India's Fertility rate state by state

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, Tendu_10 said:

how do we deal with the muslim problem in these areas.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
 

If I knew the answer to that question- and i mean real, actual, workable & implementable answer, not 'knee-jerk' childish answers like 'kill them/force conversion/kick them out'- i'd be the most powerful man the planet has ever seen....

 

[Tibarn]

A) Our inbred Comrade Radish goes from

Quote

Yes. because 1.2 billion people in India are not enough. 

Implying more population is added via replacement level (news flash clown, replacement level doesn't usually increase population )

to

Quote

We need less than replacement level for an overpopulated nation.

Comrade Radish was too dumb to realize that replacement level doesn't increase population, then to save face he shifted goalposts to saying that India need less population, even though no-one argued that India needs more population.

 

What is with this guy's reading comprehension skills? Please Comrade, show me where I said India needs a greater population. 

 

B) This guy is obsessed with "Chaddis", but I guess I understand your obsession with undergarments,

 

after all, you claimed this pisses you off

Quote

Folding women's laundry.

Effete rage-boy feels emasculated by folding his wife's laundry and has a subconscious obsession with chaddis as a result.  Listen Comrade, next time I'm in India I will join the RSS just to get a pair of their trademark shorts you are obsessed with and mail them to you. 

 

Lol salaam clown 

 

Edited September 24, 2017 by Tibarn

[Stuge]

http://niti.gov.in/content/total-fertility-rate-tfr-birth-woman

 

Stats given in the link can help you understand the data better .

[Stuge]

Religious demographics

 

 

source wikipedia 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Census_of_India

[randomGuy]

Central government's power (and the ability to work and ability of a Govt. to get  re-elected) is directly  proportional India's self reliance. Most of our trade deficit today is because of oil, gold and electronics imports from China.

 

Once we start using hopefully made in India EVs, trade deficit will become significantly less giving central government massive power.

 

And also as prosperity grows due to self reliance, people increasingly start  voting on issues of cultural preservation (Hindu culture of India) rather than on other issues like caste, subsidies etc.

 

[randomGuy]

@Tibarn India's population will keep on increasing till next 30 yrs even if we reach 2.1 or below today. Reasons -

1. Increasing life expectancy. From 65-70 yrs towards 80 yrs in future.

2. Demographics. Meaning more people in child bearing age group. Just look at the demographic pyramid.

 

But Yes, from stability's PoV, non-Muslims should have more children than they are currently having, relative to Muslims.

[Tibarn]

10 minutes ago, randomGuy said:

1. Increasing life expectancy. From 65-70 yrs towards 80 yrs in future.

This is a good point. Some people expect that the average person in the West will start living on average over 100. I wonder how much that gain in life expectancy will be seen in India, but the 2.1 is still important. People after a certain age stop working.

 

Using the US as an example, the Social Security entitlement kicks in after the age 60. If the average lifespan increases to 100, that would be each person over the age of 60 having 40 years of SS entitlement money owed to them. If, for example the US TFR was less than 2.1, the country would have a lesser working age population paying into the SS system, than those being added in each year.

 

China is having this problem as their population is eventually expected to fall into possibly the 500 million range, but that population will be skewed toward older individuals either retired or soon to be retired. The relatively smaller young population will bear a disproportionate burden in funding the over-sized older population.    

 

In this sense, the problem isn't so much a risk of declining population, as you rightly mention, the lifespan will increase in India as well, but the problem is a smaller working age population than the retired/elderly population. 

[Gollum]

Will people still deny the illegal Bangladesh Muslim influx ? These are GOI official census figures of 2001 and 2011. Check the census website, it is clear Muslims have a much much much higher TFR than all other religions. Even in well to do districts like Malappuram their TFR is 3.9 while for Hindus and Christians it is below 1.8. Most well to do Muslims in India(educated, rich, high standard of living) have a TFR compared to that of Hindus in our most backward states in UP and Bihar, in no state is Hindu/Sikh/Christian TFR even comparable to Muslim TFR. In some districts in UP/Bihar/Jharkhand where Hindu TFR is 3.1-3.5, Muslim TFR is over 5. Assam and WB are worst affected because there the Hindu TFR is too low, ranging from 1.4 to 1.9 while Muslim TFR+illegal immigration has totally changed the demographics of those regions. In Dhubri Muslim growth % is over 200 compared to national Muslim growth % of 29, figure it out yourself.

 

http://www.censusindia.gov.in/data/Census_2001/Publication/India/41020_2001_REL.pdf

 

http://www.census2011.co.in/religion.php 

Edited September 24, 2017 by Gollum

[randomGuy]

10 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

This is a good point. Some people expect that the average person in the West will start living on average over 100. I wonder how much that gain in life expectancy will be seen in India, but the 2.1 is still important. People after a certain age stop working.

 

Using the US as an example, the Social Security entitlement kicks in after the age 60. If the average lifespan increases to 100, that would be each person over the age of 60 having 40 years of SS entitlement money owed to them. If, for example the US TFR was less than 2.1, the country would have a lesser working age population paying into the SS system, than those being added in each year.

 

China is having this problem as their population is eventually expected to fall into possibly the 500 million range, but that population will be skewed toward older individuals either retired or soon to be retired. The relatively smaller young population will bear a disproportionate burden in funding the over-sized older population.    

 

In this sense, the problem isn't so much a risk of declining population, as you rightly mention, the lifespan will increase in India as well, but the problem is a smaller working age population than the retired/elderly population. 

I agree with your post.

Possibly following will be the patterns in present and in future.

1. Increasing productivity by improving skill set and imparting training.

2. Since people are going live longer, one can assume they will be healthier at older age...maybe retire between age 65-70.

3. Technology, Automation...less manpower required. Even today, automation levels are quite high everywhere. Many people have trouble finding jobs in every industry.

[Tibarn]

13 minutes ago, randomGuy said:

I agree with your post.

Possibly following will be the patterns in present and in future.

1. Increasing productivity by improving skill set and imparting training.

2. Since people are going live longer, one can assume they will be healthier at older age...maybe retire between age 65-70.

3. Technology, Automation...less manpower required. Even today, automation levels are quite high everywhere. Many people have trouble finding jobs in every industry.

Number 2) This one I guess depends on the type of labor. Skilled labor is theoretically able to work a much longer time, those people such as Engineers, Software Professionals, Doctors, but it will be tough to get unskilled labor to work beyond a certain point. Even if one lives to 100, I still think the bones will continue to start weakening in the forties... 

 

Do you know if age discrimination is big in India's Engineering and Software sectors? That could be another roadblock in getting people to work longer. Some of the engineers/techies I know in the US say that job security goes to the dogs once they start approaching 50. These workers are usually replaced with younger people with more "modern" skill-sets in their fields.   

 

Number 3) is the big problem. Some people keep talking about our "demographic dividend" spinning it as an entirely positive thing, but it will become more of a millstone if there aren't sufficient jobs for these people.

 

Thanks to our stupid policies historically since independence, some more pessimistic people think we have already missed our chance to pull a China and pull people out of poverty via manufacturing. If that turns out to be true, then we could be doomed to a lower income economy for the foreseeable future... There is no infrastructure present currently in India or precedent globally for the service sector to absorb the some 300-odd million people we need jobs for. Are we really trusting Indian polticians to be the first people in history to leapfrog directly from an agrarian economy to a service sector based economy, skipping over manufacturing completely? The education sector in India itself has already proven to be structurally flawed, so how are we going to educate people for service sector jobs?    

[randomGuy]

2 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Number 2) This one I guess depends on the type of labor. Skilled labor is theoretically able to work a much longer time, those people such as Engineers, Software Professionals, Doctors, but it will be tough to get unskilled labor to work beyond a certain point. Even if one lives to 100, I still think the bones will continue to start weakening in the forties... 

 

Do you know if age discrimination is big in India's Engineering and Software sectors? That could be another roadblock in getting people to work longer. Some of the engineers/techies I know in the US say that job security goes to the dogs once they start approaching 50. These workers are usually replaced with younger people with more "modern" skill-sets in their fields.   

 

Number 3) is the big problem. Some people keep talking about our "demographic dividend" spinning it as an entirely positive thing, but it will become more of a millstone if there aren't sufficient jobs for these people.

 

Thanks to our stupid policies historically since independence, some more pessimistic people think we have already missed our chance to pull a China and pull people out of poverty via manufacturing. If that turns out to be true, then we could be doomed to a lower income economy for the foreseeable future... There is no infrastructure present currently in India or precedent globally for the service sector to absorb the some 300-odd million people we need jobs for. Are we really trusting Indian polticians to be the first people in history to leapfrog directly from an agrarian economy to a service sector based economy, skipping over manufacturing completely? The education sector in India itself has already proven to be structurally flawed, so how are we going to educate people for service sector jobs?    

2. I don't know of discrimination but one can imagine how much one would have to push himself to do the job of a software engineer at age 50. Personally, I hated it. Although I do have interest in maths and feel OK studying data science (machine learning , statistics , probability) for example.

 

3. Even many European countries, which have far less fraction of younger people (job seekers) to their overall population than what we have in India, are suffering from large scale unemployment. Sure, we will get a lot of outsourced work because of currency difference but we can't escape unemployment (for now) specially for the unskilled population.

So, we have to figure out the next best thing for equitable distribution of wealth which IMO is the Universal Basic Income which I have talked about several times. 

 

Get the money and stability required for spending in UBI by stopping reliance on Oil and reducing some of the useless subsidies.

Probably will alter people's decision to move to a metro in search of non-existent employment. Probably will save metros from over population, will give basic dignity in life to the poorest, saves from exploitation, desperation etc.

[Texan]

Its good that the trend in more educated states with higher standard of living is that the fertility rates are dropping. I think these days I see most couples from educated families only having a single kid after they consider cost of living, education for the kid, etc. Till the turn of the century, most of those families used to have 2 kids. 

 

Still lot to be done in UP, Bihar, Jharkhand. We need to bring the fertility rate to below replacement level. We are already over populated. I understand that impacts growth rates, but it will lead to better quality of life for the people improving many HDIs. 

[cowboysfan]

the obvious offshoot of this map is a north to south exodus.

[Muloghonto]

On 9/23/2017 at 6:15 PM, Tibarn said:

A) Our inbred Comrade Radish goes from

Implying more population is added via replacement level (news flash clown, replacement level doesn't usually increase population )

to

No one implied that. Strawman from tilaki-chaddi. 

 

 

On 9/23/2017 at 6:15 PM, Tibarn said:

Comrade Radish was too dumb to realize that replacement level doesn't increase population, then to save face he shifted goalposts to saying that India need less population, even though no-one argued that India needs more population.

No goalposts are shifted once one sees it from the perspective of India is already overpopulated. Hence if India needs less population and no-one implied India needs more population, then saying 'its suicide to have less than replacement level population' is directly and categorically irrational. Since, if India is over-populated and India doesn't need more population, then India is by default, requiring less population. 

 

On 9/23/2017 at 6:15 PM, Tibarn said:

What is with this guy's reading comprehension skills? Please Comrade, show me where I said India needs a greater population. 

You implied it, when you said less than replacement population is negative for said states having it. 

 

[Tibarn]

Seriously how deranged are you? It looks like you took that other post, where I pointed out how you have a weird pathological obsession with all my posts, to heart. Seriously, it's getting kind of creepy uncle ...  Being obsessed with an anonymous poster on an internet forum is probably a sign of mental illness.     

 

My post

Quote

It's absolutely suicidal to be below 2.1 in any state..

By definition replacement level, ie a 2.1 TFR, means that 

Quote

Replacement level fertility is the level of fertility at which a population exactly replaces itself from one generation to the next.  

It literally means that a population neither increases nor decreases, yet you make a post that directly replies to my original post that says 

Quote

Yes. because 1.2 billion people in India are not enough. 

Seriously, how can one function in society being this stupid. This uncle has next level poor reading comprehension skills... 

 

3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

No goalposts are shifted once one sees it from the perspective of India is already overpopulated. Hence if India needs less population and no-one implied India needs more population, then saying 'its suicide to have less than replacement level population' is directly and categorically irrational. Since, if India is over-populated and India doesn't need more population, then India is by default, requiring less population.

Legendary paragraph.  This uncle is even essentially says that I didn't shift goalposts because I decided that India was overpopulated and thus needs less population. 

 

Pro-tip uncle, if you're going to use a word like "rational" as a buzzword, it would benefit you if you actually provide evidence that  India is either overpopulated or underpopulated. Otherwise the  rational thing to do would be to support a replacement level TFR until it is proven 1 way or another. 

34 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Quote

What is with this guy's reading comprehension skills? Please Comrade, show me where I said India needs a greater population. 

You implied it, when you said less than replacement population is negative for said states having it. 

Once again, our mentally challenged uncle thinks supporting replacement level TFR of 2.1 leads to population increase.

This specimen, ladies and gentleman, tries to pass off as a functional adult.  

[Muloghonto]

15 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Seriously how deranged are you? It looks like you took that other post, where I pointed out how you have a weird pathological obsession with all my posts, to heart. Seriously, it's getting kind of creepy uncle ...  Being obsessed with an anonymous poster on an internet forum is probably a sign of mental illness.     

You squirm a lot when put under the microscope. Obsessed ? LOL. I have quoted you in less than 1% of my posts, this year as well as overall. this, i can easily prove, hence your claims are laughable. 

15 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

 

Legendary paragraph.  This uncle is even essentially says that I didn't shift goalposts because I decided that India was overpopulated and thus needs less population. 

 

Pro-tip uncle, if you're going to use a word like "rational" as a buzzword, it would benefit you if you actually provide evidence that  India is either overpopulated or underpopulated. Otherwise the  rational thing to do would be to support a replacement level TFR until it is proven 1 way or another. 

Once again, our mentally challenged uncle thinks supporting replacement level TFR of 2.1 leads to population increase.

This specimen, ladies and gentleman, tries to pass off as a functional adult.  

you can squirm all you want.

Your comments are here and i quoted them, so you can't edit them to save face.

You have clearly said, and i quote : " Its absolutely suicidal for any state to be below 2.1...' 

Ie, you are associating negative qualifier (absolutely suicidal) to failure to maintain population. 

Ergo, your position is incompatible with:

a) India needs to have a lower population

b) India is overpopulated.

Because agreement on a) or b) implies that we need below replacement rate growth rate. 

 

Quote

Once again, our mentally challenged uncle thinks supporting replacement level TFR of 2.1 leads to population increase.

try your sophistry elsewhere, kiddo.

You admitted in this very thread that India's massively growing life expectancy means we will grow in population anyways. Ergo, 2.1 tfr of 2.1 is a constant population growth model, if and only if we have constant life expectancy. growing life expectancy would mean even with 2.1 tfr, we end up with more people. 

 

[Vijy]

the rates are rather high only in a handful of states... the usual suspects.

[Vilander]

On 23/09/2017 at 4:03 PM, Muloghonto said:

most of the states contributing to India's demographic disaster and adding poor people have very low muslim population. Ie, except for Bihar and UP, i don't see a state above 2.1 growth rate with significant muslim population...

 

Muslims are main contributors to over population UP Bihar are the main centers of this. High base high growth.

[Vilander]

1 child policy must be forcibly implemented on Muslims and Hindus equally.

[gattaca]

2 hours ago, Vilander said:

1 child policy must be forcibly implemented on Muslims and Hindus equally.

That is a such failure. China already rolled it back. Human resource is the most important resource in future for manufacturing. Japan , Germany are already struggling with fertility and young population.