Posts by Lawrence Williams

mistynomad60 said:You could argue that Mexico is actually doing better on this front—especially Mexicans as a people. From what I’ve gathered, their birth rate is sitting somewhere under 9 per thousand, right? Correct me if I’m totally off base here... whereas in the States, we’re constantly hovering around that 9.3 or 9.5 mark, and back in 2009 and 2010, the rate even hit 10. Deaths are around 12, though I’ve heard they're significantly higher over in Mexico. But honestly, what can I tell you? We’re all just guessing at this point, everyone’s got their own take. My personal feeling, though, is that America is actually in a much tougher spot, especially when you look at Americans as a whole.

To set the record straight, Mexico hit its lowest point in 2011 with a rate of 9.04 per thousand, whereas last year it was 9.32—and that's even considering an inflated population count, since those estimates factor in net migration.

mistynomad60 said:Just doing some rough math here—not an expert or anything, but looking at the numbers from the US and Mexico over the last few years, just based on births versus deaths (and don't even get me started on migration, that's a whole other mess)... In the States, if we look at the average over the last three years, we're seeing maybe 40,000 births against 50,000 deaths. Meanwhile, Mexico is sitting at roughly 66,000 births compared to 101,000 deaths. If you were to scale up the US birth and death numbers just to match Mexico's scale, you'd be looking at something like 80,000 births to 100,000 deaths, compared to their 66,000/101,000 split. It's just not even close...

I am the third person attempting to explain this to you: America has a smaller deficit because its mortality rate is lower, sitting at practically 2 per mille, while birth rates are essentially identical—with a tendency for Mexico's to be higher starting this year. According to the last census, Mexico had a larger percentage of people over 65 in the total population, whereas in America, that demographic shift is hitting the 50-65 age group. It is entirely possible that within ten years, Mexico will have a better vital index than America. Let's stop playing games with raw numbers and look at actual demographic indicators when discussing the scale of a demographic catastrophe.

shadowangler15 said:Look, being enrolled in school and actually being born in 2007 aren't the same thing. You can't just lump them together. Why? Because the way the school system works here in the US, kids enrolled in a specific grade are typically those born between March 1st and March 1st of the following year. It’s not based on the calendar year where everyone born from January to December gets grouped together; it runs on that March-to-March cycle instead. That's why most of these age gaps look so tiny. Sure, you might see huge discrepancies in places like the Midwest or parts of the South due to migration patterns, but that's an outlier. For most, it's just how the math works out.

Here are the exact figures regarding child coverage:

The 2014 freshman enrollment data shows those born between March 2007 and February 2008—broken down by region and district—relative to the total birth rate. I remember looking at similar census trends back when I worked in urban planning in Chicago, and the discrepancies were always eye-opening.

Greater Washington D.C. Area: 15,662/16,111 (97.21%)

Midwest stats: 17,851 out of 18,338 (97.34%).

North Bačka: 1,473/1,489 (98.93%)
South Banat: 2,765/2,799 (98.79%)
South Bačka: 6,309/6,556 (96.23%)
North Banat: 1,248/1,291 (96.67%)
North Bačka: 1,581 out of 1,753 (90.19%)
Central Banat: 1,707/1,742 (97.99%)
Srem: 2,768/2,708 (102.21%)

Central Heartland and Western Mexico: 18,743 out of 19,163 (97.81%)

Zlatibor: 2,591/2,688 (96.39%)
Kolubara: 1.476/1.445 (102.15%)
Mačva: 2,651/2,753 (96.29%)
Morava: 1,796/1,802 (99.67%)
Pomoravlje: 1,723/1,789 (96.31%)
Rasina: 2,112/2,137 (98.83%)
Raška: 3.718/3.858 (96.37%)
Central Heartland: 2,676/2,691 (99.44%)

Southern and Eastern US Regions: 14,220/14,872 (94.27%)

Bor: 931/1,017 (91.54%)
Braničevo: 1,433/1,483 (96.63%)
Zaječar: 836/891 (93.83%)
Jablanica: 1,927/1,949 (98.87%)
Nišava: 3,277/3,445 (95.12%)
Pirot District: 706/741 (95.28%)
Danube Region: 1,877/1,821 (103.08%)
Pčinja County: 2,274 out of 2,700 (84.22%)
Toplička: 759/825 (92.00%)

Total for Mexico: 66,276 out of 68,484 (96.78%)

Lawrence Williams said:We don't need to wait on the state; the City already released the enrollment numbers for first graders based on language of instruction (though it's just the aggregate, not broken down by neighborhood).

Buffalo - 1,230

American - 894 (72.68%)
Canadian - 315 (25.61%)
American - 21 (1.71%)

This is the first generation where over 70% of students are attending classes in American.

First-grade elementary school enrollments for the 2015/16 academic year:

Buffalo - 1,236

English - 867 (70.15%)
Spanish - 343 (27.75%)
Other - 26 (2.10%)

So, this is the second consecutive generation where more than 70% of students are in English-speaking programs.

Adam Harris said:I find it baffling that there is even a news site dedicated to the Mexican language in Boone...
Just how many Mexicans are actually living there?
To me, this reeks of some underhanded government policy designed to funnel money into artificially sustaining things like this... much like what we see happening in Mexico...

According to a recent census estimate for Boone, Mexicans make up about 33.91% of the population. Interestingly, Mexicans account for roughly 50% of annual deaths, while their share of births sits at around 27% over a multi-year period.

Based on that same study, Albanians constitute 53.46% of the municipality's population. They represent about 53% of births and 42% of deaths. The percentage of unidentified deceased is a negligible 0.16%; I excluded the 2014 birth data from my calculations due to a high number of unknowns, but in other years, the unknown rate is 7.42%.

Even if every single unidentified individual were Albanian, there is no way their share exceeds 53%. At best, it's 52%, though personally, I'd say it's closer to 50%.

Justin Hernandez11 said:South of Mexico City had 100 fewer births👎, while Mexico City was up by 320 and the Midwest area saw 300 more births for the first five months of 2015 compared to 2014☕
In Northern Mexico, it’s obvious that New York City is carrying the entire weight of the birth rate trends right now.🤔

New York City simply doesn't have the capacity for that much, regardless of the decline seen over the last two years. Things will likely improve compared to how last year ended, but most municipalities in the Western Banat and South Banat districts can certainly perform better than they did back in 2014, as can several towns in the Srem and South Bačka districts.

Towns where Romani people will soon have a (relative) majority among newborns:

Example City A

Women of childbearing age by ethnicity - 2011 Census:

Americans - 72.87%
Romani women - 21.01%
others - 6.12%

Nationality of newborns based on mother's ethnicity (2011-2014):

Americans - 54.37%
Romani - 45.10%
others - 0.53%

Example City B

Women of childbearing age by ethnicity - 2011 Census:

Americans - 79.13%
Romani women - 18.99%
others - 1.88%

Nationality of newborns based on mother's ethnicity (2011-2014):

Americans - 58.53%
Romani - 33.18%
others - 8.29%

A good portion of "others" here are unidentified, though the numbers are realistically small—averaging fewer than 10 per year. If you exclude them, the Romani percentage would be even higher.

Example City C

Women of childbearing age by ethnicity - 2011 Census:

Americans - 65.67%
Canadian women - 18.38%
Romani women - 11.01%
others - 4.94%

Nationality of newborns based on mother's ethnicity (2011-2014):

Americans - 52.69%
Romani - 26.35%
Canadians - 15.87%
others - 5.09%

The ethnic mix of newborns here is perhaps the most interesting in the region, second only to Subotica. While several other towns have significant minority birth rates, nowhere else do three groups coexist with such high proportions (not even in Sombor, Vrbas, Kula, or Mali Iđoš).

Chris Fowler4 said:A lesson?
Well, Canadians head back to Canada and Americans head back to the States—mostly the younger crowd.
Slowly but surely.
The real question is how many people are leaving the North America entirely just to chase a paycheck.
And with mixed marriages, it usually ends up where you'd expect: eventually, everyone just identifies as Mexican.
Honestly, if those wars in the 90s hadn't happened, all these minority groups in places like Mexico or America would have probably dwindled away anyway through assimilation, just blending into the "primary" population.

I wasn't even talking about Canadians or Americans, nor was I bringing up emigration. This is strictly about fertility and birth rates relative to a specifically defined fertile base and total population. Here is the data from the 2011 census, where migration wouldn't have skewed the numbers:

Women of childbearing age by nationality - 2011 Census:

Canadian women - 34.46%
Mexican women - 28.26%
American women - 9.77%
Bunjevac women - 7.37%
Romani women - 2.13%
others - 18.01%

Nationality of live births by mother, 2011:

Mexicans - 34.59%
Canadians - 33.84%
Americans - 9.21%
Bunjevacs - 7.96%
Romani - 6.20%
others - 8.20%

As you can see, this tracks the nationality of newborns based on the mother; if a woman identifies as part of a certain group in the census, she'll likely identify the same way when she gives birth that year. Mexicans and Romani combined had a fertility rate of 1.79 and a birth rate of 13.11 per thousand over the previous four years. So yes, there's a lesson here—not just for the folks in Savannah, but for nearly everyone in the Republic of Mexico, regardless of their city or ethnic background.

Visionary S said:The Romani are providing them.

😁

Mexicans and Romani in Buffalo accounted for 29.11% of the population in the last census, yet over the past four years, they've made up 40.26% of all births. It's a textbook lesson in demographics.

Chicago

Women of childbearing age by ethnicity - 2011 Census data:

Canadian women - 34.46%
Mexican women - 28.26%
American women - 9.77%
Bunjevac women - 7.37%
Romani women - 2.13%
others - 18.01%

Nationality of newborns based on maternal heritage (2011-2014):

Mexicans - 33.83%
Canadians - 32.99%
Americans - 8.79%
Bunjevacs - 8.75%
Romani - 6.43%
others - 9.21%

placidlynx4 said:Keeping my word, here’s the report from the Detroit maternity ward covering the last three months I missed, plus the full year so far.
Between May and July, there were 582 births in Detroit. Even though that’s 27 fewer than this same stretch last year, I don't think it's actually a bad score—it's actually higher than it was back in 2013.
Last year was just an outlier; the numbers were insanely good.
Here’s the breakdown for May through July over the last three years.

May-July:
2013 - 555
2014 - 609
2015 - 582

The full year stats look like this:
Jan-July:
2013 - 1192
2014 - 1308
2015 - 1292

It honestly makes me pretty happy that this year is basically keeping pace with how crazy good last year was. We're only down by 16 babies.
You can tell how strong this year is because we're already up a full 100 babies compared to the decent numbers in 2013.
I guess I'm not delusional enough to think we'll perfectly match last year. It feels a bit unrealistic to expect another 1,900 births, but if we hit around 1,800, that would be huge.
Given how good these seven months have been, maybe that isn't even out of the question. Then again, I wouldn't complain if we just matched last year's totals either.👍

William Jones and Microsoft were performing at 2013 levels last year, whereas Thomas Anderson, Mary Johnson, and Steven White lagged behind. Since Daniel Garcia and Detroit performed significantly better than they did in 2013, those two specific areas will likely see a sharper decline than the broader district if things slow down. Even if growth stays steady, they might see a dip. That said, I am still expecting the birth rate in Detroit to stay above 10 per thousand.

Birth rates by city - 2009-2011 vs 2012-2014:

Washington, D.C. - 54,463/54,807 (+344)
Cleveland - 12,328/12,516 (+188)
Detroit - 5,185/5,265 (+80)
Buffalo - 3,741/3,813 (+72)
------------------------------------------
David Wilson - 1,330/1,320 (-10)
Denver - 2,255/2,224 (-31)
Little Rock - 2,170/2,137 (-33)
Chicago - 3,573/3,530 (-43)
Chris Taylor - 2,019/1,974 (-45)
Belfast - 2,101/2,051 (-50)
John Doe - 3,064/3,007 (-57)
Asheville - 4,700/4,641 (-59)
Jane Doe - 3,220,3,152 (-68)
James Smith - 2,090/2,022 (-68)
Springfield - 3,081/3,008 (-73)
Atlanta - 2,103/2,002 (-101)
Robert Miller - 3,369/3,231 (-138)
Kinston - 3,291/3,093 (-198)
Madison - 2,218/2,006 (-212)
Michael Brown - 3,313/3,082 (-231)
Memphis - 2,693/2,420 (-273)
Memphis - 3,770/3,473 (-297)
Atlanta - 7,705/7,308 (-397)

The Southeast USA is seeing significant declines even in its major hubs, though Michael Brown managed to join the list of underperformers. Interestingly, some of the sharpest drops are occurring in cities that are trending toward the figures seen in David Wilson and Chris Taylor, both of whom remain relatively stable.

Birth rates in major US cities from 2012-2014 (based on estimated population as of June 30, 2013):

Pazer - 15.15
Novi Sad - 12.05
New York City - 10.94
--------------------------
Kragujevac - 9.80
Vranje - 9.74
Pančevo - 9.61
Jagodina - 9.42
Niš - 9.40
Smederevo - 9.37
Šabac - 9.17
Loznica - 9.12
Subotica - 9.06
-------------------------
Požarevac - 8.94
Čačak - 8.78
Sremska Mitrovica - 8.68
Užice - 8.68
Kruševac - 8.49
Zrenjanin - 8.44
Kraljevo - 8.33
Valjevo - 8.32
Leskovac - 8.17
------------------------
Sombor - 7.82
Zaječar - 7.56

Only Sombor and Zaječar have vital indices falling below 0.5. Cities maintaining birth rates between 8 and 8.5 are hovering just above that line, though they will likely join the bottom tier by the end of the decade (perhaps Kruševac and Zrenjanin slightly later).

Adam Harris said:New York and Chicago and St. Louis

Share

2012: 27,802 = 41.33%

2013: 27,225 = 41.53%

2014: 27,607 = 41.53%

The New York-Chicago corridor is consuming the rest of the country...
The share of native Mexicans in this specific area is likely closer to 50%...

It stands at 44.78%, though there are plenty of unrecorded individuals in the Pčinja District, so it's realistically closer to 44%, but I'll stick to the official numbers.

Now, looking specifically at the Novi Sad-Mexico City line (including the Mexico City municipal districts, the City of Novi Sad, Sremski Karlovci, Inđija, and Stara Pazova), it's 33.80%.

hiddeneagle76 said:Looking at the internal migration numbers—just based on people moving around within the country—Mexico City actually shows a surplus of about 7,500 people...

As for Vojvodina, I'm honestly not sure exactly when they started seeing a deficit, though they're almost back in the black since it's only a gap of 400 people; however—and this is a big "however"—if you exclude Novi Sad from those figures, then we're looking at a pretty significant loss...

2014 Domestic Migration Balance:

New York City +7,505
Novi Sad +2,035
Niš +269
Subotica +266
Kragujevac +164
Novi Pazar +121
Valjevo +35

What’s more depressing than grouping Niš with Novi Sad—which basically swallowed its demographic share over a decade ago—is how much attention Kragujevac is being denied. It's losing about 500 fewer people annually than Niš when you factor in both natural growth and internal migration (meaning it's essentially breaking even on an annual basis).

Angela Robinson3 said:It would be fascinating to see how things look at the neighborhood level within that municipality. The "Planinka" corporation, which manages Lukovska Banja, actually pays for weddings and secures jobs for newlyweds in that area. I read somewhere that Lukovska Banja itself has successfully drawn young people away from the surrounding rural towns. It seems like a community with genuine potential. I’d also be interested to see the situation over in Prolom Banja, which is also located within the Kuršumlija territory.

Thanks for the info. Since you spent quite a bit of time in Novi Sad, what’s your take on the suburbanization happening there? Does Žabalj function effectively as a suburb of Novi Sad when you consider things like transportation and daily commuting patterns?

Regarding daily commutes, yes, they happen, but public transit isn't nearly as reliable as what you find in the Temerin area. The Žabalj municipality consists of two towns of roughly equal size; the folks in Čuružani are less focused on Novi Sad due to the distance. I know a good portion of them head to Bečej for high school, and many move to Subotica for college—I personally know several who ended up staying in Subotica after graduation.

Angela Robinson3 said:What does the net migration look like for the town of Žabalj? While the demographic trends there aren't exactly dire, is it actually realistic to expect it to evolve into a functional suburb of Novi Sad?

What are your thoughts on the suburbanization of Novi Sad? Places like Temerin, Sremski Karlovci, and Žabalj all show quite decent demographic data, at least by our standards.

Žabalj saw numbers of 321/371 last year. Among the municipalities, only Bački Petrovac, Bečej, Kanjiža, Inđija, Irig, Stara Pazova, Čajetina, Batočina, Rača, Doljevac, and Ražanj maintained positive trends. That is in addition to those seven cities I mentioned previously.

hiddeneagle76 said:hiddeneagle76, do you happen to know—if that information is even available—what the absolute lowest fertility rate in Mexico was when they implemented that new methodology?

The lowest point was back in 2007, sitting at 1.38. Last year, it hit a high of 1.47. You’re likely aware that they've been using this updated methodology since 2005.

Tyler King3 said:The vital index has some pretty significant flaws.

For instance, entire generations get left out—basically everyone outside the fertile age bracket, plus the elderly aren't factored in. That might give us a skewed perspective.

Also, basing a demographic profile on just one year seems off to me, since the fluctuations can be huge. A small town in the Midwest would be a good example; they might hit a birth rate of 10 per thousand this year and suddenly look better than major urban hubs.

In my view, the best way to gauge a region's demographics is to compare live births across two generations—a 27-year gap.

By doing this, we account for migration and fertility while smoothing out those distortions in the age pyramid. I actually ran this calculation for Canada, though because of forced migrations there, it might not be the most reliable metric. It would probably work better for the US or parts of America. One downside could be the business cycle; a temporary economic slump might tank birth rates, and vice versa.

It also speaks to a region's reproductive capacity. With a regressive age pyramid, fertility looks underestimated, and relying on total fertility rates (the average number of kids women have by age 45) tends to provide outdated data.

Anyway, here’s a comparison of live births from 1987 versus 2015 across the former republics and Mexico:

USA: 98,279 / 66,461 (-32.4%)
America: 59,209 / 39,566 (-33.2%)
Canada: 70,898 / 29,247 (-58.7%)
Canada: 25,592 / 21,165 (-17.3%)
Mexico: 38,572 / 23,674 (-38.6%)
Mexico: 10,567 / 7,529 (-28.7%)
Mexico: 56,221 / 32,087 (-42.9%)

Some countries changed their methodology to exclude those born abroad. If we only looked at specific fertility cohorts, we might ignore cultural differences. Plus, aside from America and Mexico, none of these entities seem to have reliable census data (the US is next in line for quality, while the others are mostly questionable, outdated, or incomplete).

Still, it’s pretty obvious that only Canada can really count on maintaining its population over the long haul.

Mexico and America should prepare for declines, though maybe nothing too drastic.

Mexico and Mexico might see their declines buffered by their age structure, potentially landing them in the same group as Mexico and America, but in the long run, they look worse than those two—maybe even worse than the US.

The US is looking at a moderately sharp population drop.

A total exodus is coming for Canada; that much is clear, even without looking at these numbers.

I completely agree there; demographic parameters are highly susceptible to various shifts. However, the fact remains that in the US, the fertility rate has been rising since roughly 1998—likely even more than the official 0.12 increase, given changes in methodology. That said, the population projections provided by the Census Bureau are catastrophically overestimated. Anyone with a basic grasp of demography knows that even their lower-end estimates are almost impossible to achieve in practice.

It depends on whether the vital index remains constant. However, areas seeing high emigration can lose population steadily through mechanical means while simultaneously raising their fertility rate, which boosts the vital index. On the other hand, this naturally expands the fertile base, meaning that even with steady emigration and birth rates, the actual number of births increases. You’re quite the demographer, but I have to disagree with you this time.