Skip to main content
Skeptics

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

5
  • Some sources: Newcastle population, net migration, fertility rate
    – peterG
    Commented Dec 12, 2017 at 0:14
  • 3
    Google population numbers are pretty interesting here. It looks like GrBr population was very nearly flat from 1970-2000 or thereabouts, and has had a significant and sustained inflection upwards since then.
    – Ben Barden
    Commented Dec 12, 2017 at 19:35
  • 3
    Worth noting that there are any number of ways to massage "children born per woman", and that many of them could be made to indicate a falling population even under conditions of rising population. The significant number for long-term population is how many kids they have total when they stop, not how many they've managed to have as of the time of survey.
    – Ben Barden
    Commented Dec 12, 2017 at 19:37
  • 1
    @BenBarden The correct term is total fertility rate but this is close to 1.8, and is I think a relevant measure. Another necessary statistic is life expectancy (more houses needed if people live to 200) and people per household.
    – mjs
    Commented Dec 15, 2017 at 8:19
  • 2
    I wonder how Mr. Likke would like to solve the demographic crisis without immigration. Who would pay his pension?
    – Martin Schröder
    Commented Dec 16, 2017 at 14:20