|
|
|
|
|
|
by mallamanis
4346 days ago
|
|
|
Although it is interesting, I think that the data should be normalized for life expectancy. A country with a lower life expectancy will necessarily have a younger population. So instead of 14 years old, it would make sense to show the age of the (e.g.) first percentile of the population. |
|
|
This is not necessarily true. Generally the number for "life expectancy" that is quoted is life expectancy at birth, which is roughly the average age of people at their death. In a lot of poorer countries, this number ends up being driven by infant mortality (to see why, consider a country where, if you survive infancy, you live to be 100 years old, but 50% of all infants die - the "life expectancy at birth" of such a country would be about 50).
Generally, I think it's understood that the "youth" of a population is a sort of measure of adult life expectancy. Though I suppose it can also be a measure of the birth rate (weighted by infant mortality) across countries. I think the two factors end up being fairly intimately tied to one another (likely by a third factor, wealth), so it's not absurd to conflate the two.