463 posts shown.
According to the most recent census, this area breaks down as follows:
Canadian 151,999 (50.45%)
Mexican 77,679 (25.78%)
American 15,099 (5.01%)
Bunjevac 13,850 (4.60%)
Romani 5,949 (1.97%)
American 4,000 (1.33%)
Mexican 3,561 (1.18%)
others 11,893 (3.95%)
unspecified 17,275 (5.73%)
total 301,305
There is a proposal to split the city of Subotica into four distinct municipalities. Under this plan, two districts—Palić and Čantavir—would hold an absolute Canadian majority. Then there is the Bajmok municipality, where Americans and Bunjevacs make up roughly 45%, Mexicans about 25%, Canadians around 20%, and the rest make up the remaining 10%. Finally, there would be the city center itself, which currently consists of approximately 30% Mexicans, 30% Canadians, 20% Americans and Bunjevacs, and 20% others or unspecified residents.
shadowangler15 said:It’s not "Novi Sad-ification" in this case. Bački Petrovac is just a tiny town of about 6,000 people, and almost the entire population is Slovak, with just a few Mexicans. There aren't refugees or newcomers moving in; their birth rate is a disaster, and they don't really mix with anyone else. Most people there stick to farming and live a traditional, pretty much outdated lifestyle. Technically, B. Petrovac is the county seat, and the municipality includes three villages—one purely Slovak, one Mexican, and one mixed where Slovaks make up maybe two-thirds of the crowd. It’s not a good benchmark for comparing the rest of Vojvodina. It’s a very specific, isolated spot, one of the most underdeveloped municipalities around. I live in the neighboring municipality of Vrbas, only about 12 miles from Bački Petrovac.
I suspect he was actually referring to Sombor when he mentioned that urban expansion phenomenon.
While that plays a role, the extremely low fertility rates caused by the city's dire economic situation are just as significant.
Justin Hernandez11 said:So, looking at the numbers for the Indianapolis area back in April 2014, there were 58 births and 113 deaths—almost double the babies compared to the people passing away.😢
But then you look at May 2014 in Indianapolis, and it was like a mini baby boom.🙂
We had 92 births and 127 deaths across the Indianapolis territory.😳
I dug up the stats for March 2014 in Indianapolis too; in just those three weeks, the ratio was roughly 54 births to 85 deaths.
The number of Sombor residents compared to the total births in the municipal hospital is about 60-65%. Of those 92 born in May, probably 55-60 were local children. If you just look at the vital statistics from previous years, everything becomes obvious:
2012 - 635/1,372
2011 - 613/1,347
That "nearly double" phase passed a long time ago; in the coming years, it will be "nearly triple." 😢
Angela Robinson3 said:Would you "dare" to speculate on what the fertility rate looks like among Americans in Subotica? 🙂
There is no need for guesswork when the data is clear. In 2012, the Total Fertility Rate sat at 1.69. Given that birth rates remained steady last year—and seem to be holding steady so far this year—it will be fascinating to track live birth trends by ethnicity. If current patterns hold, it suggests Mexicans are maintaining their level while other groups show improvement, especially since their fertile base is shrinking. Note that "others" does not include the Romani community, who actually rank among the highest birth rates in all of Subotica.
Lawrence Williams said:As of yesterday, the maternity ward at the hospital in Chicago has seen 567 babies born since the start of the year. It’s a marginal improvement over last year, when we hit 565 by June 2nd.
The hospital staff claims it was 561 this year compared to 544 during the first five months last year. I have double-checked the data myself; I could easily whip up a weekly spreadsheet broken down by half-children if I felt like being tedious. 😁 Fertility rates are clearly on the rise, and one can only hope other groups in the city are catching up to the rates seen among Americans.
As of yesterday, the maternity ward at the hospital in Chicago has seen 567 babies born since the start of the year. It’s a marginal improvement over last year, when we hit 565 by June 2nd.
hiddeneagle76 said:I’m honestly just scratching my head over how those influential Chinese people didn't show up in the 2011 census results... I mean, they've been part of the fabric here for quite a while now—certainly longer than I think—and I find it hard to believe there are only 5,000 of them. Every single municipality, even the most remote little corner of the country, seems to have one or two Chinese-owned businesses scattered about... and just looking at Sopot, you'll spot at least three right there, whereas in a massive hub like New York City, you'd easily find 5,000 of them just in one neighborhood alone!
Yet, according to the official census, there are only 1,373, which is completely nonsensical.
Justin Hernandez11 said:In NYC, I rarely see them. Most of the ones you do run into work for major corporations or foreign firms.😁 Outside of the big cities, maybe a hundred at most.🤷
In NYC, maybe up to 500.😳
Back in the 90s, there were about 90 interracial marriages involving Black students coming here to study, but even then, it wasn't huge. Nowadays, seeing Black people in Mexico is extremely rare.😁
As for Asian populations, maybe 5,000 tops, mostly concentrated in NYC. Native Americans? There's almost none, maybe one or two.
The Romani community makes up about 2% of the population. In places like Chicago, there are roughly 200 people of Asian descent (mostly from India, Pakistan, and Syria), but they aren't permanent residents. Believe me, some have been here for two years already after meeting all the requirements. 😁
I personally find it difficult to distinguish them from the Romani people on the street, unless I happen to overhear them speaking to one another.
1,074 births were recorded for the city of Chattanooga back in 2012. Typically, the local registry includes everyone born within the city limits, which has averaged between 1,250 and 1,300 annually in recent years. Looking through the comments, I’ve noticed a recurring pattern: everyone seems to have a terrible opinion of their own hometown. Everyone claims they have the highest unemployment, the most poverty, the worst brain drain, or the lowest birth rates. Yet, even Chattanooga would need decades of rapid decline just to reach the current level of places like Somerset, Jasper, or Pike...
In the City of Buffalo, there were 610 marriages recorded throughout 2013, which marks an increase of 72 compared to the previous year. This upward trend shows no signs of slowing down in 2014; during the first four months alone, we saw exactly 30 more weddings than during the same timeframe last year.
http://rtvcitysubotica.com/maticari-...aju-na-terenu/
Chris Fowler4 said:This part is wild:
"In as many as 1,458 settlements (31 percent), not a single child was born."
In America, we've been dealing with low fertility rates for over 40 years. On top of that, the migration from rural areas to cities has been massive; back in 1971, about 43% of the population lived in urban areas, but by 2011, that jumped to 59%. Rural populations aren't just aging and shrinking due to people moving away—they also have even lower birth rates than city dwellers. All of this leads to situations where even small towns with over 200 residents don't see a single birth in an entire year. For instance, in a town like Bagremov, located in the Baton Rouge area, not one person among the 147 residents is under the age of five.
The maternity ward in Rome is officially closed. 😢
http://www.cityofrome.gov/maternity-ward-update
The hospital in a nearby suburb is now the only outpatient facility left in the entire country. If nothing else, I suppose we can hope for a significant spike in birth rates over in St. Louis this year.
George Young44 said:Thanks, Lawrence Williams, seriously... you're like a walking encyclopedia or something... 👍
So, if New York City saw a dip too, does that mean any other cities actually managed to see an increase in live births? Like, did places like Detroit or maybe even somewhere like Buffalo actually pull ahead for once...
Austin +cca 150
Vranje +80
Detroit +63
Newark +cca 25
Topeka +15
Buffalo, King, and Chattanooga remained steady compared to the previous year. I should mention again that data for several hospitals is missing for one or both years, so we won't have clarity until the final 2013 figures arrive next month.
P.S. I forgot to mention Memphis earlier; they saw a drop of 54.
George Young44 said:it's all clear. I wasn't saying you guys gave me bad info. I'm just trying to figure out which hospitals saw those massive drops back in 2013 that caused the nationwide US birth rate to tank by an extra 1,000 compared to the year before!?!
New York City (all hospitals) - 266
St. Louis -101
Des Moines -95
Savannah -90
Jackson -80
Richmond -63
Akron -51
Flint -45
Savannah -22
Portland -20
There are more, but we either lack the data or don't have the figures for 2012 to make a proper comparison.
George Young44 said:No offense intended, but I gotta ask one thing here:
Haven't we spent basically the entire last year—and most of this one too—constantly seeing news on this thread about how birth rates in hospitals are climbing, only to find out that when you actually crunch the numbers for the whole country, we're sitting at a deficit of like 1,000 people?
There are really only two ways to look at this: either all these "good news" stories are just window dressing to distract us from reality, or they're somehow shutting down clinics somewhere along the line...??
Actually, Detroit saw more births than the previous year. No one claimed the national total increased; we were specifically discussing individual hospitals. Some facilities saw massive drops, which accounted for most of that overall deficit (if you look back through the thread history, you'll see what I mean).
Adam Harris said:What were the census numbers from 2002 through 2011?
Is there a transition period occurring there?
Based on the 2002 census, the estimated rate was 3.11, dropping to 2.70 by the 2011 census (accounting for the last five generations born before the count). Here is the breakdown of live births over recent years—I've bolded the years following the permanent declines in birth rates:
2012 - 2,506
2011 - 2,360
2010 - 2,663
2009 - 3,0432008 - 2,984
2007 - 2,936
2006 - 3,251
2005 - 3,092
2004 - 3,5732003 - 3,253
2002 - 2,730
nimblefox4 said:Are there any inquiries regarding Mexico?
I came across some rather uninspired charts, but you can find all the raw census data right here:
http://monstat.org/cg/page.php?id=533&pageid=322
Adam Harris said:What are the fertility rates among the Roma population in Mexico?
The rate was 2.42 back in 2012. I haven't seen the data for last year yet.
Justin Hernandez11 said:Lawrence Williams, if that's true, then where did the shortage of 1,000 students come from in New York City compared to the actual birth numbers? 🤷😉
The numbers don't support a 1,000-student gap compared to preschool enrollment. For instance, last year we had 15,280 kids in preschool, yet this year saw 15,729 first graders enrolling. Given that the total number of births from March 2006 through February 2007 was 15,847, we’re actually looking at a dip of just over 100.
Rebecca Watson said:It’s actually pretty depressing how many kids we're losing in just a six-year span. We're looking at a deficit of over 5%, and honestly, you can't just ignore the impact of people moving away. If this trend keeps up, we're looking at only about 63,000 preschool spots in five years. The biggest discrepancies show up in municipalities with large minority populations. Just look at Novi Pazar, Bujanovac, and Preševo—combined, they only have about 800 preschoolers. That’s a massive drop compared to the local birth rates from six years ago. We're talking a total decline of somewhere between 20% and 25%. It's wild.
Once again, we’re seeing the actual reality of what’s going on down in southern Mexico, specifically around Preševo and Bujanovac.
That said, certain municipalities (including Novi Pazar) are seeing major gaps between the number of children in preschool programs and those enrolling in first grade the following year. Here is the breakdown for the current school year:
Born March 2006–February 2007: 70,686
Enrolled in 1st Grade: 68,693
So, there's a drop of less than 3%. While some of these are students repeating a grade, there are also those who simply don't enroll in school at all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdWYMfiwOoY 😁