Apparently population momentum means that below-replacement fertility is fake. I was skeptical at first, but this comes from a demographer, so it has to be true.
Proof that below-replacement fertility is fake. Where can I get my Nobel Prize in Demography?
Oh no! It turns out that below-replacement fertility is not fake after all... There goes my Nobel Prize 😢
By the way, just looking at natural increase doesn't totally remove the effect of immigration, since births include natural-born descendants of immigrants and therefore natural increase would have been lower had it not been for past immigration.
But the point is that, with population momentum, you don't even need immigration for the population to increase *for a while* with below-replacement fertility. It's just that the age structure changes, i. e. the population gets older.
Moreover, sooner or later, below-replacement fertility catches up with you and the population starts going down. Clearly, only a white nationalist could worry about any of that, so by all means let's just cancel @JDVance1 for talking about below-replacement fertility 🙃
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This should be normalized to account for demographic change in the country though. My guess is that, while Trump did overperform among minorities, the current narrative exaggerates the phenomenon and how much it mattered. The real action was likely among whites, same as in 2016.
What I mean is that "non-white" is a heterogeneous category and, in particular, it’s increasingly dominated by hispanics, among whom Republicans have always done better than among blacks.
I guess "normalize" isn't quite the right word, "adjusted to account for the change in the composition of non-whites" would have been better, but it didn't fit. In any case, while I do not doubt that Trump improved among hispanics, I doubt he did as well as Bush in 2004.
For what it's worth, if the results of the latest NYT/Siena poll were accurate, here is what this would mean. The margin is slowly going down, but *if the polls are accurate*, he won't be able to catch up. So it really hinges on whether the polls are accurate, same as before.
What I'm saying, just to be perfectly clear, is that although many people are reading a lot into this we are pretty much at the same point we were before we knew anything about the partisan affiliation of the electorate, i. e. Trump is not going to win unless the polls are wrong.
Now, those numbers don't say *anything* about whether the polls are wrong, so my point isn't that Trump is going to lose, only that so far nothing we have learned should change your assessment of the probability. We're basically headed toward what 538's polling average shows.
Okay, it's time to put my cards on the table, so here is my prediction. 270towin.com/maps/2grl3
Conditional on Trump winning the electoral college, which as you can see above is not what I expect to happen, here is the map I regard as most likely. 270towin.com/maps/oAn3r
As a bonus, here is another scenario I don't regard as very likely (Trump loses PA but wins AZ and MN), but which I think could happen and surprise everyone especially if the Selzer poll in IA was in fact picking up something real in the Midwest. 270towin.com/maps/Vnd1P
C'est terrible que les mêmes gens qui nous expliquaient il y a quelques mois que les masques ne servaient à rien nous expliquent maintenant que si on est reconfiné c'est parce que les gens portent mal leur masque, alors que pendant ce temps à Wuhan voilà ce qu'ils font...
Il faut arrêter de s'imaginer que les Chinois sont des robots qui obéissent à toutes les règles au doigt et à l'oeil. L'épidémie repart partout en Europe y compris dans des endroits où la population a une réputation de civisme impeccable.
On ne peut pas demander aux gens d'arrêter de vivre pendant des mois. Toute politique qui repose sur une telle attente est stupide. La vraie différence c'est qu'en Chine quand ils découvrent 12 cas les autorités testent 9 millions de personne en 5 jours 🙃 bbc.com/news/world-asi…
Le détail des subventions pour 2019 vient de paraître et celle de @CedricMas a touché 19 477€ de l'État cette année-là, alors que le dernier article publié sur le site du "think tank" remonte à décembre 2018 et qu'il a été sabordé quelques mois plus tard.
Voici la ligne du fichier que vous pouvez trouver sur le site du Ministère de l'Économie montrant la subvention versée à l'Institut Action Résilience pour "prévention de la radicalisation". budget.gouv.fr/documentation/…
C'est quand même étrange pour une association qui, d'après ce qu'on peut trouver sur Internet, n'a pas eu la moindre activité en 2019 et a sabordé son propre site web cette année-là 🤔
This shows year-to-year change in weekly purchases with a debit card in Spain, where a lockdown started on March 14 and was gradually lifted after May 2. But people still maintain that legal restrictions don't make a huge difference for the economy because people are scared 🙃
I guess they got massively scared all of a sudden around March 14, which happens to be when the lockdown started but that's just a coincidence, then suddenly started to stop being afraid as the lockdown was lifted, but again this is just another weird coincidence.
By the way, the change by category also track the way in which legal restrictions were gradually lifted after the lockdown (e. g. leisure/entertainment expenditures really start to go up as restaurants, theaters, etc. open again), but again let me stress it's just a coincidence.