Really makes you think...

File: Fert vs. GDP.png (49KB, 1507x700px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 1507x700px

And here is some actual data

File: Fert vs. ConPrev.png (50KB, 1383x661px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1383x661px

>>133208476
Income is the key. Higher incomes mean lower fertility rates, and as it turns out, this is an almost universal trend

tfw nigger rat colony experiment gone wrong

>>133208389

Just look at the US. Poor people have a lot of kids for some reason. You see this a lot in the black and hispanic communities, poor families with 5+ kids. Why? Because they know that the government will bail them out if they can't pay for housing, food, etc.

Also, kids are dependents, which means the amount you are taxed is greatly reduced the more kids you have, up to a certain point. I'm hispanic and I've heard of people having more kids with the intent of getting a larger tax return at the end of the year, or even single mothers allowing their friends to claim their kids as dependents so their taxes are as high.

>>133208525
You can't exactly say that this is a strong correlation. Sure, it's there, but just compare Niger and North Korea. Look how differently they operate on an essentially identical GDP.

Sure, GDP plays a role, but let's not act as if this is a good fit. It just happens that countries with a higher GDP tend to offer better education and are more civilized overall. I'm sure you can get a better fit by making a comparison between fertility and some principal component determined by GDP, political system, personal freedom and education.

>>133208476
So, in order to save the white race, we must make the western world piss-poor?

>>133209067
Nope. Make a civilized country poor, and you get Moldova / North Korea.

>>133209031
The correlation is extremely strong because it is not showing a linear relationship, but a trade off.

>>133209067
How is it possible to mis-read a graph this badly?

>>133209031
A fertility rate of 2 is considered a replacement rate. As you move down the Y axis, incomes rise as per the relationship from >>133208476

>>133208476
Well done Qatar.

>>133209031
>You can't exactly say that this is a strong correlation.
So this is how Greece cooks the financial book. It tries to use stats without understanding how they work.

File: file.png (26KB, 280x636px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 280x636px

>>133209067
No quite the opposite, it seems that 20k is the magic number for global income and that it's in our best interest to get these niggaz up there and dump condoms on them until they come to their senses.

Otherwise they'll (the African and Middle eastern ones) will just head north/northwest and spill into Europe endlessly.

I'd like to see the same chart but with the dots colored to match the average national skin tone

>>133209672
Nice bant. You do realize that just because a correlation between two variables might exist, it doesn't mean that it's strong, right? This is factually not a great fit, and doubly so when trying to determine how to lower fertility rates in underdeveloped countries and/or increase it in developed ones, since you can't exactly just increase their GDP overnight.

>>133208389
Why can't niggers and shitskins just die, /pol/?

>>133210140
>it doesn't mean that it's strong, right? This is factually not a great fit,

In your previous post you picked out the GDP=1,000 or so mark, which is the absolute loosest part of the graph. I agree that 0-1,000 GDP is a crapshoot with a gigantic range (from 2.0 to ~6.7). However the moment you step beyond 1,000 GDP the graph clamps extremely tightly around fertility to the point that nearly every single further data point up to Qatar at 130,000 GDP is clamped within a narrow band of about 1.0 fertility. That's a high degree of causality.

>doubly so when trying to determine how to lower fertility rates in underdeveloped countries and/or increase it in developed ones, since you can't exactly just increase their GDP overnight.
Clearly GDP is having some effect, like you said about education or some other sub-factor. So it's worthwhile to run further tests to see exactly what rich countries are spending their money on in terms of that GDP so we can dump whatever the fuck it is on the developing world.

I know there's a climate change denial thread up now with its usual retarded jpg "proof" but that and 6-7 fertility rate in Africa is going to destroy Europe in a toxic cocktail the moment those high-fertility countries become less inhabitable (less farmland, resources, simply too damn hot to live, etc.) You and I both know that the average Europe government is going to roll over to human rights activist pressure and let them in, instead of shooting them dead in the Mediterranean like they would otherwise be. It's better to solve this issue now, immediately.

>>133210564
The effect income has is opportunity costs. As income rises, it becomes more expensive to have children since a greater amount of income has to be sacrificed when leaving the work force to raise a child. The opposite is true for poor countries. It is very expensive to not have children since they represent extra hands to farm, work, etc, and earn some kind of income as well as to take care of the parents when they are too old to work.

As for what the developing world is lacking is capitalism and democracy, more specifically institutions that protect property rights, courts to enforce contracts, free trade, access to capital markets, and basic democratic institutions.

>>133208389
That number would decrease significantly if we stopped feeding the third-worlders and forced them to attempt to care for themselves. As it is they can just shit out eight kids per couple and then the West takes care of them all while the cycle continues.

>>133208997
>I've heard of people having more kids with the intent of getting a larger tax return at the end of the year, or even single mothers allowing their friends to claim their kids as dependents so their taxes are as high.

Do you have concrete sources.

>>133209809
Condoms are shit pills are much better. Either that or injection or IUD's

3rd world countries rely on larger families to work the fields and to protect their homes from dangers. the projection estimates the number of births over a period of years but not the likelihood that any of them will survive past 20. Having a major increase in population and no institution to care for all of these people will result in a mismanagement of food and resource and may result in War with their own people and other nations as a desperate attempt to recover what is lost. I'd say that the underdeveloped nations will probably be 2-3x higher than a population of a more developed country overall.

Lucky we have all these neat immigration policies to help out the low fertility rates in the west. Thanks jew overloads, you have thought of everything

>>133208525
Go check fertility vs working women.

>>133208389
European population also boomed when introduced to modern medicine and food abundance, and then stopped.
This is happening in the rest of the world now. Their birth rates will correct themselves over a couple of generations of low child mortality.

>>133210564
look at how gulf states are all above the line. compare fertility vs female college graduation and I bet it will match even better.

Everything started to go shit since monarchies started to fall and rightful monarchs stopped leading by the word of God.

File: Untitled.png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>133216446
Also the right for women to a career instead of keeping their traditional role of housewife and child birth machine a lot of people can't do many kids because wife wants to work.