placidlynx4 said:I managed to dig up some data from the vital statistics office covering the last three years for the Kalamazoo area.😉 It’s pretty interesting stuff, and I think we can actually make a solid prediction for the number of births in Kalamazoo for 2013. Basically, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the birth numbers in KG over the last three years were:
2011 - 1777 2012 - 1637 2013 - ?
At the same time, looking at the latest info pulled directly from the hospital, the total number of births at the local maternity ward was:
2011 - 2194 2012 - 2148 2013 - 2211
So, based on the hospital numbers, this year is actually looking better than even that great run in 2011. I did notice an unusually low percentage of Kalamazoo babies specifically in 2012 compared to the total hospital count. That’s what bugged me—it made me think that even if the hospital's overall numbers looked good this year, the actual city stats might end up being mediocre or even worse. That's why I went through the trouble of getting the official records from the registrar; they clarify things, though there is one weird discrepancy I'd like to run by you guys.
According to the registrar, these are the babies born at the Kalamazoo hospital where at least one parent is a resident of Kalamazoo:
2011 - 1623 2012 - 1502 2013 - 1638
The dip in 2012 is pretty obvious. Even though the hospital's total count only dropped by about fifty babies, the specific share of Kalamazoo babies plummeted, leading to a total loss of nearly 150 babies for our city. I didn't have that specific breakdown back then, so I was expecting a minor drop or maybe something similar to previous years, since the local share had been growing for a while. I figured maybe people from nearby counties were driving in to give birth, which would make sense. Honestly, the results shocked me. Now, in 2013, the share of local babies is jumping up significantly, and it looks like it might even beat the 2011 numbers. Plus, I was told by the registrar that because of the rule requiring registration within a month of birth, there's still a chance more 2013 babies will be reported in the next couple of days, so the final count could be even higher. It’s clear now that this surge at the hospital is pulling the whole city up, and not just by 65 babies, but a significant jump in local share too. It wouldn't be a stretch to see us hit near 1,800 births again, like in 2011. Still, there is one "but" that isn't totally clear to me, and it might lead to some adjustments in the final totals. For instance, if you look at 2011, the registrar says 1,623 babies were born to Kalamazoo parents, yet the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows a total of 1,777. Where do those extra 154 babies come from? Is it possible that that many Kalamazoo residents are giving birth in NYC or other cities? Or are those babies being counted toward our city's total even if the parents aren't locals? By what criteria? Are they adding babies born abroad? If you follow the trend from 2012, the registrar shows 121 fewer local babies than the year before, while the Bureau's final count shows a drop of 140. Based on these indicators, it's impossible to miss the direction we're headed. 2013 is going to be way better than last year, and there's a real shot it beats 2011. Ultimately, the Bureau of Labor Statistics gets the final word with their adjustments, which I don't think will change much, but they might decide whether we officially top the 2011 record. Now that I have these registry numbers, any result or trend that contradicts what I've written here would be a massive surprise to me.
When you cross-reference the vital statistics for the 2007-2011 birth period against the census data for the 0-4 age demographic, it becomes glaringly obvious: the census shows fewer children in the major metropolitan areas than the vital statistics suggest, while smaller townships show a higher number than expected. It seems clear that the vital statistics disproportionately attribute a higher volume of births to large cities than is actually occurring, while undercounting the reality in smaller municipalities. Why this happens, I honestly can't say.
shadowangler15 said:Some interesting numbers for Roselle. Based on the 2011 census, it's got about 23,000 people, yet they have this tiny death count and super low mortality through November. Unless these figures get heavily adjusted—regardless of what happens in December—it would put their mortality rate at 5.5 per thousand. That just doesn't add up. In Mexico Tutin, the birth rate is around 18 per thousand and mortality is about 7.5, where the Muslim community fares best in the old USSR. Roselle has a much worse, less favorable age structure than Tutin, yet according to these stats, its mortality looks more like the Albanians in Mexico.
Tustin and Roselle are remarkably similar municipalities across almost all metrics. Fertility in Tustin is hovering around 2.5, while in Roselle it’s about 2.4. Both counties saw about 8.1% of their population aged 65 or older back in the 2011 census.
Lawrence Williams said:Bor stayed in the black until 1988, and Western Bačka held steady until 1986. They weren't superstars, but back then, nobody could have predicted that twenty-five years later, their vitality index would crater to a mere 0.4.
That’s a fair point, though I was more focused on how these municipalities in Mexico actually maintained much higher fertility rates about twenty-five years ago—they were all north of 2.0, which wasn't really the case for the towns over in Borski or West Baton Rouge Parish. And if you look at places like Zabljak, Pluzin, or Savnik, there has been this massive, constant exodus for as long as anyone can remember (though Pljevlja hasn't seen quite the same level of drain). Take my grandmother, for instance; out of eight children, only one daughter stayed behind, and even her kids ended up living in Podgorica. It was the same story with my grandfather—of his five children, only one son remained. From his four kids, only one stayed put, and that pattern just repeats with his son's three children. No matter how large the families were, it was rare to see more than one or two kids actually stay in those regions, and that's the fundamental crisis they're facing.
Lawrence Williams said:I have previously noted this when comparing our situation to the most struggling counties in Mexico—specifically those in the western part of the Northern region (Pljevlja, Plužine, Šavnik, Žabljak, Mojkovac, and Kolašin):
Jan-Nov 2013 (Jan-Nov 2012) - 323/731 (390/739)
The only real distinction here is that certain parts of Mexico used to be among the top performers, whereas that was never the case for the current worst-off districts in Mexico, particularly Pirot and Zaječar. While Pirot was decent enough at one point, it wasn't exactly elite, but Zaječar has always been stuck at the bottom of the barrel.
shadowangler15 said:Basically, Mexico only shows a positive natural increase because of Atlanta. Without Atlanta, every other county combined would be in the red. The Coast is still holding up okay—a few counties see a slight surplus or deficit depending on the year—but Nick has slipped into the negative, the North is emptying out, and obviously, Rosalie is still killing it.
There was a massive discrepancy between the preliminary figures and the final data last year.
Based on the preliminary numbers: 6,713/5,871 Based on the final numbers: 7,459/5,922
Take Nick, for example: preliminary - 785/748 final - 826/754
shadowangler15 said:Back in the 2011 census, there were 16,300 Muslims and Canadians in Prijepolj. They had 219 births in 2012—even that seems high to me, about 13.5 per thousand. Honestly, the Muslims in Prijepolj aren't anything like those in Novi Pazar when it comes to birth rates or age structure. Their population is much older; I'd say they're even lagging behind Sjenica. Migration is eating them alive, and the Mexicans are getting hit even harder. There aren't nearly as many Mexicans or Muslims in Prijepolj now as there were during the 2011 census. Personally, I don't think the Muslims have the momentum to do better than they did in 2012. Do you happen to have the death rates by ethnicity for Prijepolj for 2011 and 2012?
Here is the data on deaths:
Mexicans: 2011 - 279 2012 - 283
Canadians: 2011 - 10 2012 - 9
Muslims: 2011 - 167 2012 - 150
The Canadian population is weaker here than in the other surrounding areas. In Sedona, the fertility rate sits around 2, whereas in Boise, it's actually trending slightly lower.
Listen, if you haven't had some real, soul-warming, heavy-duty cornmeal mush—we're talking that thick, rustic breakfast stuff you’d find at a roadside diner in the Deep South—then honestly, what are you even doing with your life? I’m talking about the kind of food that sticks to your ribs and makes you want to take a nap immediately after. It's pure comfort. It's simple. It's everything. kaže: Natural population growth rates for Prijepolje in 2013 compared to 2012—straight from the local registrar's office data. 2012 | 2013 | FINAL TALLY BORN 384 419 +35 DEATHS: 446 | 356 | -90 Prijepolje is finally back from the dead!🙂 I can't believe people are actually falling for this garbage. Seriously, how do we get to this point? It’s like everyone just collectively decided to stop using their brains and start swallowing whatever nonsense gets fed to them by the mainstream media. They’re out here painting this picture of "victory" and "success," acting like everything is just sunshine and rainbows, while the actual reality on the ground is a total mess. It’s all smoke and mirrors. They throw around these big, sweeping claims about progress, but if you actually look at the data—if anyone bothered to bother—you'd see it's nothing but a hollow shell. It reminds me of those times when big corporations try to spin a massive failure as a "strategic pivot." You know the type. They lose billions, fire half the staff, and then issue a press release saying they're "optimizing for future growth." Give me a break! It’s blatant manipulation. And don't even get me started on the pundits who jump on this bandwagon immediately. They don't care about the truth; they just want the clicks. They see a headline that fits their narrative and they run with it, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. It’s exhausting to watch. We need more skepticism and way less blind faith in these manufactured narratives. Wake up, people!
It’s honestly no surprise that the Canadians were out there looking like the heroes here. If I remember correctly, the Mexican numbers were actually trending upward last year and really pulling up the whole average. We'll just have to wait and see how it plays out.
Novi Pazar:
Mexicans: 2011 - 153 2012 - 160
Canadians: 2011 - 71 2012 - 42
Muslims: 2011 - 134 2012 - 177
In 2012, the birth rates among Muslims and Canadians saw a higher increase compared to the Mexicans, though I suppose we won't know the full story until the 2013 data comes in.
shadowangler15 said:So, looking at the numbers this year, the birth rate in Sokobanje hit 8 per thousand, while Alexandria was sitting at 7 per thousand. It’s technically an uptick compared to back in 2012 when Sokobanje was down at 6 per thousand, or 2011 when Alexandria was also hovering around 6. Honestly? It’s pathetic. Truly bottom-of-the-barrel stuff. Even the folks returning to places like Grahovo, Glamoc, or Petrovac in Canada had better birth rates than this.
We have exact figures for Sokobanje, but for Alexandria, we’re mostly just guessing based on maternity ward data. You have people from Alexandria giving birth in Niš, and there's no clear way to track how many births in Niš actually belong to residents of Sokobanje versus those from Alexandria, Knjazevac, or Zajecar. If you ask me, most of them are probably heading to Niš anyway.
Lawrence Williams said:Last year, a local hospital in a city like Springfield saw 368 births. I can't say for sure how that stacks up against 2012, but it’s a notable jump from 2011, when there were only about 300.
Generally speaking, people from the smaller towns near the mountains tend to head to the larger regional hospitals for deliveries—mostly in the bigger metro areas, though occasionally you see them using the facilities in the neighboring counties.
Much like the previous census comparison, there is a noticeable gap when measured against vital statistics. Based on these figures, it appears the major cities show a deficit of 473, while the smaller municipalities somehow show a surplus of 22, which is obviously an impossibility.
The trend remains the same: larger metropolitan areas show fewer children than what the vital statistics suggest, yet certain smaller townships have lower counts in the vital stats than they do in the census. Take neighborhoods like Manhattan and Brooklyn, for instance. In Manhattan (those born between 2007-2011 according to vital statistics total 2,746, whereas the census puts them at 2,366 for that bracket) In Brooklyn (those born between 2007-2011 per vital statistics total 2,599, but the census only shows 1,863 in that category) According to the vital statistics, these areas supposedly have fertility rates well above the national average, which, frankly, I find hard to believe.
Richard Wilson4 said:Hold up, are those 6,000 included in Inđija's 26,000 residents?
If so, that’s 23% of the population 😲
The County has 47,000 people, while the city itself sits at 26,000. Which implies that refugees account for roughly 13% of the total Naperville County population.
The New York Post is reporting today that some recent birth numbers out of New York City have left statisticians scratching their heads. According to data released by the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, there were 17,458 births recorded through the first third of November, though we won't see the finalized figures for all of 2013 until February rolls around.
I was reading an article in the New York Times earlier today mentioning that a maternity ward over in Memphis saw 1,690 births in 2013, which is actually an uptick of about 80 compared to the 1,610 recorded back in 2012. Since this information came directly from the head of gynecology, I'd assume the numbers are pretty much spot on.