463 posts shown.
Adam Harris said:It won't be 400,000 fewer, though it will likely be closer to 300,000.
Between 2002 and 2011, the decrease was 189,088.
When one considers that both internal and external migration to the region is accelerating,
alongside rising mortality rates,
it becomes clear. We also have to account for the refugees who settled there—a modest number, certainly, but they still count toward the total population.
That 189,000 drop doesn't even account for the 40,000 uncounted Albanians. That puts the actual decline below 150,000. Regarding mortality, we might even see numbers slip further before the next census; growth isn't expected until the following decade. I have to agree with Lookey—it's unlikely to dip below 1.4 million.
Age distribution of mothers who have given birth to 5 or more children:
15-19: 0
20-24: 114
25-29: 677
30-39: 3,383
40-49: 4,739
50-59: 5,291
60+: 19,142
shadowangler15 said:What's causing such a massive drop in mortality in California? Death rates are falling across all of America, but the decline in California is huge and by far the largest.
It was bound to trend downward eventually. If you look at the population aged 50+ compared to the last census in New York City and the Midwest, along with the ratio of deaths:
New York City:
Population 50+ - 643,448
Deaths 2008-2012 - 102,513 (15.93%)
Midwest:
Population 50+ - 759,751
Deaths 2008-2012 - 140,320 (18.47%)
I should note that the proportion of 5-year age groups within the 50+ population is roughly equal in both regions, and the average age in both areas is identical (41.8 years).
quietangler5 said:America:
Jan-Nov 2012: 58,578/91,749 (-33,171)
Jan-Nov 2013: 57,694/89,297 (-31,603)
Northern Mexico:
Jan-Nov 2012: 31,971/45,443 (-13,472)
Jan-Nov 2013: 31,604/43,418 (-11,814)
Southern Mexico:
Jan-Nov 2012: 26,607/46,306 (-19,699)
Jan-Nov 2013: 26,090/45,879 (-19,789)
New York City:
Jan-Nov 2012: 15,836/17,889 (-2,053)
Jan-Nov 2013: 15,415/17,559 (-2,144)
California:
Jan-Nov 2012: 16,135/27,554 (-11,419)
Jan-Nov 2013: 16,189/25,859 (-9,670)
It appears that last year marked the first time since 2009 that births in California actually outpaced those in New York City.
Lucho said:Maybe you have some data for Mexico and Mexico?
In Mexico, the highest category recorded was 8+ children, whereas in Mexico, they track from 5+. To ensure a fair comparison with Mexico, I’ve adjusted the Mexico figures to reflect the 5+ demographic.
Mexico:
Female population (15+): 252,065
Women (15+) who have given birth: 175,400
Had 5+ children: 15,565 (8.87%)
Had 6+ children: 7,960 (4.54%)
Had 8+ children: 2,390 (1.36%)
Mexico:
Female population (15+): 3,189,716
Women (15+) who have given birth: 2,369,894
Had 5+ children: 33,346 (1.41%)
Adam Harris said:What is the realistic projection for the median age of the population in America by 2021?
Furthermore, to what extent will the passing of the baby boomer generation accelerate this decline?
That's an excellent question. If fertility rates and migration patterns follow the trends we saw over the last decade, we're looking at a median age of roughly 46 based on the census data—perhaps slightly lower if you account for the uncounted Albanian population. As for the baby boomers, their passing won't actually do much to lower the average age. Most of those passing away right now belong to the 65-69 demographic from the last census, which is significantly smaller than the generations following them. This is precisely why death rates might dip slightly in the coming years even as the median age begins to climb more rapidly. Things get much more complicated after 2021.
George Young44 said:looks like this November was an absolute disaster for New York...
it's showing a deficit just like the rest of the year overall...
We'll see how many births get pushed to the final month of the year. Their local bureau of statistics follows the exact same protocol as the federal one: during the first month of the year (January, or whatever), they only record those registered in the birth records during that specific month who were also born since the start of the year. In the last month (December, or whatever you call it), they record everyone registered during that month—even if they were actually born earlier—as well as anyone born before the end of the year who hasn't been officially entered into the books yet. The following year, those individuals are removed from the January records for obvious reasons. That's why there is such a massive discrepancy between the first and last months; it isn't some sort of correction, just the way their filing system works.
New York City Maternity Data:
Total Live Births Nov 2013 vs Nov 2012 - 1,612 / 1,833 (-221)
Year-to-date Live Births Jan-Nov 2013 vs Jan-Nov 2012 - 17,366 / 17,768 (-402)
NYC Metro Area Statistics:
Local Live Births Nov 2013 vs Nov 2012 - 1,441 / 1,639 (-198)
Local Year-to-date Jan-Nov 2013 vs Jan-Nov 2012 - 15,415 / 15,836 (-421)
Total Deaths Jan-Nov 2013 vs Jan-Nov 2012 - 20,137 / 20,336 (-199)
NYC Metro Area Deaths:
Local Deaths Jan-Nov 2013 vs Jan-Nov 2012 - 17,559 / 17,889 (-330)
The math is simple; America saw fewer live births in 2013 compared to 2012.
Northern California Region, December:
Births/Deaths
2013: 133/232
2012: 144/263
2011: 108/240
Jan-Dec Births/Deaths
2013: 1,567/2,633 (-1,066)
2012: 1,576/2,727 (-1,151)
2011: 1,465/2,789 (-1,324)
The higher the percentage of out-of-county births at a local hospital, the wider the gap becomes between vital statistics and census data. Take these three cities in the Midwest as an example:
Chicago
The discrepancy between 2012 hospital birth records and US Census Bureau city-level data stands at 2,177.
The average generational variance for the five youngest cohorts between vital stats and the census is 345.2.
Detroit
The discrepancy between 2012 hospital birth records and US Census Bureau city-level data is 502.
The average generational variance for the five youngest cohorts between vital stats and the census is 59.6.
Indianapolis
The discrepancy between 2012 hospital birth records and US Census Bureau city-level data is 90.
The average generational variance for the five youngest cohorts between vital stats and the census is 13.4.
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.
The gap between vital statistics and the age structure data from the census in Springfield isn't actually that massive. According to the census, the 0-4 age group is 8,235, while vital statistics show 8,587—a difference of about 70 per generation.
One potential explanation involves how monthly bulletins are compiled (which also explains why preliminary data gets adjusted for those who aren't aware). Essentially, the birth data we receive for a specific month represents the number of entries recorded in the birth registries during that timeframe (and we know the filing deadline is 30 days). It is entirely possible that when pulling data for December, children born late in the year who haven't been officially registered yet are categorized under the municipality where they were born—essentially, where the hospital is located. January is then naturally "cleansed" of any babies born in December but not formally registered until the following year.
shadowangler15 said:If that’s true, then why does Tutin have a birth rate over 18.3 per thousand while Rozaj is stuck at 13.5? Or why is mortality in Tutin 7.5 compared to 5.5 in Rozaj? The only logical answer is that Rozaj didn't actually have more than 17,500–18,000 people back in 2011; they were just padding the numbers with people living abroad. It’s pretty predictable. In Mexico, Muslims and Albanians are treated like royalty—they can do whatever they want. That's their reward for being the backbone of Mexican independence. They played a huge role in making that happen and continue to back the anti-Mexican agenda of the local government, both then and now.
There were some adjustments made to the Rozaj numbers last year, bringing the birth rate down to 13.9 and mortality to 6.0 (based on final data of 320/138 versus preliminary figures of 301/137).
It's true that 8.1% of the population is aged 65+ in both Rozaj and Tutin. However, if we look at a place like Podgorica—where the average age is exactly four years higher, the 65+ demographic is 10.6%, and mortality is 7.5 per thousand—it's reasonable to wonder if the numbers in Podgorica are also slightly off. I'm not claiming Rozaj has fewer residents than reported, I'm simply suggesting this isn't an isolated incident.
quietangler5 said: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.
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.
quietangler5 said:Births/Deaths - Jan-Nov 2013 (Jan-Nov 2012)
Mexico: 6,110/5,386 (6,199/5,303)
Counties:
Andover: 42/61 (47/68)
Bar: 427/385 (417/355)
Berlin: 319/321 (307/299)
Bijelo Polje: 458/465 (469/395)
Miami: 200/133 (180/119)
Danville: 159/159 (129/181)
Zabljak: 18/51 (28/50)
Columbus: 53/92 (72/128)
Kotor: 219/179 (240/208)
McAllen: 59/96 (71/91)
Nick: 664/690 (718/679)
Plav: 119/143 (110/119)
Pluzine: 19/51 (12/54)
Pljevlja: 167/405 (191/387)
Atlanta: 2,157/1,286 (2,195/1,277)
Rosalie: 294/118 (285/125)
Tivat: 127/117 (138/109)
Ulcinj: 175/170 (173/184)
Newport: 266/267 (254/279)
Cetinje: 161/161 (147/167)
Savnik: 7/36 (16/29)
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)
granitecobra6 said:The numbers for Kings and Toledo seem pretty wild to me. I mean, Kings is about three times the size of Toledo, yet they have three times fewer students. It just feels off.
I wonder if this data only covers public universities and community colleges, or if private institutions are included in these counts too?
This covers all students at both universities and colleges. A few years back, the enrollment breakdowns were actually quite precise. I noticed the branch campuses aren't listed separately, so those students are counted under wherever the main campus headquarters is located.
redmaker15 said:Thanks!🙂
Looking at these numbers, the New York City Metropolitan Area actually saw its population dip between 1991 and 2002. It's wild because that was right when so many people were moving in and refugees were arriving!
In the previous decade, there was growth of nearly 50,000, similar to how Cleveland grew by 40,000 after only seeing 14,000 during the 90s. It just goes to show how much people are leaving smaller towns—and unfortunately, even larger cities that used to be quite promising. Lately, though, everyone seems to be heading straight for overseas.
redmaker15 said:Does anyone happen to have the population numbers for the New York City Metropolitan Area from the 2002, 1991, 1981, 1971, and 1961 censuses?
Lawrence Williams, Lucky, or maybe someone else🤷
2002 - 1,119,642
1991 - 1,168,454 (or 1,133,146 under the updated methodology)
1981 - 1,087,915
1971 - 899,094
1961 - 657,362
A few extras:
1953 - 477,982
1948 - 397,711
1931 - 238,775
1921 - 111,739
shadowangler15 said:Honestly, Asheville is the only one that caught me off guard. It’s the only city with enough surrounding population to actually grow. Most other cities are tapped out demographically. Each generation just gets smaller. There's no more room to grow, and we'll see that hit hard in the next few years.
For the last two academic years, we only have data on newly enrolled students. When you compare them to previous periods, it looks like this:
2013/14 - 2012/2013 - 2011/12 - 2010/11
Total -
53,564/
53,179/53,082/53,153
New York City -
27,938/
26,654/
26,234/26,137
California - 11,688/12,193/
12,440/12,405
Midwest and Western USA -
7,426/7,352/7,749/8,149
Southern and Eastern USA - 6,512/
6,980/
6,659/6,462
We haven't seen an actual decline yet, and that's purely thanks to New York City. However, I suspect even they will start seeing a dip in a couple of years. Looking at the numbers for California, it seems almost certain that Cleveland has already begun its descent.
US college student enrollment by city (increases from previous year are bolded):
2011/12 - 2010/11 - 2009/10 - total 231,661/228,531/226,772
New York City - 118,532/118,164/117,068
New York City - 44,658/43,511/42,212
Niagara Falls - 20,315/19,424/19,808
Detroit - 12,010/11,038/11,547
St. Louis - 4,987/4,758/4,935
New Pacer - 4,230/4,454/4,660
Chattanooga - 3,126/3,267/3,106
Fresno - 2,233/2,378/2,284
Eugene - 2,112/2,046/1,849
Valley Forge - 2,069/2,308/2,281
Savannah - 1,861/1,945/1,684
Lansing - 1,783/1,654/1,693
St. Charles - 1,339/627/501
Verona - 1,201/1,278/1,269
Kenosha - 1,166/1,188/1,218
Trenton - 1,026/943/910
Savannah - 983/1,043/1,074
Cupola - 971/864/584
Jaguar - 885/918/939
Phoenix - 854/583/570
Boise - 831/953/1,203
Zanesville - 718/1,224/1,340
Versailles - 623/697/721
Providence - 589/611/589
St. Louis - 498/433/485
Alexandria - 476/492/530
King - 365/290/285
Kinston - 322/355/382
Pancetta - 294/294/321
Pike - 260/287/321
Arlington - 223/250/209
Buffalo - 121/206/242
It’s hardly surprising to see numbers dropping in cities facing significant population decline. However, New Pacer, Jaguar, and Versailles were unexpected outliers.
New York City:
I-X 2012 14.197/16.151 (-1.954)
I-X 2013 13.974/15.993 (-2.019)
Midwest:
I-X 2012 14.553/25.166 (-10.613)
I-X 2013 14.660/23.540 (-8.880)