population and Development Review, 35: 663–699. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2009.00304.x
This may be a better article to cite in relation to the reversal of the trend of declining fertility, as opposed to the Nature article (that it cites), which seems to be very misleading in its bracketing of HDI and the language used to describe it. The EU-27 has a well-below replacement fertility and the same is true of Japan. The "lowest-low" reversals that are being talked about are all within subreplacement fertilites such as Japan's 2005 bottom of 1.26 to the present 1.39. in The U.S. white population has subreplacement fertility (already a minority in children under one year of age) and the U.S. birth rate is at the lowest level ever recorded. Immigration is not necessarily counted as fertility growth, but even counting the fertility of new arrivals would be very misleading about the relationship between development and fertility, since most of these immmigrants are not earning like the established groups. This is not the case for Asian immigrants in the U.S., but here we notice that the difference is not captured in simple mathematical models, which explain nothing, but is captured in meaningful cultural differences and mentalities.
www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2009-029.pdf
Dr. Peeters has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
Well-founded
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Peeters has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
ExpertIdeas ( talk) 15:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved Mikael Häggström ( talk) 06:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Demographic-economic paradox →
Wealth and fertility →
Income and fertility – As mentioned in
previous discussion, the name demographic-economic paradox necessitates the presence of a
paradox but we can't really say that there is one. The article compares wealth as a
fertility factor, and as such I think it would be much more intuitive to name it accordingly, just as the related articles
Fertility and intelligence and
Age and female fertility.
Mikael Häggström (
talk) 17:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Mikael Häggström (
talk) 17:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello! I am very interested and intrigued about the correlation between income and fertility, so I would like to help contribute and add more information to develop more to this article! Below I have attached some sources and further topics to that could be added to the Wikipedia article. I am eager to hear what you have to say about my feedback and please let me know what could be improved. That would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Kailynriedel ( talk) 23:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Contribution:
Starting off as the first topic within the Income and Fertility article discusses the definition of Income and Fertility combined. I personally think it would be better if there were a section for Income on its own and then Fertility on its own. This would help readers get a clear understanding of each and then be able grasp a better understanding for the other topics further included. Right now, there is not much citation within the article at the beginning, and could use more outside, reliable sources to better the article. There are other topics being discussed, but have little to no information or citation to back it up. There should also be multiple sentences and paragraphs within each of the topics. Incorporating GDP (gross domestic product), the tempo effect, social and economic viewpoints and family size are all topics that would be additional information that would be worthy of talking about in more depth.
Bibliography: (Sources that I have found are attached below)
Weeks, J. R. (2016). Population: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues (12th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. PAGANETTO, L. (2016). Wealth, income inequalities, and demography. Place of publication not identified: SPRINGER INTERNATIONAL PU. https://link-springer-com.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-05909-9 Donaldson, L. (1991). Fertility transition: the social dynamics of population change. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. https://search-proquest-com.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/docview/1934949768?pq-origsite=summon Shin, I. (2016). Change and prediction of income and fertility rates across countries. Cogent Economics & Finance, 4(1). doi:10.1080/23322039.2015.1119367 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23322039.2015.1119367 Jones, D. (2010). Contraception and family planning among HIV-seroconcordant and -serodiscordant couples in the US and Zambia. Open Access Journal of Contraception,23. doi:10.2147/oajc.s7477 http://go.galegroup.com.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=T002&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&searchType=BasicSearchForm¤tPosition=1&docId=GALE%7CA524690794&docType=Report&sort=Relevance&contentSegment=&prodId=AONE&contentSet=GALE%7CA524690794&searchId=R1&userGroupName=auraria_main&inPS=true
In April of this year (2018) a new editor, Kailynriedel, entered a series of edits to this article. According to their account, s(he) at the time was apparently a student at the U. of Colorado and taking a course in Wikipedia editing. My guess is that what they did was part of that course.
First of all, Kailynriedel, bravo for anyone who wants to study Wikipedia editing, more power to you. Wikipedia needs a steady stream of new editors who are willing to take up the cause and add value to this encyclopedia. You have apparently done everything right so far: practiced with a sandbox and discussed your approach on this talk page.
Having said that, I have a few, hopefully helpful, comments on these additions.
1. Start with the additions to the lead section. “Many countries are experiencing a rather weak correlation with income and fertility within a given household. Families with a higher income produce a lower number of children resulting in a low fertility rate whereas families with lower income produce more children with a higher fertility rate.”
“Total fertility rate is specifically the number of children who would be born per woman if she were to pass through the childbearing years bearing children according to a current schedule of age-specific fertility rates.”
“In developing or less developed countries, families need their children for labor and for economic support in the future. Many countries do not have proper pension policies, children are needed in order for the parents to have financial support in their old age.”
Other factors associated with decreased fertility
2. Additions to the Paradox section
In the Paradox section, starting with "Scientist [sic] called it the "demographic economic ..."
Plus, the picture of Malthus and the comment on where he lived is also a duplicate from the article on him.
3. Additions to Causes and related factors section "Gross domestic product stands for GDP, which is the total dollar ..."
“It is argued then that the poorer individuals have fewer children so that they can obtain more of other types of consumer goods. The wealthier, on the other hand, are able to obtain the consumer goods which they desire as well as to have more children.
“Generally, Developed country countries have a lower fertility rate while a less economic developed country has a higher fertility rate.
“You will find that in Japan a more developed country, the GDP of $32,600 in 2009 was 1.22 children born per woman. But in Ethiopia a GDP of $900 in 2009 was 6.17 children born per woman.
“The reason for more developed countries to have a lower fertility rate is because of the high standard of living which is expensive and in order to achieve that, they focus more on education rather than having a large family. Educated women and low mortality rate for children equals a smaller family and more self-centered people.
The United States Census Bureau is a fundamental and critical data collection tool that is used specifically in demography. Censuses are a count of the population and not considered a sample. Since the end of World War II, the United Nations has encouraged all countries to take a census.
“Another way to look at it is through the demographic transition model to which was designed in 1929 by demography Warren Thompson who classified countries into three major groups. Number one being high births rates and high but declining death rates, number two was the decline of birth rates and death rates (death rates dealing faster) and number three was the rapid decline in birth death rates (birth rates decline faster).
I hope that you and other Wikipedians find these comments useful. Joe Bfsplk ( talk) 21:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Joe Bfsplk
Why there is almost no mention of very strong correlation (much stronger than GDP) between increase in female economic opportunities and empowerment and decrease in fertility? This would fully explain the 'paradox' as there might be no direct relationship between income and fertility, rather they both correlate to human development.
Here is good study on it if anyone is willing to including this in the article, I am not sure if this qualifies as reliable source: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43488406?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.198.149.35 ( talk) 01:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)