Shofercia wrote:Dr Freud wrote:I was talking about during Soviet rule. Remember what you actually posted? "During the "horrible" Soviet rule, the population of Balts in the Baltics increased." As I said, this is only true of Lithuanians in Lithuania. The number of Estonians in Estonia and Latvians in Latvia decreased during Soviet rule.
Indeed, someone with simple reading comprehension might have been able to work out that I wasn't disputing that their populations fell post-independence, given that I stated that "Nevertheless, the population of these groups has decreased since independence".
Here's what I wrote:
During the "horrible" Soviet rule, the population of Balts in the Baltics increased. During the "super-duper-nice-&-shiny" democratic rule, the population of Balts in the Baltics decreased, and the trio are in a demographic death spiral. Those are the facts.Here's your response to that:
To break that fact down a little bit, the population of Lithuanians in Lithuania increased. The population of Estonians in Estonia and Latvians in Latvia both declined. Nevertheless, the population of these groups has decreased since independence...That's you arguing that the population of Lithuanians in Lithuania increased, while the population of Estonians in Estonia and Latvians in Latvia decreased, in response to my claim, that during the Soviet Union, the population of each increased, and after the fall of the USSR, the population of each, decreased. In the post-Stalin era, (which was the era that I was talking about,) the populations of Estonians in Estonia, Latvians in Latvia and Lithuanians in Lithuania, all increased. After the fall of the USSR, they all decreased. Your breakdown makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
See, now that's where the confusion is coming from. When you said during "Soviet rule" I thought you meant during "Soviet rule", as in the period where these countries were ruled by the Soviet Union. But really, when you said "Soviet rule" you meant "not Soviet rule, but only a previously unstated part of Soviet rule". You'll have to excuse me, but I have this tendence to assume that what someone says is what they mean and not some other meaning that they only intend to divulge further down the line after their original meaning has been shown to be factually inaccurate.
Dr Freud wrote:Emigration is a cause of negative natural population growth in the Baltic states, as I shall immediately explain. Most emigrants are young people so high emigration increases the median age - this is borne out by the statistics. According to the UN, the median age for Lithuania increased from 32.7 to 39.7 between 1990 and 2015. Figures for Estonia and Latvia are 34.4 to 41.3 and 34.6 to 41.7 respectively. As the population ages, the number of children born per woman drops because older people are less likely to have children, while the death rate per person increases because older people are more likely to die.
Of course, there are other causes that could lead to the death rate increasing, like poorer health. But that doesn't apply to the Baltic states in the period 1990-present as the life expectancy in all three countries has increased rather than decreased as would be the result if health was declining.
The fertility rate has, of course, been dropping. In Lithuania, this has little to do with independence or the lack thereof. Rather, its a trend that has been ongoing since the 1960s. And unfortunately it is often a result of other, positive outcomes like improved education levels for women, greater female participation in the workforce, waiting longer to get married and greater control by women over the use of contraception. Its a problem which will affect almost every developed country and one of the keys to fighting it is again to improve living standards which may improve or at least slow the decline in fertility and attract back emigrants or even new migrants.
In Lithuanian it has little to do with independence, eh? Between 1982 and 1986, Lithuania's fertility rate was on a constant increase. Furthermore, in 1978, the rate was 2.09; in 1987 the rate was 2.11, which shows a possible stabilization of the fertility rate. Between 1991 and 2002, the fertility rate fell steadily, although it's currently stabilizing around the 1.6 mark.
Correlation is not causation. If you could explain how becoming independent has cut Lithuania's fertility rate I'd be interested to know.
What I can see is that drops in the fertility rate is often correlated with economic turmoil (unemployment and income uncertainty being factors that put off expensive decisions like having a child - that's the causation). The collapse of the Soviet economy certainly led to economic turmoil which lasted right through the 90s, which would explain why Lithuania's fertility rate dropped until 2002 since when it has been gradually picking up.
Dr Freud wrote:Well thanks anyway for pointing out that 2.56 is less than 2.91 - when you find someone who disagrees you might actually have an argument.
So, according to you, an argument is not, a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong?
Yes, it is. And as soon as you find someone who needs to be persuaded that 2.56 is less than 2.91, you'll have an argument there.