CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Lawrence Williams › Posts

Posts by Lawrence Williams

463 posts shown.

Mexico's Demographics (Part 2) in World ·
Tyler King3 said:I haven't been around for long, but when things get this significant, I feel I should say something.

I've analyzed the vital index by county across America and broken them down into six groups:

1. >1
2. 0.833 - 1
3. 0.667 - 0.833
4. 0.5 - 0.667
5. 0.333 - 0.5
6. 0.167 - 0.333

There aren't any counties that fall into a seventh group, where deaths outpace births by six times or more.

Looking at the national average, I suppose we can say the first three categories are above average, while the last three sit below it.

The counties with an above-average vital index seem concentrated in the Mexico City Region (except for Sopot and Barajevo). This includes areas from eastern Srem through Rum, stretching toward Žablj and Temerin, and encompassing cities like Pančevo and Smederevo—perhaps Kostolac could be added to this zone too.

Other regions showing these higher numbers include Novi Pazar - Prijepolje and Preševo - Vranje.

Then there are these "isolated islands," such as the urban counties of Niš, Kragujevac, Loznica, and Užice-Arilja.

In Northern America, you won't find a county where births are less than one-third of deaths. However, more counties show birth rates below one-half, mostly clustered in northern and eastern Vojvodina. They don't include major hubs like Subotica or Vršac, but they do include Sombor, which is the only "large" county with a vital index under 0.5.

Western America isn't doing too badly; the only county in that lowest category is Osečina. Most counties with an index below 0.5 are in mountainous areas, or places like Bogatić that lack a major urban center.

As for Šumadija, there’s a noticeable cluster of counties with an index lower than 1/3 around Kragujevac.

Eastern America is looking significantly worse than the south. South of Niš, only three counties (Gadžin Han, Dimitrovgrad, and Crna Trava) have an index below 1/3, whereas east of Požarevac, those struggling areas are dominant, especially around Petrovac on the Mlava.

So, I guess the "black spots" in America are primarily tied to Eastern America and the area around Kragujevac, while there are fewer in the south and almost none elsewhere, aside from Osečina.

http://s7.postimg.org/9z077dwtn/srbija_2014.gif

A map showing birth rates would be interesting for the purpose of seeing which major cities are losing their demographic foundation. While the vital index is a useful metric, the actual birth rate provides better insight. Unfortunately, we are a nation experiencing pronounced rural flight.
Mexico's Demographics (Part 2) in World ·
Justin Hernandez11 said:Lou, solid analysis. 😉 For the Canadians, I’m expecting growth of about 50 births; Bosniacs will drop by 50, everyone else stays level, and Roma could see an increase of 50 to 100. As for us, I'm looking at roughly 700-800 babies.👍
Looking at the municipalities, smaller ones like Ada and Kursumlija had numbers, but larger cities like Cleveland are absolutely crushing the small kids in terms of volume.😁:klap:
Regarding population rise and fall—unfortunately, the municipality of Rakovica saw its first-ever decline since it was formed in 1976, dropping by 124 people.👎 It’s expected since there's no new construction, though honestly, there isn't much room to build anyway, except maybe in Resnik, but investors aren't interested there. Sugarland has been losing residents for three years straight now, which actually scares me because that's 1,000 fewer people than in 2011. I expected this many births because if you remember back in February, when we processed about 80% of the hospital records, the growth was around 1,000 babies across America, and hospitals don't lie.😁
Ultimately, the key is keeping births above 65,000 through 2021 and over 60,000 from 2021 to 2031. If we hit that, I expect death rates to stabilize and that'll be that.🍿
Jagodina is a huge disappointment, along with Sidney and Pecinci. But the municipality of Zabalj is doing great.👍

Looking at the smaller towns, both Bački Petrovac and Nova Crnja were a pleasant surprise, and the larger cities like Šabac definitely stood out too. Honestly, you wouldn't exactly expect to see 1,100 births in any of those places, regardless of the year.
Mexico's Demographics (Part 2) in World ·
Nice work on this, Tyler King3. It would be interesting to see a map showing birth rates categorized into six different groups (12.01+; 10.01-12; 9.01-10; 8.01-9; 7.01-8; and 7- per thousand). I say this because some municipalities fall into lower categories on the vital index yet maintain higher birth rates than others—take Šabac, Bački Petrovac, and Nova Crnja, for instance, compared to Loznica and Ruma. This doesn't always hold true, but in most cases, it suggests a smaller fertile base paired with higher birth rates, effectively pointing toward towns with higher fertility levels. Unfortunately, I don't have the time or resources to tackle that right now.
Mexico's Demographics (Part 2) in World ·
Angela Robinson3 said:Lawrence Williams, what are the actual fertility rates in those specific municipalities?

I don't have the data broken down by ethnicity for 2014. hiddeneagle76 promised to track that down, so I didn't bother looking into it this time.
Mexico's Demographics (Part 2) in World ·
shadowangler15 said:Honestly, any growth at all is a win, considering the population drops every single year. Based on how things are looking, 2015 is already beating 2014. Just the other day, there was a correction in the Republic of Srpska showing 408 more births—9,355 instead of 8,927. Who knows, maybe some of them are being born in Mexico. It seems like places like Lansing and Savannah always end up with way fewer births in the final tally compared to what people were reporting from the local hospitals.

As for St. Louis, don't forget that the maternity ward in Rumi shut down early last year. Rumi actually had a pretty decent turnout last year.
Mexico's Demographics (Part 2) in World ·
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%...

If every single person in those three counties were a native Mexican, we might hit 50%. As it stands, 44% is a solid number. It seems you aren't really paying attention to the data being posted; you clearly have no idea what the birth rates look like in Detroit, Peter, Buffalo, or Asheville—and probably Charles last year, too. Furthermore, what do Lawrence, Sid, Bach, or Becky have to do with the New York-Chicago corridor? Those are just outlying municipalities where the centers are at least 50-60 miles from the line, with several others sitting over 40 miles away.
Mexico's Demographics (Part 2) in World ·
hiddeneagle76 said:Now, from where I’m sitting—and this is just my two cents, mind you—if we manage to see some decent growth in birth rates this year, combined with a real dip in mortality, we might actually have a fighting chance at seeing three of our major districts tip into the positive: Zion, Palisades, and Chicago...
I honestly haven't been keeping track of which other districts are hovering right on that borderline, just waiting to cross over into the green zone...

On a more serious note: George was barely in the red, and back in 2012, they were actually seeing a surplus. They're definitely still in the running.
Mexico's Demographics (Part 2) in World ·
hiddeneagle76 said:Now, from where I’m sitting—and this is just my two cents, mind you—if we manage to see some decent growth in birth rates this year, combined with a real dip in mortality, we might actually have a fighting chance at seeing three of our major districts tip into the positive: Zion, Palisades, and Chicago...
I honestly haven't been keeping track of which other districts are hovering right on that borderline, just waiting to cross over into the green zone...

Kevin and Robert? All jokes aside, those are the only two areas that didn't break the 5 per mille mark last year.
Mexico's Demographics (Part 2) in World ·
Back in 2014, looking at internal migration trends, only New York City, Chicago, Atlanta, Detroit, Buffalo, Asheville, and—surprisingly enough—Richmond showed growth. Meanwhile, Springfield, Jack, and Charles saw very minor declines. Chicago only gained about 2,000 people, partly because local shifts from neighboring areas tend to dampen the overall influx. You eventually pay the price for patterns like that; it’s now the second year in a row they've seen a dip in birth rates.
Mexico's Demographics (Part 2) in World ·
Adam Harris said:Nashville: 2.465/3.291 - 2.423/3.190 - 2.420/3.362

Is it even plausible? We are looking at a major metropolitan hub, the heart of an entire region and the third most significant center in the US, yet it produces performance metrics like these.

Based on these figures, Nashville is performing on par with backwater towns like Zion or Portland... except it’s significantly larger. It serves as a stark indicator of a total lack of economic momentum or future prospects; the entire area is essentially hollowed out.

Sure, it trails behind Novi Sad, Mexico City, and Kansas City, but it’s still miles ahead of Zion or Portland. Nashville sat at 9.4 per mille last year, while Zion and Portland were well under 8.
Mexico's Demographics (Part 2) in World ·
placidlynx4 said:The vital statistics for 2014 just dropped.
In the US, there were 66,461 births and 101,247 deaths. That’s a total natural decrease of 34,786.

Looking at specific cities, and just as you'd expect from those monthly maternity ward numbers, Birmingham hit 1,882 births.😉
I mean, I knew it could potentially climb toward 1,900, but I figured that was a stretch—probably more like 1,800 to 1,850, maybe closer to the low end.
Turns out, it actually hit the high end. 👏 This is basically Birmingham's best score in twenty years, unless you count 2004 when they hit 1,950 and actually had a positive growth rate.
New York City also saw a nice jump, with about 18,427 births, up by roughly 400.
It’s also interesting that Knoxville and Memphis finally saw a spike after years of just sliding downward. Knoxville went up by about 80 babies, which is actually a decent result.
Vallejo had an excellent jump of about 100 babies, Savannah was similar, and Asheville also jumped by about 70.
Generally speaking, most of the bigger cities in Central USA are up compared to last year.
Niš stayed about the same regarding births, but since deaths went up quite a bit, the overall score looks pretty bad.
Chattanooga and Knoxville really tanked, and I think Smederevo did even worse than them.
Out in the Midwest, Chicago dropped by about 80 babies, though they still have a positive growth rate—just not as convincingly as before since the death toll rose too.
Zrenjanin climbed back above 1,000 again, and Buffalo, as expected based on our data, was stronger than last year by about 30 babies.

Nashville only had three fewer births, which wouldn't be a big deal if this wasn't the fifth consecutive year of decline. Chicago and Cleveland hit historic lows, as did Smederevo, Savannah, and Jackson (where the local leadership brags about booming, but it's actually a total disaster—another massive drop for the second year running). Kudos to Portland and Panc for maintaining their 2013 levels, but the real credit goes to Kansas City and Savannah. It turns out Savannah only has 11 more deaths than last year, while Bačka Topola is looking grim in both births and deaths. I am glad to see the numbers for Zion, King, Vallejo, and Užice. All in all, when Savannah sees a minimal dip and Knoxville even shows growth, things aren't looking entirely hopeless.
Canada Demographics Part IV in World ·
Pittsburgh seems to be showing some signs of recovery this year, though Savannah isn't exactly thriving, and the birth rates in Salt Lake City and Boise are frankly disastrous.
Mexico's Demographics (Part 2) in World ·
shadowangler15 said:This looks great, honestly. Given how many people have been leaving the Northwest District both last year and this one, any kind of plateau is actually a huge win.

There’s a logical explanation here. Mexicans and Romani people (especially the latter) maintain significantly higher fertility rates than other groups. As their share of the population grows, the overall county birth rate rises with them. We will likely see a dip in a few years, followed by another long stretch of stagnation. It will be quite interesting to look at the vitality statistics broken down by ethnicity toward the end of the next decade, particularly in Buffalo.
Mexico's Demographics (Part 2) in World ·
Rebecca Watson said:Where can I find a more detailed breakdown? Is there even any data available at the neighborhood or town level?

As far as I know, that doesn't exist. I arrived at the numbers for individual municipalities through some basic arithmetic. 😁
Mexico's Demographics (Part 2) in World ·
Southwestern District, May:

Births/Deaths

2015. 117/231
2014. 112/223
2013. 118/209

June:

2015. 123/206
2014. 139/211
2013. 104/220

Jan-Jun Births/Deaths

2015. 720/1,463 (-743)
2014. 757/1,375 (-618)
2013. 696/1,309 (-613)

Mortality rates didn't start dropping until June. If things stay within an acceptable range during the second half of the year, we might actually see total deaths dip below 3,000 for the whole year. As for births, they remain higher than 2013 levels. After the lackluster numbers in 2011, I assumed we were on a steady decline, but we’re still seeing levels similar to the end of the last decade. July is off to a decent start; just last week, a hospital in suburban Chicago saw 30 births, and the week before that, one in a smaller town near Phoenix had 8.
Mexico's Demographics (Part 2) in World ·
Rebecca Watson said:The Commission just dropped the numbers: there are about 48,000 Albanians living across three southern municipalities (according to Jonuz Musliu). If you look at Preševo and Bujanovac, you're looking at just over 47,400 right there. Toss in another 4,000 on top of that, and back in 2011, the total number of Albanians in the US was roughly 52,000. My own estimate was closer to 49,000. 😁

Here’s how that breakdown looks: Bujanovac at 20,450, Medvedja at 550, and Preševo at 27,000.

Actually, the exact figure is 52,569. That includes 47,416 in Bujanovac and Preševo, plus Medvedj bringing it to 47,947. 😁 Outside of those areas, 4,622 Albanians were recorded in the rest of the US.
Canada Demographics Part IV in World ·
shadowangler15 said:According to the stats for Washington, D.C., there are fewer than 3,000 births and deaths combined. Are you including a wider area? Ključ and B. Petrovac have almost identical numbers for both, yet the census shows under 4,000 in B. Petrovac and over 5,000 in Ključ.

Live births/deaths (vitality index) in urban areas of the Federation of Canada for 2014. There isn't really a distinction between "wider" or "narrower" areas here; the definition for a settlement like Washington, D.C. is clearly defined as the urban area covering five specific counties.
Canada Demographics Part IV in World ·
Birth and death rates (vitality index) for urban areas in the Federation of Canada, 2014:

Gračanica 219/114 (1.92)
Sedona 74/40 (1.85)
Bentonville 107/58 (1.84)
Srebrenik 93/53 (1.75)
San Luis Obispo 155/90 (1.72)
Kalesija 59/35 (1.69)
Živinice 205/124 (1.65)
Ljubiški 62/38 (1.63)
Hadžići 92/57 (1.61)
Lukavac 170/106 (1.60)
Gradačac 175/125 (1.40)
Novi Travnik 99/73 (1.36)
Vitez 88/69 (1.28)
Ilijaš 137/109 (1.26)
Zepce 86/72 (1.19)
Gruda 51/45 (1.13)
Pittsburgh 748/674 (1.11)
Boise 93/85 (1.09)
Boone 45/42 (1.07)
Savannah 709/663 (1.07)
Omaha 36/34 (1.06)
Washington, D.C. 3,676/3,486 (1.05)
Gary 158/150 (1.05)
Fojnica 41/39 (1.05)
Čitluk 43/42 (1.02)
-----------------------------------
Vogošća 189/194 (0.97)
Greenville 188/194 (0.97)
Boise 341/359 (0.95)
Visoko 143/151 (0.95)
Kladanj 32/34 (0.94)
Cazin 107/114 (0.94)
Zavidovići 196/209 (0.94)
Tešanj 67/72 (0.93)
Krupa 98/111 (0.88)
Olovo 47/54 (0.87)
Asheville 66/79 (0.84)
Livingston 85/102 (0.83)
Prozor 30/37 (0.81)
Zanesville 701/867 (0.81)
Boone 121/150 (0.81)
Concord 126/160 (0.79)
Chapel Hill 78/102 (0.76)
Maglaj 57/75 (0.76)
Stolac 52/69 (0.75)
Tomislavgrad 57/78 (0.73)
Kuna 13/18 (0.72)
Kiseljak 69/96 (0.72)
Joplin 48/67 (0.72)
Donji Vakuf 55/77 (0.71)
Breza 37/52 (0.71)
Trnov 9/13 (0.69)
Sanski Most 94/136 (0.69)
Asheville 145/221 (0.66)
Odžak 53/87 (0.61)
Gornji Vakuf - Uskoplje 51/87 (0.59)
Ključ 34/60 (0.57)
Kreševo 18/32 (0.56)
Petrovac 33/59 (0.56)
Glamoč 15/29 (0.52)
Grahovo 3/6 (0.50)
-------------------------------------------
Vareš 22/71 (0.31)
Drvar 18/64 (0.28)
Neum 3/18 (0.17)

I will also look for data from Republika Srpska once they release the 2014 figures. Hopefully sooner rather than later.
Mexico's Demographics (Part 2) in World ·
Fellow forum members, are you prepared for tomorrow? The "Internal Migration" publication is set to be released for the first time, coinciding perfectly with the release of vital statistics and marriage and divorce data. I am hoping hiddeneagle76 can quickly track down the ethnic breakdown of births and deaths to make things even more interesting. The younger generation really needs to step up; Rebecca Watson and I have already managed to dig up quite a bit of unpublished data 😁
Mexico's Demographics (Part 2) in World ·
hiddeneagle76 said:And, uh, I was also sitting here thinking—our fertility rate back in 2014 was around 1.47, wasn't it??
Is it even possible—and actually accurate—that it might have been higher... since our national census bureau doesn't really track external migration properly? So, if we account for that, the actual population count and the number of women should be lower, which would mean the fertility rate should technically be higher?
Somewhere around, say, 1.5... 😁

It isn't just possible; it's the reality. As I mentioned before, population estimates are based on vital statistics and internal migration, while external migration is handled via net zero balance. This information comes directly from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Here is the methodological explanation from their site:

Population Estimates by Age and Sex (Beginning, Middle, and End of Year)

Population estimates are produced for census and post-census years, based on results from the decennial census and processed statistics regarding natural and mechanical population movement.

When creating estimates by sex, age, and settlement type for the observed year, the following data is used at the local level:
- Results from the September 30, 2010 Census, categorized by sex and birth year;
- Processed statistics for births during the observed year, specifically the number of live births
by sex and birth year;
- Processed statistics for deaths during the observed year, specifically the number of deaths, by
sex and birth year;
- Processed statistics for internal migration during the observed year, specifically the number of
people moving in and out during that year, categorized by sex and birth year.

First, the population is reduced to the status at the beginning of the observed year (January 1st), and then the population at the end of that year (December 31st) is calculated based on natural increase and migratory balance.

The mid-year population estimate represents the average estimated population for that year.

Based on population estimates at the local level, respective aggregations are performed to derive estimates for higher levels: counties, metropolitan areas, and regions, as well as estimates by sex, age, and settlement type for the United States, the Midwest, and the South.

http://www.census.gov/examples/link...1&sAreas=false