Subject:
|
Re: Poverty myths?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Feb 2003 22:19:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
163 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> Canada is said to have a 1.8 birth rate. Since it takes, on the average, 2
> kids--one make, one female--to maintain the population, 1.8 is reducing our
> population. But we make up for the numbers with immigration. We have,
> though, been sititng at 30ish million folks for a while. Is that a good
> thing? Again, I dunno.
There are two other indicators that can be of help here: the "age pyramid"
(dividing the population in classes of 5 years), and the "Active-to-passive"
ratio. This last one takes into account the contribute of the immigrants to
the society, since it states how many dependants are supported by a working
person.
As a single child, I find that ratio of the utmost importance: now I have
two people supporting me, but in 30 years it will be the other way around -
and then I may even have kids myself.
(It's a poisoned gift, being a single child - I took 20 years to find that out)
In any case, like you say, it's a tough one. If "happiness" were measurable,
that would be the perfect indicator to the overall health of a society.
Pedro
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Poverty myths?
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes: <snip> (...) I can't remember the day, but I was watching "live, on television" when the world broke 5 billion folks. They had this counter going up like a Lotto or something... Like wow, we have 5 (...) (22 years ago, 3-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
