> I propose the Baby Money Index, which is the income per capita multiplied by the fertility rate squared.
It doesn't make sense to score positively for fertility rate (babies born per woman) without doing anything to consider whether those babies actually survive, especially when there's an inverse correlation between number-of-babies and infant mortality.
This mistake compounds (literally) when squaring that number as a really weird way to guess at potential grand-kids, since each of those births have to reach adulthood in order to even have a chance of reproducing.
Posted 9 hours ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42299882
Reposting my comment:
> I propose the Baby Money Index, which is the income per capita multiplied by the fertility rate squared.
It doesn't make sense to score positively for fertility rate (babies born per woman) without doing anything to consider whether those babies actually survive, especially when there's an inverse correlation between number-of-babies and infant mortality.
This mistake compounds (literally) when squaring that number as a really weird way to guess at potential grand-kids, since each of those births have to reach adulthood in order to even have a chance of reproducing.