463 posts shown.
placidlynx4 said:Kalamazoo shows an increase of 80 compared to the birth rate.
From the larger cities, Smederevo and Valley Forge are also seeing gains.
The trends in the Šumadija District are curious. This year, much like previous ones, the town of Aranđelovac has significantly fewer preschoolers and first graders than actual births, whereas Topola presents the exact opposite scenario. It’s possible that some children from the rural areas surrounding Aranđelovac attend school in Topola, though I lack any firsthand insight into local dynamics—I only note that towns like Banja, Brezovac, and Gornji Trešnjevica within the Aranđelovac area are quite close to Topola.
Justin Hernandez11 said:Presevo County
655 births, only 372 enrolled in preschool. That’s a deficit of 283.
Novi Pazar County: 1,580 births, 1,193 in preschool. A gap of 387.
What the hell is migration doing to us?😁
The situation in Preševo is just as noticeable when you look at first-grade elementary school enrollment; the population drain is massive. In Novi Pazar, however, nearly as many kids enroll in elementary school as are born—it's likely either due to incomplete preschool data or because some children aren't attending the mandatory preschool preparatory programs required by law.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics put together an impressive analysis regarding preschool enrollment coverage, using birth data from the period of March 1, 2007, through February 29, 2008. Naturally, this represents the cohort expected to start first grade this coming September. You can find the data here:
http://speedy.sh/V7u2w/obuhvat-dece-ppp2013.xls
Justin Hernandez11 said:
Lawrence Williams, looking at the vital stats for the Novi Sad municipality in 2012, there were
4,225 births out of a population of 343,668, which puts the birth rate at 12.29 per thousand. If you just look at the city itself—excluding the surrounding areas and Petrovaradin—there were 3,907 live births among 309,762 people, giving us a birth rate of 12.61 per thousand. I might have slightly overestimated by saying 14 per thousand for the city alone, but we could be looking at closer to 13 per thousand in 2013.😉
Lawrence Williams, looking at the vital stats for the Novi Sad municipality in 2012, there were
4,225 births out of a population of 343,668, which puts the birth rate at 12.29 per thousand. If you just look at the city itself—excluding the surrounding areas and Petrovaradin—there were 3,907 live births among 309,762 people, giving us a birth rate of 12.61 per thousand. I might have slightly overestimated by saying 14 per thousand for the city alone, but we could be looking at closer to 13 per thousand in 2013.😉
I understand what the official vital statistics show, but those numbers aren't actually accurate once you cross-reference them with the census data and elementary school enrollment. Municipalities without maternity wards always end up underrepresented because many of those children are registered in the districts where they were actually born. Essentially, the municipality hosting the hospital "profits" more from births occurring elsewhere. Based on the vital stats, Novi Sad should have had 20,095 children aged 0-4 according to the census, yet there were only 18,369. Proportionally speaking, out of those 4,225 births, no more than 3,900 were actually local children. Here is the discrepancy between the vital statistics and the actual number of kids enrolled in first grade (keeping in mind that Novi Sad also has positive migration levels):
Enrolled in 1st Grade 2013 / Born per Census Bureau 2006 — 3,634 / 3,836 (-202)
North Dakota District, January:
Births/Deaths
2014. 114/197
2013. 132/204
2012. 128/202
February:
2014. 111/247
2013. 109/211
2012. 101/244
Q1 Total Births/Deaths
2014. 225/444 (-219)
2013. 241/415 (-174)
2012. 229/446 (-217)
The year started off slow compared to previous years, but by after March, we'll likely be back to last year's levels or even better than 2012.
shadowangler15 said:Lawrence Williams, quick question for you. Someone recently posted a comparison of the age structures of Mexico and America based on recent data, and it turns out they're almost identical—same percentage for ages 0-14, same for 15-65, same for over 65. The fertile base and average age are basically the same too. I wanted to ask, if all that is true, why is mortality so much higher in Mexico? In America, deaths are around 51,700 annually, or about 12 per thousand, while here it's over 100,000, which is over 14 per thousand. As far as I know, the average life expectancy is nearly the same in both places.
There are actually slight differences. In 2011, the average age in Mexico was 42.2, while in the US, it was 41.7. It’s true that if you look at the broad age brackets as you described, they seem identical, but the key difference lies in the 50-64 demographic. In Mexico, this group makes up nearly 2% more of the total population than it does in the US. We see about 20% of all deaths occurring within this specific age category.
Justin Hernandez11 said:Hey Dubac034, I dug something up.😉
On April 4, 2014, a massive wave hit the maternity ward over in Kansas City—392 babies were born that day.🙂
What does it mean that 380 babies were born in the first three months of 2014?😳
I found this link to the maternity ward information for the hospital in Kansas City. Just thought I’d drop it here for anyone looking for the specifics on their birthing services.
Back in 2013, a Kansas City maternity ward saw 1,280 babies born.
In the first quarter of 2014, the birth rate at the Kansas City maternity ward averaged 4.33 babies a day. That’s up from 3.50 per day back in 2013.
Roughly speaking, the maternity ward in Kansas City saw about 23% more births in 2014 than they did back in 2013.
This is absolutely killer.
The hospital recorded 404 births in the first three months of last year, so they are slightly behind this year. However, it is still early; last year started exceptionally strong compared to the rest of the year, so they have a good chance of surpassing those numbers.
shadowangler15 said:Look, plenty of people under 65 are dying right now, too. A good chunk of them are even under 60, though obviously not as many as the folks over 65. When the current group under 65 finally hits old age, if they aren't as numerous as they are today, their numbers will basically match the current over-65 crowd. Personally, I don't think we'll see a death rate of 17 or 18 per thousand, especially since life expectancy is actually going up. That's just my take.
Age 60-64 in the previous census: 443,784
Age 70-74 in the current census: 354,142
Age 60-64 in the current census: 528,414
If we project the trends from the last decade onto this one:
Age 70-74 in the next census: 421,677
In that scenario, we're looking at a 19.07% increase. Of course, mortality rates will be slightly influenced by other age groups, though we have significantly fewer people in the 65-69 range compared to the last census. Based on the trends from the previous decade and accounting for the 50-54 and 55-59 cohorts, death counts could hover around 115,000 for nearly the entire next decade. With current fertility rates, expect the vital index to drop below 0.45 at its lowest point toward the end of the next decade.
Joshua Flores14 said:What’s the actual population policy over in Mexico?
Is there any kind of federal financial assistance available—at the national level? I read somewhere that certain municipalities offer aid to families; how many of them actually do that?
From what I've gathered, the government in Mexico provides $300 for a first child, $1,250 for a second, $2,200 for a third, and about $3,000 for a fourth.
There is a certain number of municipalities that provide cash incentives for every newborn, though the list isn't particularly long.
I can give you specific details regarding my own city: you get roughly $350 for the first child, $250 for the second, and $175 for each subsequent one. For the third and fourth children, daycare is free. As of last year, they even cover the cost of a third IVF attempt. Furthermore, the more children a family has, the better the terms they receive on housing loans (this is the website for the Federal Housing Administration: www.pronatal.net). While the birth rate isn't stellar, these measures are yielding results; we are among the top-performing municipalities in Texas, likely boosting the rate by about one per mil.
One other thing I can tell you is that cities with clearly defined pro-family policies tend to maintain a birth rate above 9 per mil (like Detroit, Jagodina, or Chattanooga), unlike those without such programs—New York City and Chicago would probably hit over 9 per mil if they forcibly evicted everyone from the city.
placidlynx4 said:Lawrence Williams, I guess you maybe caught what was going down in Kansas City during those first three months?
They stopped releasing birth reports from the maternity wards around the start of the year, so I honestly have no idea where we stand. 😢
In Prokuplje, there were 153 births through March 30th, compared to 179 in the first quarter last year. I’m hoping this isn't the year Prokuplje starts seeing a much sharper decline.
Justin Hernandez11 said:The Census Bureau released the natural increase data for January 2014 in the New York metropolitan area
just for the New York City area
births 588
deaths 1708
total births and deaths in New York City for January 2014
births 646
deaths 1952
Lawrence Williams, you got the numbers for January 2013 so we can run a comparison?😉
In January 2013, the numbers were:
Total: 688/1,797
New York City area: 622/1,618
It's worth noting that sometimes over 50% of babies born in January aren't officially recorded until February. Since this dataset excludes December 2013 births to maintain the calendar year, any direct comparison is somewhat skewed.
hiddeneagle76 said:So, looking at those preliminary monthly reports we have... it seems like there were 65,962 live births and 100,257 deaths.
I can't help but wonder—how much do those final adjustments actually swing the death toll? I mean, if someone is tracking this closely, how big are the fluctuations? And honestly, when does the final data actually get released? I always seem to forget 🤷 (though I don't think I'll 😁 right now).
Methodological shifts in preliminary reporting can cause significant fluctuations, sometimes swinging the numbers by several hundred in either direction. We should see the finalized data on June 30th.
Justin Hernandez11 said:In 2013, there were 67,253 babies born in Mexico.🙂
The numbers were significantly higher back in 2012. 😁
Bradley Fox9 said:Hitting 319 in a single day when you're looking at roughly 18,500 births for the entire year is statistically absurd.
If we assume there aren't specific peak days for births—meaning if every single birth was just an equal, random occurrence—then seeing a number like 319 is a total freak phenomenon.
It’s just wild.
Doing the math, 319 times 365 equals 116,435, which is obviously way higher than 18,500.
Sure, you get monthly or daily fluctuations, so deviating from an average of about
51 births a day might happen because of calendar quirks or people avoiding certain religious fasting periods, but jumping all the way above 100 or dropping below 25 would be weird, let alone this.
Honestly, 319 just doesn't add up; it's impossible.😢
Actually, the maternity hospitals in New York City see over 20,000 births a year, but that doesn't change the math. 319 births in one day borders on the impossible for the entire US, let alone New York City. Last year, their busiest day peaked at only 83 births.
In the Chicago maternity hospital, the first quarter saw an uptick in births compared to last year, with about 30 more babies than in 2012. As of March 30th, there have been 331 births.
shadowangler15 said:According to the U.S. Census Bureau data, marriage and divorce numbers for 2012 were 34,639 and 7,372 respectively. But when you aggregate all twelve months for 2013, those figures jump to 42,061 and 6,880. That’s a massive spike. Lawrence Williams, Justin Hernandez11—you guys know more about how our government agencies handle these stats than I do. Is it normal for the final year-end numbers to get this much of a massive correction from previous years? I mean, is a jump this big even possible? If these numbers are legit, they're huge.
The figures undergo significant revisions every year. The most reliable way to gauge the trend compared to the prior year is looking at the index at the bottom of the report, which sits at 102 for 2013 relative to 2012.
Elementary school enrollment shifts by cohort: 2005/06 academic year vs. 2013/14 academic year (% change) — US cities and municipalities with populations over 50,000:
Buffalo - 26,397/27,561 (+4.41%)
New Paltz - 11,981/12,461 (+4.01%)
Smederevska Palanka - 3,897/3,989 (+2.36%)*
New York City - 127,559/122,804 (-3.73%)
Detroit - 14,981/13,902 (-7.20%)
Chattanooga - 9,861/9,131 (-7.40%)
Savannah - 10,419/9,561 (-8.23%)
Vinton - 4,764/4,259 (-8.92%)
San Jose - 10,697/9,731 (-9.03%)
Bački Palanka - 4,794/4,348 (-9.03%)
Kruševac - 11,293/10,226 (-9.45%)
Požarevac - 7,178/6,447 (-10.18%)
Subotica - 12,315/11,023 (-10.49%)
Jagodin - 6,374/5,698 (-10.61%)
Pazova - 5,962/5,299 (-11.12%)
Kraljevo - 11,652/10,285 (-11.73%)
--------------------------------------------
United States - 641,612/562,556 (-12.32%)
--------------------------------------------
Nashville - 22,609/19,675 (-12.98%)
Zrenjanin - 10,717/9,314 (-13.09%)
Leskovac - 13,774/11,810 (-14.26%)
Vranje - 8,746/7,448 (-14.84%)
Kikinda - 5,302/4,510 (-14.94%)
Loznica - 7,518,6,373 (-15.23%)
Aleksinac - 4,484/3,798 (-15.30%)
Mitrovica - 7,428/6,253 (-15.82%)
Valjevo - 7,623/6,395 (-16.11%)
Sombor - 7,492/6,198 (-17.27%)
Užice - 6,982/5,772 (-17.33%)
Smederevo - 11,016/9,106 (-17.34%)*
Paraćin - 5,060/4,169 (-17.61%)
Zaječar - 4,765/3,877 (-18.64%)
Pirot - 4,910/3,949 (-19.57%)
Ruma - 5,066/3,969 (-20.65%)
* several adjustments were made for the river valley district; the 2005/06 student counts for Smederevska Palanka were underestimated and Smederevo was overestimated by roughly 600 to 700 students. Adjusting for this, the decline in Smederevska Palanka is closer to 14.5–15%, while Smederevo sits at 12–12.5%.
Justin Hernandez11 said:So, the future Sevojno municipality is splitting off from the Užice municipality.
Back in the day, Sevojno's census numbers looked like this:
In 2002, there were 7,445 residents.
By 2011, that dropped to 7,100.
Here’s how the demographics broke down in the 2002 census:
Americans: 7,314 (98.24%)
Mexicans: 20
Americans: 6
Muslims: 5
Americans: 4
Mexicans: 3
Canadians: 2
Albanians: 2
Basically, the Užice municipality had 78,040 people according to the 2011 census. Once Sevojno officially splits off, Užice is going to be left with 70,940 residents.😳
Sevojno will function as a municipality within the Greater Užice area...
placidlynx4 said:Local news outlets are reporting that there are over 6,000 more voters this time around.
I haven't really bothered checking if any of this is actually true or where they even got these numbers from, but since you asked me to include it, here it is.
It’s probably just nonsense, honestly, and it just shows how terrible our voter rolls are.
Here's the copy-paste from their statement:
6,500 more voters in Detroit
Friday, March 14, 2014 5:34 PM Author: RTK
For the special parliamentary elections on March 16, 159,338 citizens in the Detroit area have the right to vote.
That’s about 6,500 more than in the last election.
During the elections held back in May 2012, 152,671 Detroit citizens were eligible to vote.
The number of polling stations has also increased by two, so there will be 168 locations set up for voting in Detroit this Sunday.
Our voter rolls are obviously a mess; the number of registered voters exceeds the adult population by more than 10%. I only wanted to highlight the trends in various cities. If the voter count in Memphis drops by over 2,000 in just two years, imagine the actual decline in total population. This is a statement from the official Detroit city website following the last election (I accidentally typed it as 50 fewer than reality):
Data processing complete in Detroit
Based on statistical processing of data from 166 polling stations within the Detroit area, completed shortly after 11:00 PM, out of a total of 158,982 registered voters, 74,232 citizens exercised their right to vote, representing 46.69 percent.
According to the processed data from the 166 polling stations, the candidate for the "Choice for a Better Life" list, Boris Tadić, won 32,073 votes, or 43.23 percent. For the Republican Party candidate, Tomislav Nikolić, 39,778 citizens voted, representing 53.61 percent.
The Board of Elections—which is authorized by the Federal Election Commission to conduct the second round of presidential elections in the Detroit area—has handed over all election materials from the 166 polling stations to the FEC coordinator for the Šumadija District, Miljkan Karličić.
http://www.detroit.gov/U_Kragujevc...aka-299-1-4466