Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (367967)	1/22/2008 8:57:54 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576883

My double comment referred to the baby boom compared to the years with the lowest birth rates. Apparently I didn't adjust enough for the fact that post baby boom generations with lower birth rates where higher so lower rates don't make quite as much difference in the number of births. Periods during the 70s maybe had 40% less than periods during the baby boom, not 100% less. Add in other changes and random back and forth fluctuations in the composition of the people entering the work force and you can easily get 50% or more, but not 100% difference, and that was the biggest difference over generations. I wasn't claiming 100% at typical, and the 40 or 50% isn't either. But difference can be large, no just a couple of percent either way that could be ignored as an unimportant detail.