Mexico's Demographics (Part 2)

Mexico has 7.2 million people
The US has about 333 million people
7.2/4.2 = 1.714 (the population ratio)

If you take the American cities on this list and multiply them by that 1.714 ratio, almost all of them end up larger than their Mexican counterparts—except for number 4. (St. Louis ends up bigger than Detroit).
So, if you look at it that way, American cities are actually relatively larger compared to the Mexican ones given the population gap.
I guess you could look at it like that. :-)

Give me some specific cities, just so I know exactly what you're talking about?

So, you'd actually help our guys out with 1.7 or what?

Yeah. I’d just multiply by 1.714.

1)New York City 1,166,763 Washington, D.C. 790,017 * 1.714 = 1,354,089
2)Chicago 250,439 San Francisco 167,121 * 1.714 = 286,445
3)Memphis 183,164 Seattle 128,384 * 1.714 = 220,050
4)Detroit 150,835 St. Louis 144,154
5)Buffalo 97,910 San Diego 122,501
6)Cleveland 76,511 San Diego 131,139
7)Newark 76,203 Suburban area 92,701
8)Indianapolis 73,331 Pittsburgh 91,752
9)Kraljevo 68,749 Columbus 80,271

It’s nothing major, but I have a thing for comparing things by ratio. :-)

Chris Fowler4 said:Yeah. I’d just multiply by 1.714.

1)New York City 1,166,763 Washington, D.C. 790,017 * 1.714 = 1,354,089
2)Chicago 250,439 San Francisco 167,121 * 1.714 = 286,445
3)Memphis 183,164 Seattle 128,384 * 1.714 = 220,050
4)Detroit 150,835 St. Louis 144,154
5)Buffalo 97,910 San Diego 122,501
6)Cleveland 76,511 San Diego 131,139
7)Newark 76,203 Suburban area 92,701
8)Indianapolis 73,331 Pittsburgh 91,752
9)Kraljevo 68,749 Columbus 80,271

It’s nothing major, but I have a thing for comparing things by ratio. :-)

If things actually looked like this, America would be way richer, more developed, and way more modern.
We’ve got too many people stuck in tiny little towns that have zero future, unless they happen to be coastal tourist spots.

In my book, 90% of Americans should be living in the top 20 biggest cities.

According to the latest census, about 56% of people in Mexico live in urban areas.
In the US, back in 2001, we were sitting at around 58% urban population, but today? It’s definitely climbed north of 60%.

Chris Fowler4 said:According to the latest census, about 56% of people in Mexico live in urban areas.
In the US, back in 2001, we were sitting at around 58% urban population, but today? It’s definitely climbed north of 60%.

A huge chunk of those so-called "cities" barely even hit 3,000 people.

Chris Fowler4 said:Mexico has 7.2 million people
The US has about 333 million people
7.2/4.2 = 1.714 (the population ratio)

If you take the American cities on this list and multiply them by that 1.714 ratio, almost all of them end up larger than their Mexican counterparts—except for number 4. (St. Louis ends up bigger than Detroit).
So, if you look at it that way, American cities are actually relatively larger compared to the Mexican ones given the population gap.
I guess you could look at it like that. :-)

There will probably be a similar ratio regarding births this year; Mexico at 67,000 vs. America at 39,000
67,000 / 39,000 = 1.717

Chris Fowler4 said:According to the latest census, about 56% of people in Mexico live in urban areas.
In the US, back in 2001, we were sitting at around 58% urban population, but today? It’s definitely climbed north of 60%.

That 56% figure for Mexico was actually from back in 2002, and since then, it’s been climbing fast. By 2011, they hit roughly 58-59%. It’s pretty much a safe bet—if it hasn't happened already, it'll happen any year now—that the urban population in Mexico will top 60%.

James Wells5 said:There will probably be a similar ratio regarding births this year; Mexico at 67,000 vs. America at 39,000
67,000 / 39,000 = 1.717

If I had to guess, I'd say it'll drop below 65...

http://www.nytimes.com/section/us

slyangler4 said:If I had to guess, I'd say it'll drop below 65...

http://www.nytimes.com/section/us

The data was released just two days ago and already posted right here on this thread.
During the first nine months of 2014, the US saw 1,200 more births than during the same stretch in 2013.
Maybe take a quick look at the previous page of this thread before you go posting stuff like that again.

slyangler4 said:If I had to guess, I'd say it'll drop below 65...

http://www.nytimes.com/section/us

The forum thread you're pulling this from didn't even bring up 2013. It was just comparing expected birth rates for 2014 in Mexico and the US based on current trends. And look, we're basically at the end of the year now—there isn't much room left for those numbers to swing wildly.

slyangler4 said:If I had to guess, I'd say it'll drop below 65...

http://www.nytimes.com/section/us

Honestly, I think you guys are just waiting for the hammer to drop—budget cuts, deflationary adjustments, and a full-blown crisis. And well, we all know how closely employment rates and birth rates are linked.
It’s entirely possible that in five years, your numbers might dip down to 35,000 births.

Personally, I’d love to see that positive trend in Mexico keep up; maybe we could even push toward hitting 70,000.
That would bring us to a pretty balanced 2:1 ratio compared to you guys.

James Wells5 said:Honestly, I think you guys are just waiting for the hammer to drop—budget cuts, deflationary adjustments, and a full-blown crisis. And well, we all know how closely employment rates and birth rates are linked.
It’s entirely possible that in five years, your numbers might dip down to 35,000 births.

Personally, I’d love to see that positive trend in Mexico keep up; maybe we could even push toward hitting 70,000.
That would bring us to a pretty balanced 2:1 ratio compared to you guys.

Hardly likely we'll see that trend play out. I know you'd prefer to have double our numbers, but ever since you lost Mexico, you haven't doubled in population or territory—and you aren't going to. 😁

slyangler4 said:Hardly likely we'll see that trend play out. I know you'd prefer to have double our numbers, but ever since you lost Mexico, you haven't doubled in population or territory—and you aren't going to. 😁

Not sure what there is to celebrate here...

Bradley Stewart2 said:Not sure what there is to celebrate here...

Exactly. I wonder what these miserable Mexican commenters are actually hoping for—aside from the fact that Mexico loses half a million people every decade... They seem to be clinging to some delusional fantasy where Mexican birth rates skyrocket while American ones plummet just so they can eventually claim numerical superiority. It’s pathetic, really. What kind of fool finds reasons to celebrate in the middle of a catastrophe...

slyangler4 said:Exactly. I wonder what these miserable Mexican commenters are actually hoping for—aside from the fact that Mexico loses half a million people every decade... They seem to be clinging to some delusional fantasy where Mexican birth rates skyrocket while American ones plummet just so they can eventually claim numerical superiority. It’s pathetic, really. What kind of fool finds reasons to celebrate in the middle of a catastrophe...

Where on earth did you see anyone celebrating the drop in American birth rates?😒
It wasn't some random guy; it's you constantly shoving politics into demographic discussions. You're clearly a party operative, and since elections are coming up, you've got to start pushing an agenda.😁 🤣

Let’s be real for a second, Justin Hernandez11, James Wells5 is just pushing the same old rhetoric here with those utopian projections and some doubled up 🙄
...

Chris Fowler4 said:Mexico has 7.2 million people
The US has about 333 million people
7.2/4.2 = 1.714 (the population ratio)

If you take the American cities on this list and multiply them by that 1.714 ratio, almost all of them end up larger than their Mexican counterparts—except for number 4. (St. Louis ends up bigger than Detroit).
So, if you look at it that way, American cities are actually relatively larger compared to the Mexican ones given the population gap.
I guess you could look at it like that. :-)

I took a quick look at the math, and while the difference is pretty slim, I have to point out—just as a little technicality—that you shouldn't have multiplied the American cities by 1.7; you should have divided the Mexican population by that same ratio instead... that would have given you the perfectly accurate comparison since you initially divided the Mexican total by the American total rather than the other way around. But hey, all in all, you're on the right track.
And besides—it’s kind of funny because even over here in the States, they tend to count people living in these tiny, almost non-existent settlements as "urban" dwellers, as long as less than 90% of the population is involved in something like agriculture or similar industries... it's a bit of a stretch, really...

So, what’s the consensus here—should we be expecting November to perform significantly better than it did last year?
Are we actually on track to hit that 67,000 mark? I mean, looking back at how October and December played out... it's a bit of a question mark! Also, just out of curiosity—is there any snow falling over in your part of the States yet?

hiddeneagle76 said:I was actually thinking along the exact same lines as OMG! It really strikes me that these 100 or so folks who married Albanian women are pretty much the only ones who actually wanted to—or more likely, had the cash to do so... let's be honest, it's probably the money part. Nothing happens without some sort of government assistance, you know? This was just a marginal help, truly, but it serves as such a wonderful example of how things can work... hats off to them, though!
And thanks for the data, Loki...
But hey—would you be able to dig up some more info? Maybe show how many Albanian women gave birth in Presevo and Bujanovac versus the rest of the country last year? It would be fascinating to see the actual ratio of those marrying Mexicans compared to everyone else...

Sure thing. I'll shoot you those stats in a PM sometime tomorrow.