Chicago Boyz

What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?

  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Fertility Peaks

    Posted by Ginny on February 28th, 2006 (All posts by )

    Jim Miller has interesting comments and a useful graph on American fertility rates, prompted by Lex’s earlier comments linking to Spengler. (Ah, what mazes we weave.)

    Update: Instapundit links to a lengthy discussion on this topic by Phillip Longman, “The Return of Patriarchy” in Foreign Policy.


    2 Responses to “Fertility Peaks”

    1. Charles D. Quarles Says:

      Interesting :).

      I have one beef with the graph. The replacement level line is misleading. The infant and childhood mortality rates in 1901 were higher than they were in 2000, so the replacement level line should be sloped or clearly labeled as the present replacement level.

    2. Jim Miller Says:

      Charles – I agree and would make similar criticisms of many of the other graphs in the book. The problem is that the book (and the PBS series) were aimed at a general audience. And that meant that the book simplifies more than you and I would like.

      That said, the book lists for just 20 dollars and is a wonderful overview of the statistical changes in the United States during the 20th century,

      It would be a great teaching tool for high school classes. (If I were using it in a classroom, I would give the students the graphs and then ask them to explain them — without looking at the text.)

      The same book written at the level that I would prefer would probably cost ten times as much, given the smaller audience for such a work.