Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2017 22:14:26 GMT -5
Don't have the figures for my town but I noticed that children of professing families account for a sizable percentage of the local school. I think the average is about four kids per family. Lots of locals have no kids, or just the one. It's an interesting question - wonder why?
Here's a graph taken from the Australian Bureau of Statistics on church attendance verses children.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2017 22:33:39 GMT -5
in the USA, Mormons have the highest fertility among whites.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Jan 22, 2017 22:34:38 GMT -5
Don't have the figures for my town but I noticed that children of professing families account for a sizable percentage of the local school. I think the average is about four kids per family. Lots of locals have no kids, or just the one. It's an interesting question - wonder why? On average both country and city professing people get married at younger ages than do non-professing people. Once it comes to children there's a country vs city thing going on re-children in professing families. Most of the country professing folk seem to have more children and at younger ages. In the cities most of the professing folk wait until about age 30 before having children and have fewer children overall.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2017 22:37:35 GMT -5
all i know is that the walker family has 8 kids and thats HUGE compared to most families...
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Jan 23, 2017 3:18:43 GMT -5
Bert,
The families in our church have on average 3-4 kids.
We have a Professor of Demography (Australian National University) in our weekly home bible study - do you want me to ask him?
I don't think taking one small town as a standard is statistically valid.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Jan 23, 2017 7:47:25 GMT -5
Bert, The families in our church have on average 3-4 kids. We have a Professor of Demography (Australian National University) in our weekly home bible study - do you want me to ask him? I don't think taking one small town as a standard is statistically valid. Where I grew up the locals did joke that it was a rule for the 2x2 to have 4 children. The fertility rate is higher among Christian, Islamic and also Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women in Australia though. Perhaps these are all secret 2x2's?
|
|
julio
Junior Member
Posts: 142
|
Post by julio on Jan 23, 2017 15:29:01 GMT -5
I thought it was the Catholic church that taught birth control was wrong, and those families had more children. I worked with a good Catholic, who went to classes before getting married on how to limit family size acceptably. She got married and had twins almost immediately.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2017 16:56:21 GMT -5
Read somewhere about Catholic family size in Australia ca 1990's. It was two point such and such (sorry, can't recall the actual number) This 2.nn was the same as non-Catholic families, to TWO DECIMAL PLACES.
When I was growing up to be Catholic was to be very different and very special. That all vanished by the mid sixties.
It's a different topic but the mid sixties really was a watershed in religion.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 23, 2017 17:45:50 GMT -5
I thought it was the Catholic church that taught birth control was wrong, and those families had more children. They are not opposed to birth control methods that consist of doing nothing - the rhythm method. Or periodic abstinence.Wow. That is fast! Did she have any provocative dreams???
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Jan 24, 2017 0:08:45 GMT -5
Read somewhere about Catholic family size in Australia ca 1990's. It was two point such and such (sorry, can't recall the actual number) This 2.nn was the same as non-Catholic families, to TWO DECIMAL PLACES. In the general population the fertility rate was below 2 throughout the 90's.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Jan 24, 2017 0:24:09 GMT -5
Wow. That is fast! Did she have any provocative dreams??? Or Alien visitors?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 3:58:28 GMT -5
Must have been when I read it - an article on the attitude of Catholics towards the Pope's edicts on birth control. One wag put it to the Pope - 'you no play the game, you no make the rules.'
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Jan 24, 2017 6:59:36 GMT -5
The birth rate hasn't been above 2 since the late 1970's in Australia. It did rise to 1.96 - that's TWO DECIMAL PLACES - in 2008 so based on the logic you are using there may have been an increase in church attendance at the time or perhaps the children produced by professing families affected the national statistics Or alternatively, it could have been good economic times over the previous few years coupled with the Government's baby bonus which provided parents with significant cash incentives to have babies. You will recall the Treasurer's mantra at the time - have one for Dad, have one for Mum and one for the country. By all means, so long as Peter or the country is paying for that. Actually, if I remember correctly the 08-09 financial year and the few years following would be about when the childcare rebate was at peak buying power also. Nowadays most people I know cannot afford to have more than one child requiring childcare at a time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 9:28:07 GMT -5
The birth rate hasn't been above 2 since the late 1970's in Australia. It did rise to 1.96 - that's TWO DECIMAL PLACES - in 2008 so based on the logic you are using there may have been an increase in church attendance at the time or perhaps the children produced by professing families affected the national statistics Or alternatively, it could have been good economic times over the previous few years coupled with the Government's baby bonus which provided parents with significant cash incentives to have babies. You will recall the Treasurer's mantra at the time - have one for Dad, have one for Mum and one for the country. By all means, so long as Peter or the country is paying for that. Actually, if I remember correctly the 08-09 financial year and the few years following would be about when the childcare rebate was at peak buying power also. Nowadays most people I know cannot afford to have more than one child requiring childcare at a time. Folks could afford to have two, three, or more children, if housing costs were lower and taxes were lower. But that is not going to happen if a significant amount of the housing stock is held off the market by old people living in it who are kept alive by tax payer money. Remove the free healthcare for old people who don't work, and then they will very quickly put a large supply of housing stock onto the market, thereby reducing prices of housing, thereby marking it possible for parents to have more children. It also will cut taxes significantly with the same effect. It's a no brainer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 10:24:17 GMT -5
So what are we hinting here, the introduction of a special form of euthanasia to put down old people who don't work in order to free up housing in which they reside, for younger folks so as to enable them to have two three or more children??
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Jan 24, 2017 12:05:52 GMT -5
By all means, so long as Peter or the country is paying for that. Actually, if I remember correctly the 08-09 financial year and the few years following would be about when the childcare rebate was at peak buying power also. Nowadays most people I know cannot afford to have more than one child requiring childcare at a time. Folks could afford to have two, three, or more children, if housing costs were lower and taxes were lower. But that is not going to happen if a significant amount of the housing stock is held off the market by old people living in it who are kept alive by tax payer money. Remove the free healthcare for old people who don't work, and then they will very quickly put a large supply of housing stock onto the market, thereby reducing prices of housing, thereby marking it possible for parents to have more children. It also will cut taxes significantly with the same effect. It's a no brainer. OK, Thanks for confirming that you are a Troll.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 12:31:07 GMT -5
jondough @partaker ok kiddies, since you don't seem to know much about economics, I'll point you to a report done at the firm Kliener Perkins by Mary Meeker. www.kpcb.com/blog/2011-usa-inc-full-reportThe key issue that this report details is that in the USA, that the ratio of retired people to working age people is far too low. The reason for this ratio being low is two fold. 1) in 1970 or so, life expectancy was 67, now it is in the 80s. That drastically increased the number of retired people. 2) Boomers had on average 2 children. That reduced the number of working age people 20 years later. When average life expectancy increases substantially (as it has), the natural supply of housing coming on the market from deaths becomes extremely restricted. This causes a scarcity in housing, and so new houses have to be built to meet the demand. But land for houses in many places is limited and scarce, so land prices increase. This makes the new homes expensive, too expensive for a one-wage couple to buy. So both parents must work, and that makes it harder to start a family since the female doesn't want to give up her career to raise 3+ children. I'm not hinting at anything. I am saying that we as a civilization (The West) need to cut off almost all of the free healthcare for retired people. If they want to live for a long time without working, then they can save for it themselves. But the working tax payers should not be paying for these freeloaders. Why do you think all of The West is importing immigrants by the hundreds of thousands? In order to get enough workers to pay taxes for these old people to live comfortable long retirements. And those immigrants are dramatically changing the fabric of our civilizations in the process.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 24, 2017 16:06:22 GMT -5
Wow. That is fast! Did she have any provocative dreams??? Or Alien visitors? Or TWO immaculate conceptions?
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Jan 24, 2017 16:10:44 GMT -5
jondough @partaker ok kiddies, since you don't seem to know much about economics, I'll point you to a report done at the firm Kliener Perkins by Mary Meeker. www.kpcb.com/blog/2011-usa-inc-full-reportThe key issue that this report details is that in the USA, that the ratio of retired people to working age people is far too low. The reason for this ratio being low is two fold. 1) in 1970 or so, life expectancy was 67, now it is in the 80s. That drastically increased the number of retired people. 2) Boomers had on average 2 children. That reduced the number of working age people 20 years later. When average life expectancy increases substantially (as it has), the natural supply of housing coming on the market from deaths becomes extremely restricted. This causes a scarcity in housing, and so new houses have to be built to meet the demand. But land for houses in many places is limited and scarce, so land prices increase. This makes the new homes expensive, too expensive for a one-wage couple to buy. So both parents must work, and that makes it harder to start a family since the female doesn't want to give up her career to raise 3+ children. I'm not hinting at anything. I am saying that we as a civilization (The West) need to cut off almost all of the free healthcare for retired people. If they want to live for a long time without working, then they can save for it themselves. But the working tax payers should not be paying for these freeloaders. Why do you think all of The West is importing immigrants by the hundreds of thousands? In order to get enough workers to pay taxes for these old people to live comfortable long retirements. And those immigrants are dramatically changing the fabric of our civilizations in the process. 1. The majority of our retired people are living off of their retirement and/or social security of which they paid in to. 2. Need for housing has always been good for our economy. It causes healthy inflation, which is also a good thing. It also creates lot of jobs - construction related, which has a trickle down affect to many other jobs in many sectors. So lets not not kill of our elders quite yet, ok?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 24, 2017 16:17:33 GMT -5
Folks could afford to have two, three, or more children, if housing costs were lower and taxes were lower. But that is not going to happen if a significant amount of the housing stock is held off the market by old people living in it who are kept alive by tax payer money. Remove the free healthcare for old people who don't work, and then they will very quickly put a large supply of housing stock onto the market, thereby reducing prices of housing, thereby marking it possible for parents to have more children. It also will cut taxes significantly with the same effect. It's a no brainer. Why would we want more children?
We are close to populating ourselves right off the face off the earth as it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 16:45:06 GMT -5
1. The majority of our retired people are living off of their retirement and/or social security of which they paid in to. 2. Need for housing has always been good for our economy. It causes healthy inflation, which is also a good thing. It also creates lot of jobs - construction related, which has a trickle down affect to many other jobs in many sectors. 1. No that is not a true statement. Almost all 65+ folks are 100% dependent on FREE healthcare. If they had to pay the full rate for those services, they would be bankrupt immediately. They did not 'pay into' Medicaid/Medicare in any significant amount that even remotely covers what they are taking out of it. The report I linked to shows you just how bad this situation is. 2. Need for housing is only good for the economy IF it is affordable. Italy is a good example. In Italy land is scarce for building new housing. Because Italy has very generous free healthcare and pensions, life expectancy is 80+. So the taxes to pay for this are 60% of a middle class worker's salary! But since land is scarce, and old people are not dying, the young workers cannot afford to even get enough money to pay for a down payment. (by the way this is the same in most of the coastal markets in the USA). So almost 50% of working age Italians under the age of 40 are living at home with their parents!! And so they are not making babies. And Italian banks are all completely bankrupt as a result - with 25% defaults on all their loans. The economy has been in recession since 2009. This is the result of having a welfare state and low fertility rates. It is inevitable that free healthcare for old people will need to be stopped. We simply cannot afford it. We cannot pay for all these expensive life-extension technologies. It will come to an end soon for many countries in Europe.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Jan 24, 2017 17:03:15 GMT -5
1. The majority of our retired people are living off of their retirement and/or social security of which they paid in to. 2. Need for housing has always been good for our economy. It causes healthy inflation, which is also a good thing. It also creates lot of jobs - construction related, which has a trickle down affect to many other jobs in many sectors. 1. No that is not a true statement. Almost all 65+ folks are 100% dependent on FREE healthcare. If they had to pay the full rate for those services, they would be bankrupt immediately. They did not 'pay into' Medicaid/Medicare in any significant amount that even remotely covers what they are taking out of it. The report I linked to shows you just how bad this situation is. 2. Need for housing is only good for the economy IF it is affordable. Italy is a good example. In Italy land is scarce for building new housing. Because Italy has very generous free healthcare and pensions, life expectancy is 80+. So the taxes to pay for this are 60% of a middle class worker's salary! But since land is scarce, and old people are not dying, the young workers cannot afford to even get enough money to pay for a down payment. (by the way this is the same in most of the coastal markets in the USA). So almost 50% of working age Italians under the age of 40 are living at home with their parents!! And so they are not making babies. And Italian banks are all completely bankrupt as a result - with 25% defaults on all their loans. The economy has been in recession since 2009. This is the result of having a welfare state and low fertility rates. It is inevitable that free healthcare for old people will need to be stopped. We simply cannot afford it. We cannot pay for all these expensive life-extension technologies. It will come to an end soon for many countries in Europe. No doubt Italy is a Welfare state. Its also a very subsudised economy..... To blame this on the old people is so shallow minded...or...complete ignorance...or........... Just troll talk
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 17:08:53 GMT -5
Folks could afford to have two, three, or more children, if housing costs were lower and taxes were lower. But that is not going to happen if a significant amount of the housing stock is held off the market by old people living in it who are kept alive by tax payer money. Remove the free healthcare for old people who don't work, and then they will very quickly put a large supply of housing stock onto the market, thereby reducing prices of housing, thereby marking it possible for parents to have more children. It also will cut taxes significantly with the same effect. It's a no brainer. Why would we want more children?
We are close to populating ourselves right off the face off the earth as it is. That's a FALLACY Dmich' Western society, and particularly European nations, are driving themselves into extinction through child birth. The world will belong to those who value children. And this certainly won't be Russia, Italy, Japan etc..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 17:50:22 GMT -5
No doubt Italy is a Welfare state. Its also a very subsudised economy..... To blame this on the old people is so shallow minded...or...complete ignorance...or........... Just troll talk For a person who claims to run 3 companies and has 300 employees, you sure don't have a good grasp on basic public budgets. The USA is a welfare state. Medicare and Medicaid are welfare state entities. Italy is not a subsidized economy; at least not any more subsidized than the US. Why don't you just read the report I provided. If you can't understand from even reading the first 10 pages that retired people are a massive problem for our gvmt budget - a problem that can only be solved by cutting services to those people - then there is no point in talking to you. I am not stating anything controversial - everyone in elite leadership in the US understands this. Dig up some reports from Pete Peterson for example.
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Jan 24, 2017 17:51:01 GMT -5
My wife had a cousin who,many decades ago, had 5x sets of twins.(one dec=9)Of course they were a catholic family,but a magnificent family true to "their" faith.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 17:53:16 GMT -5
Why would we want more children?
We are close to populating ourselves right off the face off the earth as it is. That's a FALLACY Dmich' Western society, and particularly European nations, are driving themselves into extinction through child birth. The world will belong to those who value children. And this certainly won't be Russia, Italy, Japan etc..Bert, I sure don't like you have promoted on other threads (child abuse), I agree 100% with what you have said on this post. It is widely known that we are importing immigrants by the millions in order to offset the economic decline that is necessarily caused by the low fertility rates. but in the process we are essentially allowing these immigrants to invade our countries and destroy the West.
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Jan 24, 2017 17:57:46 GMT -5
Bert,value children in what society? Western Society has an enormous abortion rate, that in many/most cases to protect ones individual life style,sad isn't it?.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Jan 24, 2017 18:47:06 GMT -5
By all means, so long as Peter or the country is paying for that. Actually, if I remember correctly the 08-09 financial year and the few years following would be about when the childcare rebate was at peak buying power also. Nowadays most people I know cannot afford to have more than one child requiring childcare at a time. Folks could afford to have two, three, or more children, if housing costs were lower and taxes were lower. But that is not going to happen if a significant amount of the housing stock is held off the market by old people living in it who are kept alive by tax payer money. Remove the free healthcare for old people who don't work, and then they will very quickly put a large supply of housing stock onto the market, thereby reducing prices of housing, thereby marking it possible for parents to have more children. It also will cut taxes significantly with the same effect. It's a no brainer. We are in the situation where in our major cities houses and depending on the locality apartments with three or more bedrooms are unaffordable for middleclass young people. Our housing market problem is fuelled by a number of factors one of which is that the primary asset for our old age pension is exempt from asset testing. Over half of all pensioners have a primary asset worth over $500K and in that group, we have lots of millionaires claiming welfare. There have been some recent changes to the asset tests but up until last year pensioners could also have up to an additional 1M in assets other than the family home and claim the old age pension. Much of this pension funding of course comes directly from the taxpayers who cannot afford their own homes. It would be much better for our future as a country in my opinion if we were to tighten up the asset tests for the old age pension so that all assets are included. Not only would this help with the supply of housing all the wasted welfare money could be redirected into more useful purposes.
|
|