On average, only older men really contribute to society

[Martinus]

Positive impact in taxes? Society is not the government.

Yes, although arguably, unless you contribute to charity, what you pay in taxes is the only direct benefit to the society - because just working to increase the wealth and wellbeing of yourself and your immediate family is contributing to the society only indirectly, at best.

[MadImmortalMan]

The creation of new citizens who don't become net burdens is one of the most important responsibilities of men. Also, thinking of society in terms of only government is far too limiting.

[Martinus]

The creation of new citizens who don't become net burdens is one of the most important responsibilities of men.

It doesn't mean it contributes to the society in material terms, at least on an individual basis. Essentially, if you remove an average 2+2 family from a society, the overall impact on its wealth should be neutral (at best). Of course, on a global scale, you need people to have kids or the society will die out - but if you are looking at an individual contribution to the society, only taxes and charity count, imo.

Edit: And besides, even you qualify the creation of new citizens by saying they must not "become net burdens". What does this mean, if not taxes vs. state expenses on such citizen? I mean, by this graph, an average woman becomes a net burden on the society - so does it mean only birthing boys is a contribution? 

[The Brain]

So that's why I'm drowning in grateful submissive young women!

[MadImmortalMan]

It doesn't mean it contributes to the society in material terms, at least on an individual basis. Essentially, if you remove an average 2+2 family from a society, the overall impact on its wealth should be neutral (at best). Of course, on a global scale, you need people to have kids or the society will die out - but if you are looking at an individual contribution to the society, only taxes and charity count, imo.

Edit: And besides, even you qualify the creation of new citizens by saying they must not "become net burdens". What does this mean, if not taxes vs. state expenses on such citizen? I mean, by this graph, an average woman becomes a net burden on the society - so does it mean only birthing boys is a contribution? 

I don't know what to tell you except society is not the state, and the state is not society.

[Tonitrus]

The Nazis did a pretty good job of combining both. 

[garbon]

I love that Hami posts a scientific article without any comment, and yet he gets attacked because the facts do not fit the narrative. 

Yeah he titled the thread with the name of the paper ..

[Martinus]

I love that Hami posts a scientific article without any comment, and yet he gets attacked because the facts do not fit the narrative. 

Yeah he titled the thread with the name of the paper ..

Point taken.

[Josquius]

And how well would these 40+ guys be doing without the younger people working for them I wonder?

[Richard Hakluyt]

The graph is of cumulative net fiscal impact, therefore to work out if a person is making a positive fiscal contribution at any particular age one has to look at the slope of the graph rather than the cumulative position.

On that basis men make a net positive fiscal contribution all the way from 20 to 65, whereas women make a net positive fiscal contribution from 40 to 60 (ie after their child-bearing and rearing years).

So the graph is really saying that workers make a net positive fiscal contribution to the state whereas their dependents do not, this is not a stunning insight.

[Martinus]

And how well would these 40+ guys be doing without the younger people working for them I wonder?

Wtf. 

[Valmy]

The graph is of cumulative net fiscal impact, therefore to work out if a person is making a positive fiscal contribution at any particular age one has to look at the slope of the graph rather than the cumulative position.

On that basis men make a net positive fiscal contribution all the way from 20 to 65, whereas women make a net positive fiscal contribution from 40 to 60 (ie after their child-bearing and rearing years).

So the graph is really saying that workers make a net positive fiscal contribution to the state whereas their dependents do not, this is not a stunning insight.

Ah ok. I was curious why a newborn baby was making a larger fiscal positive contribution than a person in their 20s.

[Josquius]

And how well would these 40+ guys be doing without the younger people working for them I wonder?

Wtf. 

Wtf wtf?

[grumbler]

The graph is of cumulative net fiscal impact, therefore to work out if a person is making a positive fiscal contribution at any particular age one has to look at the slope of the graph rather than the cumulative position.

On that basis men make a net positive fiscal contribution all the way from 20 to 65, whereas women make a net positive fiscal contribution from 40 to 60 (ie after their child-bearing and rearing years).

So the graph is really saying that workers make a net positive fiscal contribution to the state whereas their dependents do not, this is not a stunning insight.

Ah ok. I was curious why a newborn baby was making a larger fiscal positive contribution than a person in their 20s.

Those are cumulative numbers, not instantaneous numbers or annual numbers.

As RH points out, only the slope matters on an annual basis, which is why Hami's title demonstrates how hilariously poorly he understood  his own link. 

[Hamilcar]

Here is the non-cumulative version. Someone teach grumbler how to read papers.