LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

rick_chasey

Lol i didn’t realise you did economic history as part of your course.

When you confuse income with cost of living it’s hard to take the argument seriously. You’ve not provided anything about cost of living versus fertility. Zero.

Usual STEM arrogance.

Unless you want to stop people earning as much and taking women out of careers, looking at those factor in this context is irrelevant. Yes they are the biggest factors but they’re constant in the cost-of-living versus fertility argument so they are not relevant.

rick_chasey

How can if not affect it? It’s just common sense. It is literally the thinking in my own family planning and my peers and friends who are that age.

focuszing723

rick_chasey said:

Lol i didn’t realise you did economic history as part of your course.

When you confuse income with cost of living it’s hard to take the argument seriously. You’ve not provided anything about cost of living versus fertility. Zero.

Usual STEM arrogance.

If cost of living or income is such an issue, how come India's and China's populations are so large? Surely it's a lifestyle choice too?

focuszing723

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

Lol i didn’t realise you did economic history as part of your course.

When you confuse income with cost of living it’s hard to take the argument seriously. You’ve not provided anything about cost of living versus fertility. Zero.

Usual STEM arrogance.

Oh ffs are you now arguing that lowering income doesn't have the same effect as raising cost of living? Or just resorting to pedantically picking at terminology as a form of obfuscation? FYI starting a new argument doesn't mean you prevailed on the previous one, it means you've given up.

My stem background simply helps me spot the difference between a pretty picture with some dots and a line, and something that might be taken seriously. It doesn't matter what the data are. And to be honest you don't even need a stem background. I think GCSE is enough. That's not arrogant.

Your arrogance seems to be that you think you know everything.

So, back to the arguments you gave up on.

Those graphs from the IFS article I criticised. Please comment on my specific criticism of them.

Please also explain why one can conclude from the data on home ownership by age group in the Adam Smith article, that this lowers fertility rates. Is there a link between owning a home and fertility?

I've not studied economic history, so I don't understand why these people are right.

First.Aspect

focuszing723 said:

rick_chasey said:

Lol i didn’t realise you did economic history as part of your course.

When you confuse income with cost of living it’s hard to take the argument seriously. You’ve not provided anything about cost of living versus fertility. Zero.

Usual STEM arrogance.

If cost of living or income is such an issue, how come India's and China's populations are so large? Surely it's a lifestyle choice too?

Nope. Already tried that.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

How can if not affect it? It’s just common sense. It is literally the thinking in my own family planning and my peers and friends who are that age.

Wasn't the original point asking you to look outside of your bubble?

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

How can if not affect it? It’s just common sense. It is literally the thinking in my own family planning and my peers and friends who are that age.

This is a perfect example of why you aren't a scientist and dont come close to thinking like one.

It's not a stupid concept by any means. But to test it, you need data. If the data is inconclusive you need more. If the data shows the opposite you are wrong.

Here's an analogy for you.

You sit down with your mates and ask them how they are going to vote. You and two others say labour and one says Tory. Would you conclude that Labour will get 75% of the popular vote?

Stevo sits down with his mates and between them 3 say Tory and the other one hasn't registered to vote because he is a member of the monarchy. Would he conclude that the Tories would get 100% of the popular vote and that the civil list should be reduced down from 15 million people?

I don't think your reasoning is much different RC.

secretsqirrel

focuszing723 said:

rick_chasey said:

Lol i didn’t realise you did economic history as part of your course.

When you confuse income with cost of living it’s hard to take the argument seriously. You’ve not provided anything about cost of living versus fertility. Zero.

Usual STEM arrogance.

If cost of living or income is such an issue, how come India's and China's populations are so large? Surely it's a lifestyle choice too?

Well this is what is confusing me. Fertility is biology, which can be affected by lifestyle choices where lifestyle choice affects health. However, fertile people can chose not to reproduce.
So leaving the biology out of it, we are talking about birthrate not fertility.

rick_chasey

In maths mechanics, which I did do at uni, you look at what your maths tells you and you look at the real world and check it makes sense.

In economic history you learn statistical tools to evaluate complicated data on human behaviour which has multiple inputs into complicated systems; many many more than you experience in the rarified world of science where the environments are much more controllable.

We have here both logic, common sense, and understanding of human decision making and a lecturer providing actual data from multiple sources and drawing conclusions.

But mr engineering who spends 10 minutes looking at it doesn’t think it’s right so boom that’s it.

I don’t think you have the faintest clue on how to draw conclusions from humanities data and you should stick to the uncomplicated world of engineering if this is how you want to argue.

And yes, “rising cost of living” is absolutely different to “less income” and I think you need to draw a distinction between world wise rising incomes, which is a longer term trend, and rising costs in the context of high incomes, which is a more short and medium term issue.

I suspect it is to do with the aspiration and expectation of investment and cost of bringing up children in a high income world and how that conflicts with the realities of less disposable income, but that nuance might be beyond you?

focuszing723

Right, so Rick's wife wants another kid and and an SUV. How come we have to take the grief though?

That $h1t ain't fair!

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

How can if not affect it? It’s just common sense. It is literally the thinking in my own family planning and my peers and friends who are that age.

You're not on a low income. There's probably quite a bit of overlap between your and my clientele - all earning a lot more than me. It's fairly apparent that they are nearly all starting families 5-10 years later than me in their late 30s/early 40s.

I think people's perception of how well off they are is often far removed from reality.

focuszing723

You wait till the winter when she wants the gas on 24/7.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

How can if not affect it? It’s just common sense. It is literally the thinking in my own family planning and my peers and friends who are that age.

You're not on a low income. There's probably quite a bit of overlap between your and my clientele - all earning a lot more than me. It's fairly apparent that they are nearly all starting families 5-10 years later than me in their late 30s/early 40s.

I think people's view of how well off they are is often far removed from reality.

It’s not about being well off it’s about the cost of space to have your career and a family.

Of course higher income reduces fertility. But the Uk is high income and that won’t change.
That is a constant. That is s given.

In addition to that, I think the way any young person has to live makes it even harder to have children *because of the cost of living*

I think you lot are confusing “higher cost of living” with “less income” which is different.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

In maths mechanics, which I did do at uni, you look at what your maths tells you and you look at the real world and check it makes sense.

In economic history you learn statistical tools to evaluate complicated data on human behaviour which has multiple inputs into complicated systems; many many more than you experience in the rarified world of science where the environments are much more controllable.

We have here both logic, common sense, and understanding of human decision making and a lecturer providing actual data from multiple sources and drawing conclusions.

But mr engineering who spends 10 minutes looking at it doesn’t think it’s right so boom that’s it.

I don’t think you have the faintest clue on how to draw conclusions from humanities data and you should stick to the uncomplicated world of engineering if this is how you want to argue.

And yes, “rising cost of living” is absolutely different to “less income” and I think you need to draw a distinction between world wise rising incomes, which is a longer term trend, and rising costs in the context of high incomes, which is a more short and medium term issue.

I suspect it is to do with the aspiration and expectation of investment and cost of bringing up children in a high income world and how that conflicts with the realities of less disposable income, but that nuance might be beyond you?

University degree willy waving here we come.

You know I'm going to win on that as well, right?

And sorry for being capable of independent critical thought.

Can we get back to the IFS data. As far as my evidently untrained eye can see, the author tried to test whether there is a relationship between two factors. They then assumed this was linear, for some reason. They did a linear regression on the data, and plotted this across the data.

The data has a large amount of scatter.

No attempt has been made to provide confidence levels.

The author, in their defense, prefaces the entire article with their view that other factors are likely to be far more important.

Do you dispute any of that?

If not, can you explain why any of the conclusions drawn from the gradients of those linear regressions are actually supported by the data. Does not matter what the data are, or what technical field they relate to.

Because, and I'm sorry if determining this in less than 10 minutes offends you, but this is what that article basically boils down to. The lines point down and, as you say, boom.

But Mr Bean, there are other equally statistically valid lines that curve. Or go up. Or have minima or maxima or points of inflection.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

How can if not affect it? It’s just common sense. It is literally the thinking in my own family planning and my peers and friends who are that age.

You're not on a low income. There's probably quite a bit of overlap between your and my clientele - all earning a lot more than me. It's fairly apparent that they are nearly all starting families 5-10 years later than me in their late 30s/early 40s.

I think people's view of how well off they are is often far removed from reality.

It’s not about being well off it’s about the cost of space to have your career and a family.

Of course higher income reduces fertility. But the Uk is high income and that won’t change.
That is a constant. That is s given.

In addition to that, I think the way any young person has to live makes it even harder to have children *because of the cost of living*

I think you lot are confusing “higher cost of living” with “less income” which is different.

No one is confusing that RC, they just aren't being hoodwinked into believing that they are independent of one another, because these aren't the 'droids you are looking for.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

In maths mechanics, which I did do at uni, you look at what your maths tells you and you look at the real world and check it makes sense.

In economic history you learn statistical tools to evaluate complicated data on human behaviour which has multiple inputs into complicated systems; many many more than you experience in the rarified world of science where the environments are much more controllable.

We have here both logic, common sense, and understanding of human decision making and a lecturer providing actual data from multiple sources and drawing conclusions.

But mr engineering who spends 10 minutes looking at it doesn’t think it’s right so boom that’s it.

I don’t think you have the faintest clue on how to draw conclusions from humanities data and you should stick to the uncomplicated world of engineering if this is how you want to argue.

And yes, “rising cost of living” is absolutely different to “less income” and I think you need to draw a distinction between world wise rising incomes, which is a longer term trend, and rising costs in the context of high incomes, which is a more short and medium term issue.

I suspect it is to do with the aspiration and expectation of investment and cost of bringing up children in a high income world and how that conflicts with the realities of less disposable income, but that nuance might be beyond you?

I have a query. Is the maths for humanities data different from other data?

Because you seem to be arguing that the latitude for interpreting it can include applying the logic behind the hypothesis you are testing.

You know, that sounds like an awfully dangerous way to go about learning things. You might consider that to increase the risk that you confirm your own preconceptions. Were I to coin a phrase for that, it would be confirmation bias.

Were you told about that RC? Or are historians immune?

rick_chasey

Ok firstly FA, you started the degree Willy waving, so I’m sure you think you’d win that.

Secondly, other factors are indeed more important. Mainly income levels and female workforce participation. You then also gets things like cultural norms, prevelence of religions which are against birth control etc. This is usually to do with things like the level of investment expected for children increases with income, so they want fewer to invest more time effort money etc into them.

In order to improve fertility, none of us are going to consider making people poorer, investing less in children or taking women out of work. Nor am I going to advocate for people to believe in different religions.

So you need to look at factors where there is alignment between the improved fertility outcome and improved societal outcome.

And there is a small (because other factors above are more important) but measurable factor which is cost of living.

Especially when you take that into the context of higher earners who are in a society where the level of investment in children is high. (Such as your own childhood)

But if you have less disposable income than your parents did at parenting age, you probably still have the same investment expectations. But you don’t have the means to meet them.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

How can if not affect it? It’s just common sense. It is literally the thinking in my own family planning and my peers and friends who are that age.

You're not on a low income. There's probably quite a bit of overlap between your and my clientele - all earning a lot more than me. It's fairly apparent that they are nearly all starting families 5-10 years later than me in their late 30s/early 40s.

I think people's view of how well off they are is often far removed from reality.

It’s not about being well off it’s about the cost of space to have your career and a family.

Of course higher income reduces fertility. But the Uk is high income and that won’t change.
That is a constant. That is s given.

In addition to that, I think the way any young person has to live makes it even harder to have children *because of the cost of living*

I think you lot are confusing “higher cost of living” with “less income” which is different.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that there is a correlation between being well off and house size.

I know it's anecdotal, but I'm moving house at the moment and it does tend to be the case that bigger houses are more expensive.

focuszing723

If Rick's right the only answer is to go on a no excuses mass homes to live in initiative. That would drive the cost of living down and give younger families some hope.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

Ok firstly FA, you started the degree Willy waving, so I’m sure you think you’d win that.

Secondly, other factors are indeed more important. Mainly income levels and female workforce participation. You then also gets things like cultural norms, prevelence of religions which are against birth control etc. This is usually to do with things like the level of investment expected for children increases with income, so they want fewer to invest more time effort money etc into them.

In order to improve fertility, none of us are going to consider making people poorer, investing less in children or taking women out of work. Nor am I going to advocate for people to believe in different religions.

So you need to look at factors where there is alignment between the improved fertility outcome and improved societal outcome.

And there is a small (because other factors above are more important) but measurable factor which is cost of living.

Especially when you take that into the context of higher earners who are in a society where the level of investment in children is high. (Such as your own childhood)

But if you have less disposable income than your parents did at parenting age, you probably still have the same investment expectations. But you don’t have the means to meet them.

Repetition.

The data you posted doesn't support the hypothesis. The ONS data shows lower birth rates at higher income levels, which contradicts your argument.

Nothing wrong with the idea of making people better off, but where do you find the basis from that to conclude that it would also increase birth rates (being pedantic, not fertility)?

focuszing723

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Ok firstly FA, you started the degree Willy waving, so I’m sure you think you’d win that.

Secondly, other factors are indeed more important. Mainly income levels and female workforce participation. You then also gets things like cultural norms, prevelence of religions which are against birth control etc. This is usually to do with things like the level of investment expected for children increases with income, so they want fewer to invest more time effort money etc into them.

In order to improve fertility, none of us are going to consider making people poorer, investing less in children or taking women out of work. Nor am I going to advocate for people to believe in different religions.

So you need to look at factors where there is alignment between the improved fertility outcome and improved societal outcome.

And there is a small (because other factors above are more important) but measurable factor which is cost of living.

Especially when you take that into the context of higher earners who are in a society where the level of investment in children is high. (Such as your own childhood)

But if you have less disposable income than your parents did at parenting age, you probably still have the same investment expectations. But you don’t have the means to meet them.

Repetition.

The data you posted doesn't support the hypothesis. The ONS data shows lower birth rates at higher income levels, which contradicts your argument.

Nothing wrong with the idea of making people better off, but where do you find the basis from that to conclude that it would also increase birth rates (being pedantic, not fertility)?

I literally wrote higher income reduces fertility in my post you just quoted.

And you keep repeating income and not mentioning cost.

I’ll leave it till you’ve read it properly.

focuszing723

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Ok firstly FA, you started the degree Willy waving, so I’m sure you think you’d win that.

Secondly, other factors are indeed more important. Mainly income levels and female workforce participation. You then also gets things like cultural norms, prevelence of religions which are against birth control etc. This is usually to do with things like the level of investment expected for children increases with income, so they want fewer to invest more time effort money etc into them.

In order to improve fertility, none of us are going to consider making people poorer, investing less in children or taking women out of work. Nor am I going to advocate for people to believe in different religions.

So you need to look at factors where there is alignment between the improved fertility outcome and improved societal outcome.

And there is a small (because other factors above are more important) but measurable factor which is cost of living.

Especially when you take that into the context of higher earners who are in a society where the level of investment in children is high. (Such as your own childhood)

But if you have less disposable income than your parents did at parenting age, you probably still have the same investment expectations. But you don’t have the means to meet them.

Repetition.

The data you posted doesn't support the hypothesis. The ONS data shows lower birth rates at higher income levels, which contradicts your argument.

Nothing wrong with the idea of making people better off, but where do you find the basis from that to conclude that it would also increase birth rates (being pedantic, not fertility)?

I literally wrote higher income reduces fertility in that post you just quoted.

I’ll leave it till you’ve read it properly.

What's your solution then?

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

Ok firstly FA, you started the degree Willy waving, so I’m sure you think you’d win.

Pretty sure it was you that tried to trump my notional halfway competent stem graduate (later GCSE pupil) with your history of economics and training in, specifically, humanities data.

First.Aspect

focuszing723 said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Ok firstly FA, you started the degree Willy waving, so I’m sure you think you’d win that.

Secondly, other factors are indeed more important. Mainly income levels and female workforce participation. You then also gets things like cultural norms, prevelence of religions which are against birth control etc. This is usually to do with things like the level of investment expected for children increases with income, so they want fewer to invest more time effort money etc into them.

In order to improve fertility, none of us are going to consider making people poorer, investing less in children or taking women out of work. Nor am I going to advocate for people to believe in different religions.

So you need to look at factors where there is alignment between the improved fertility outcome and improved societal outcome.

And there is a small (because other factors above are more important) but measurable factor which is cost of living.

Especially when you take that into the context of higher earners who are in a society where the level of investment in children is high. (Such as your own childhood)

But if you have less disposable income than your parents did at parenting age, you probably still have the same investment expectations. But you don’t have the means to meet them.

Repetition.

The data you posted doesn't support the hypothesis. The ONS data shows lower birth rates at higher income levels, which contradicts your argument.

Nothing wrong with the idea of making people better off, but where do you find the basis from that to conclude that it would also increase birth rates (being pedantic, not fertility)?

I literally wrote higher income reduces fertility in that post you just quoted.

I’ll leave it till you’ve read it properly.

What's your solution then?

Drunken speed dating. Birth rate would skyrocket.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Ok firstly FA, you started the degree Willy waving, so I’m sure you think you’d win that.

Secondly, other factors are indeed more important. Mainly income levels and female workforce participation. You then also gets things like cultural norms, prevelence of religions which are against birth control etc. This is usually to do with things like the level of investment expected for children increases with income, so they want fewer to invest more time effort money etc into them.

In order to improve fertility, none of us are going to consider making people poorer, investing less in children or taking women out of work. Nor am I going to advocate for people to believe in different religions.

So you need to look at factors where there is alignment between the improved fertility outcome and improved societal outcome.

And there is a small (because other factors above are more important) but measurable factor which is cost of living.

Especially when you take that into the context of higher earners who are in a society where the level of investment in children is high. (Such as your own childhood)

But if you have less disposable income than your parents did at parenting age, you probably still have the same investment expectations. But you don’t have the means to meet them.

Repetition.

The data you posted doesn't support the hypothesis. The ONS data shows lower birth rates at higher income levels, which contradicts your argument.

Nothing wrong with the idea of making people better off, but where do you find the basis from that to conclude that it would also increase birth rates (being pedantic, not fertility)?

I literally wrote higher income reduces fertility in my post you just quoted.

And you keep repeating income and not mentioning cost.

I’ll leave it till you’ve read it properly.

I read your post. You didn't. You said lots of things that I started off pointing out to you and otherwise dodged the questions I've been posing.

Basically, seems to me that the penny has dropped that making people better off *in comparison to the cost of living* doesn't make them breed like rabbits, so you've moved on to agreeing with something I said earlier by explaining it to me.

Which also isn't rocket science by the way.

First.Aspect

You know, I'm reconsidering whether you might have a career in politics.

Your argument style is to change the subject, and avoid answering questions by answering other questions that no one has asked. You also find very minor or irrelevant linguistic distinctions, and impute great significance upon them in order to do so.

I think you must be an MP already.

wallace_and_gromit

rick_chasey said:

In order to improve fertility, none of us are going to consider ... taking women out of work.

It's unlike me to provide a cultural diversion but taking women of proven child-bearing capability out of the workforce and assigning them to the Alpha Males of the New Order for the sole purpose of producing more babies was the premise behind "The Handmaid's Tale".

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

How can if not affect it? It’s just common sense. It is literally the thinking in my own family planning and my peers and friends who are that age.

You're not on a low income. There's probably quite a bit of overlap between your and my clientele - all earning a lot more than me. It's fairly apparent that they are nearly all starting families 5-10 years later than me in their late 30s/early 40s.

I think people's view of how well off they are is often far removed from reality.

It’s not about being well off it’s about the cost of space to have your career and a family.

Of course higher income reduces fertility. But the Uk is high income and that won’t change.
That is a constant. That is s given.

In addition to that, I think the way any young person has to live makes it even harder to have children *because of the cost of living*

I think you lot are confusing “higher cost of living” with “less income” which is different.

Let me pick this apart.

Bold and non-bold italics contradict one another.

Bold and non-italics is the complete opposite to the original whinge.

Bold and italics. Not sure where to start. How about, "eh?"