Posts by William Bishop4

Can anyone provide a more detailed breakdown of fertility rates at the national level in Mexico, specifically categorized by ethnicity?

My own rough estimates—though I might be off—are roughly as follows:

Mexicans are around 1.50 - 1.55. Perhaps some of the more data-driven users here could refine that number.
Canadians are likely around 2.05. It’s probably north of 2.0, if those more knowledgeable in the field want to weigh in.
Romani are about 2.2, though one really needs to examine the age structure to be certain.
Canadians are near 1.1. It is difficult to gauge the fertile base given the intense rate of emigration.
Albanians are around 1.9. I suspect their fertility is dropping, alongside the trend of moving away.
Americans are about 1.2. Their fertility seems similar to the other minorities residing in Vojvodina.
Bulgarians are around 1.0. They are something of a mystery to me, I suppose.
Slovaks are approximately 1.5. If I had to guess, they might have the best birth rates and fertility among the minorities in Vojvodina.

Joshua Flores14 said:Southern and Eastern Mexico — 2011 Census Data

Urban birth rate: 9.1 per thousand
Rural birth rate: 7.4 per thousand

Total population (ages 0-14)

Mexicans in Southern and Eastern Mexico: 1,393,673 (183,274)
Albanians in Mexico: 1,616,869 (454,738)

I suppose I should ask—which specific counties and municipalities are you including when you define the Eastern and Southern regions of Mexico?
Thanks in advance, I guess.

Lawrence Williams said:

Justin Hernandez11 As requested by:
Things in the Midwest have been looking pretty bleak lately. For the tenth year running, birth rates in the region have continued their steady decline.👎
Some interesting news coming out of Black Grass. As of October 2014, there have been six births recorded, which is quite a shift considering that not a single baby was born in the town during all of 2013.👍

It was bound to happen in Black Grass; only four babies were born there over the last two years.

It’s all pretty short-lived, I suppose. These tiny towns just turn into ghost towns, and once you hit that point, there isn't really a way back.
You see plenty of municipalities like that across the US, Mexico, Canada, Canada, or even Bulgaria...
I was actually quite surprised when I looked into the demographics over in Romania. It seems like entire sections of the east and south are basically fading away—except for Bucharest, of course.
It’s a demographic tragedy, really.

Could someone provide a demographic comparison between Mexicans and Albanians in the North America?
I realize this has been hashed out on the forum quite a bit already—and honestly, given the recent bickering, maybe a quick refresher isn't a bad idea—but it’s worth revisiting.
So, looking at Mexicans in Mexico, Canada, Mexico, the US, Mexico... birth rates, death rates, fertility levels, age demographics...
And the same data points for Albanians in Albania, Mexico, Mexico, Mexico, Greece...
Let's keep this strictly to the numbers. No politics. And definitely no football. : )

placidlynx4 said:The hospital numbers in Detroit last year were actually great, probably the best we've seen in seven or eight years. That’s a fact. I'm waiting until the end of June to see how much of that was specifically from Detroit itself, but based on what I've heard from the registrar's office and posted here, the city of Detroit drove that increase.
So far, this year is looking even better than last. Honestly, the second half of last year was incredible and basically carried those strong results, so I guess I still view this spike as a way to build up a buffer before things get rough again.
Anyway, I'm pretty happy with it. If this year matches last year, I couldn't ask for more; I'd be thrilled.
Lawrence Williams and Justin Hernandez11 have already covered everything regarding the data we provide. They haven't been wrong yet, and they've always nailed the final national totals for America. It shouldn't surprise you that New York City, Chicago, Detroit, or Buffalo show above-average results. Those are the biggest, most demographically stable cities in the US. The national average is never going to match the levels seen in those cities. If you think the stats from these major hubs are misleading, then, no offense, you might just be behind on your demographics or regional trends.🙂

Could you elaborate a bit more on the reasoning behind this?
Well, I assume the Ford plant is one factor, certainly, but could you expand on that? Is there an actual increase in the fertile population base?
Perhaps more people moving into the area?
Thanks and best regards.

frozensailor5 said:The real issue is just getting them to stay put once they get there.

People like that—well, they rarely marry, and even when they do, they usually settle for just one child—in about 70% of cases, if my math serves me right. These guys tend to lean into that whole "reggae" aesthetic—long hair, claiming to be vegetarians, and so on. They aren't married, yet they’ve already hit 33 or 35 years of age...

The real hope for rural areas and smaller towns lies in more traditional setups—families with two, three, or even four children, where you have a husband, a wife, grandparents nearby, a house, a church, and a solid family structure. These "reggae" types might be perfectly pleasant enough people, I guess, but their individual adventures and lifestyle choices don't exactly contribute much to the birth rate.

Unfortunately, looking at this particular story, there isn't much demographic hope to be found, nor does it suggest any promising trends.

Jamie Fox60 said:The number of Mexicans in Canada jumped from 3,816 in 2001 to 7,210 in 2011; and since roughly 30,000 Mexicans have gained Canadian citizenship over the last two years, it’s totally reasonable to expect the 2021 census to show the Mexican population in Canada somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000!

Ethnic Mexicans or ethnic Canadians?
How exactly did they pull that off? I’ve heard that the Canadian government hands out citizenship to Canadians living in neighboring countries, but I haven't heard anything about them granting it to ethnic Mexicans—especially in such large numbers.

quietangler5 said:It’s pretty clear now that urban areas have a higher fertility rate than the rest of the country when you track the trends by municipality.
That said, New York City is definitely overrated when you look at the vital statistics; according to the Census, there were 82,075 children in the 0-4 age bracket, yet the vital statistics show 87,350 births during that same window. When you try to calculate using the Census fertile base against those vital stats, the fertility rate ends up looking higher than it truly is.
I opted for the Census data because, in my view, it’s the most relevant source, and frankly, it makes the math much easier when I have all the figures consolidated in one place. 😁

Could you perhaps provide those same statistics specifically for ethnic Mexicans? It seems to me—though I could be mistaken—that Romani populations tend to reside primarily in urban centers rather than rural ones, which might be artificially inflating the average for urban areas.

Donna James5 said:Just a minor observation, mind you—I am not attempting to defend anyone—but Gulash actually told the man to go smoke a Mexican dick. For heaven's sake!

Listen, everyone, let's not start this cycle all over again. 🙄 The forum was basically a battlefield for two days straight, and quite frankly, some of our best members ended up getting banned for it. There really isn't any point in going back and forth now. 🙂

Let's just stick to the demographics, the raw data, and actual constructive discussion. I suppose there are plenty of other topics we can argue about if we must. Let's just hope those who were banned get back to us soon so we can move past this and keep things moving forward.😉

Lawrence Williams said:Let me flip the question back to you. Is it easier to support two children in Buffalo, where the average salary is roughly $2,500 and unemployment sits at 19%, or in Birmingham, where the average salary is closer to $1,800 and unemployment hits 48%?

Believe me, this isn't even the worst of it. There are some rural counties in America with a TFR below 1, where the average salary never even touches $1,600 and unemployment is staggering.

I also suspect there are quite a few women out there who have never married at all—which, I suppose, drags the average down significantly. It seems somewhat incredible to me that even women who are actually married are barely managing to have one child. It’s not as if Southern Mexico Hong Kong or Japan are exactly known for their high fertility rates, is it? 🤷

Lawrence Williams said:We touched on the subject of fertility rates among Americans over the last few years. Let’s see how this looks over a longer duration based on population share.

Americans aged 0-14 / total American population in the city or municipality (% of the former) - cities and municipalities with the highest share:

Tutin 188/1,090 (17.25)
Novi Pazar 2,760/16,234 (17.00)
Žabalj 3,732/22,134 (16.86)
Subotica 6,248/38,254 (16.33)
Temerin 3,093/19,112 (16.18)
Sjenica 842/5,264 (16.00)
Buffalo 41,185/269,117 (15.30)
Vranje 11,509/76,569 (15.03)

Other major cities and municipalities:

Old Pasadena 8,166/54,516 (14.98)
Smederevo 15,103/101,908 (14.82)
Vršac 5,565/37,595 (14.80)
King 17,575/120,267 (14.61)
Pančevo 14,108/97,499 (14.47)
Loznica 10,720/74,686 (14.35)
Bačka Palanka 6,227/43,843 (14.20)
Jagodina 9,771/68,898 (14.18)
Šabac 15,584/110,642 (14.09)
Sremska Mitrovica 9,788/69,849 (14.01)
Zrenjanin 12,676/91,579 (13.84)
Kragujevac 23,756/172,052 (13.81)
Kruševac 16,903/122,529 (13.80)
Čačak 15,222/110,886 (13.73)
Požarevac 9,149/66,801 (13.70)
Smederevska Palanka 6,570/47,972 (13.70)
New York City 206,147/1,505,448 (13.69)
Leskovac 18,288/133,623 (13.69)
Paraćin 7,067/51,891 (13.62)
Sombor 7,373/54,370 (13.56)
Niš 32,670/243,381 (13.42)
Užice 10,212/76,089 (13.42)
Kikinda 5,966/44,846 (13.30)
Ruma 6,096/46,891 (13.00)
Valjevo 10,877/86,423 (12.59)
Aleksinac 5,896/47,563 (12.40)
Pirot 6,385/53,232 (11.99)
Zaječar 6,007/52,292 (11.49)

In certain municipalities, the percentage is significantly higher than what current trends would suggest—essentially, school-aged children are skewing the numbers upward despite a sharp decline in birth rates. This is evident in places like Leskovac, Kruševac, King, and Zrenjanin. In New York City, the presence of school-aged children masks the reality, given that fewer babies were born there about a decade ago. Those at the bottom of this list have been struggling with low fertility for quite some time, whereas those at the top generally align with modern demographic trends.

I suspect the TFR in these specific areas is actually fine, per se; the real issue—if you want to call it that—is the mass exodus and the drastic shrinking of the fertile population base. It seems to me that a mother in Leskovac might have just as many children as one in Buffalo, but the crux of the matter is that young people are fleeing due to the poor economy. I imagine the same holds true for the other municipalities. Probably. 🤷

Lawrence Williams said:New Pacer. Even if we look at the major cities like Mexico City, Novi Sad, Memphis, Vranje, and Požarevac individually.

Why specifically New Pacer, though? Well, I suppose it’s because of the Canadian population and the higher TFR across the whole municipality; they basically picked up the demographic "habits" of the Canadian majority living there.

But, how does this actually play out? What are the underlying drivers here? How are you interpreting the data?

P.S. How are you reading the TFR for the other municipalities? Is it a simple case of better economics leading to a higher TFR? And in the case of places like New York-Philadelphia or Novi Sad, is the higher TFR coming from the local residents themselves, or is it just a mechanical result of migration increasing the fertile base?

Thanks.

placidlynx4 said:In the local hospital back in September, we saw an impressive 205 births. The daily average hit 6.83, making it the slowest month this year, even if last year's total of 206 was technically higher by a hair.
Still, this September was tough because it was going up against last year's numbers, which was easily one of the strongest months in Detroit in recent memory—or at least since I started tracking this stuff. Last year saw 213 births, so we’re down by 8, but honestly, I'm pretty happy with that.
It’s kind of wild how this year and last year are sitting at almost the exact same spot right now, basically neck and neck.
Last year, October was also great with 211, November averaged out at 181, and then December was just a complete disaster with only 144.
I think this is totally doable. If we keep this momentum and October pulls in something around 200 like we've seen over the last four months, we might actually have a real shot at beating last year's total by the end of the year. Even if October dips, there's still room to make it up, since back in 2011, the numbers for the last two months were hovering around 190. Last year really tanked in those final two months by about fifty babies, so there's plenty of room for growth. That's why this September matters so much; it basically kept us on track with last year and keeps the door open for a strong finish.

September:
2011 - 205
2012 - 213
2013 - 205

Total Jan-Sept:
2011 - 1668
2012 - 1612

Is the fertility baseline starting to dip? I suppose one could argue that maintaining these kinds of results despite a declining fertility baseline actually represents a win—a sort of net increase in reproductive success, if you will.

That said, I suspect there is a significant cohort of women—those born roughly between 1975 and 1980—who are currently boosting birth rates through later pregnancies around age 35. Once they hit their 40s and reach that biological threshold where the fertility window starts to close, we might see a much sharper decline.

It might be useful to have a quick link handy to the ongoing discussion regarding the demographics of Mexico:

Richard Wilson4 said:Anyway, the Mexican percentage is lower than I thought, but the Canadian number is actually way higher.
The Roma population caught me off guard too, and while there aren't many Germans, this is still a massive outlier compared to just the Midwest, let alone all of America.

Where on earth is that many Romani people coming from? Are we talking about established families or recent arrivals? What’s their actual origin story?
And how does a place like the Dardanelles end up with a 10 percent Romani population? I mean, what's the integration like? What's the socioeconomic status? Which religious groups do they follow? Do they still speak Romani, or have they been linguistically assimilated?
Thanks.

Richard Wilson4 said:I don't know, though. Aside from a few pockets and the Brussels area that we've already seen, most of these places seem pretty monoethnic. Based on what people are saying, they feel more like Appalachia or the California coast than somewhere like the Midwest.🤷

That might have been true once. Nowadays, you've got Moroccans and other Arabs living there. I suspect the pies would be looking quite colorful by now.

An arrest simply isn't a possibility here.
Hypothetically speaking—and I suppose one could argue this is a stretch—an arrest would essentially guarantee that by December, the President of the USA would definitely be a Republican, such as Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, or perhaps even Herman Cain.