Oh Dear: Is there any other country in Europe where this would cause outrage ?

[Numptycorner]

I'm not wasting my time (well, maybe a bit) cos I'm not trying to change his mind. And your point about changing fertility rates is, I hope addressed, in the 'table' that shows rates changing from '81 to '91 - and now I'm really off to do some work.

At least some of those rates are stable or changing upward, for example


Bangladesh: 8.0 8.0 8.3 7.7 -stable- rose then fell back slightly
Rest of Africa: 3.4 3.3 3.1 2.9 3.0 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.2 4.1 4.2 upward

I'd like to know what has happened since 91, after all this country has changed significantly since then. These figures are far too short and old to come to any real conclusions.

[Old Greg]

At least some of those rates are stable or changing upward, for example


Bangladesh: 8.0 8.0 8.3 7.7 -stable- rose then fell back slightly
Rest of Africa: 3.4 3.3 3.1 2.9 3.0 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.2 4.1 4.2 upward

I'd like to know what has happened since 91, after all this country has changed significantly since then. These figures are far too short and old to come to any real conclusions.

And the only conclusion I drew is that this type of figure changes rapidly so it would be foolish to expect them not to in the future.

[Old Greg]

Forgive me for being thick and lazy Greg, do your calculations mean we will or wont be over run by raving rag heads eventualy? and if so how long will it take?

They mean it is impossible to say or predict whether in x many generations this will be a majority white, Asian, Muslim, Icelandic etc. population. It's particlularly difficult to see for 'raving rag-heads' as I've not seen any reliable data for this particular group. But I wasn't really trying to make predictions myself - my real point is that CD's figures were cr@p again. He's still not come back on his whoppers from earlier on. It's an example of his bad faith or terrible arithmetic.

[sasguru]

Forgive me for being thick and lazy Greg, do your calculations mean we will or wont be over run by raving rag heads eventualy? and if so how long will it take?

If you:

(1) Extrapolate the most prolific fertility rate (4.7 for Bangladeshis) to all the Asian population - including Chinese and Indians
AND
(2) Assume the same rates of sub-continental marriage will continue for 5 generations
AND
(3) Assume the same exagerrated fertility rate for Asians will continue for 5 generations
AND
(4) Assume the same indigenous fertility rate will continue for 5 generations

then possibly.
None of these assumptions are credible.

[Numptycorner]

And the only conclusion I drew is that this type of figure changes rapidly so it would be foolish to expect them not to in the future.

Your figures seem to contradict what SASguru said, that fertility rates fall, it would apear that some were rising, maybe it's the better healthcare provision and rising family incomes it certainly can't be influenced by local culture toward having families. But, this data is too old.

One would expect in the 16 years since this study fertility rates would be significantly lower than double or in some cases quadrouple the UK rate, if SASguru were correct. If I was not mistaken a fertility rate of less than double was used in CDs figures. I'd like to see the intervening data.

[Numptycorner]

(1) Extrapolate the most prolific fertility rate (4.7 for Bangladeshis) to all the Asian population - including Chinese and Indians

Maybe it's in the document, but where does 4.7 come from?

[sasguru]

Maybe it's in the document, but where does 4.7 come from?

From the BNP manual

[sasguru]

Your figures seem to contradict what SASguru said, that fertility rates fall, it would apear that some were rising, maybe it's the better healthcare provision and rising family incomes it certainly can't be influenced by local culture toward having families. But, this data is too old.

One would expect in the 16 years since this study fertility rates would be significantly lower than double or in some cases quadrouple the UK rate, if SASguru were correct. If I was not mistaken a fertility rate of less than double was used in CDs figures. I'd like to see the intervening data.

As I showed with evidence in a previous post every single study shows that immigrants fertility rates fall quickly from high levels towards the norm. This is the point that CD resolutely refuses to address. Thereafter there will probably be small fluctuations, either side

[Numptycorner]

As I showed with evidence in a previous post every single study shows that immigrants fertility rates fall quickly from high levels towards the norm. This is the point that CD resolutely refuses to address. Thereafter there will probably be small fluctuations, either side

Is that true of the UK? I'd say our immigrant population is very different to that of countries with a policy based on skills shortage e.g. USA. Australia, Canada

[Old Greg]

Your figures seem to contradict what SASguru said, that fertility rates fall, it would apear that some were rising, maybe it's the better healthcare provision and rising family incomes it certainly can't be influenced by local culture toward having families. But, this data is too old.

One would expect in the 16 years since this study fertility rates would be significantly lower than double or in some cases quadrouple the UK rate, if SASguru were correct. If I was not mistaken a fertility rate of less than double was used in CDs figures. I'd like to see the intervening data.

I don't know if there is any intervening data. If you find it, it would be interesting to share. There are a mass of factors that will affect this kind of figure, and you point some of them out (I'm sure there are more):

Culture / religion
Distance (in miles, generations, culture) from ancestral homeland
Family income
Education
Employment levels in women

Look how Irish birthrate as declined in a couple of generations (no, I don't have the figures).

Now, if we were having this discussion in 1981, and we used the figures then, it would come out pretty wrong. Why would it be different now? Life's to complex to just apply exponentials to populations and then take the result as a prediction. That ain't modelling. I'm not saying I could model, but the link I provide has a very large document (that I've not read) for those who are interested in an academic approach to this, rather than some nutter mouthing off on a Contractors' website - and I don't mean me

My belief, like SASGuru's is that fertility rates will fall in these women, but it's a belief based on the largely cultural factors above, and I've no way to back it up - but that's a different argument. Neither can anyone back up the assumption that it will remain the same - yet that assumption lies at the core of CD's calculations.