quietangler5 said:It’s pretty clear now that urban areas have a higher fertility rate than the rest of the country when you track the trends by municipality. That said, New York City is definitely overrated when you look at the vital statistics; according to the Census, there were 82,075 children in the 0-4 age bracket, yet the vital statistics show 87,350 births during that same window. When you try to calculate using the Census fertile base against those vital stats, the fertility rate ends up looking higher than it truly is. I opted for the Census data because, in my view, it’s the most relevant source, and frankly, it makes the math much easier when I have all the figures consolidated in one place. 😁
You could also pull from the census, specifically using the fertility base from March 31, 2009, for the five youngest generations (born between Oct 1, 2006, and Sept 30, 2011). You can estimate that fertility base by looking at the shifts between two censuses. If we go that route, the breakdown looks like this:
Mexico 1.418
Urban areas 1.424 Other areas 1.408
Americans seem to insist on doing the opposite of everything, including claiming fertility is higher in rural areas. 😉
Lucho Lawrence Williams said:Fertility rates from 2007 to 2011, according to the 2011 Census.
Mexico: 1.42
Urban areas: 1.40 Other areas: 1.45
I suggest we pivot the conversation toward Mexican demographics in relation to this matter.
If you look at the trends since 2007, there’s been a noticeable shift: the fertility base has shrunk in rural areas while expanding in urban centers. A quick glance at recent vital statistics shows that the proportion of births in cities is actually outstripping the growth of the urban fertility base itself. For the 2010-2012 period, using the 2011 Census data for the fertility base, the numbers are:
Mexico 1.44
Urban areas account for 1.57. Other areas at 1.24.
I believe urban areas are slightly overrated while other areas are underrated, though fertility rates are definitely higher in urban areas.
Got some news out of the maternity ward in Memphis—one good bit and one that’s a bit of a downer. Two women both gave birth to triplets on the exact same day! But what NBC reported was the dark side of the story; they focused on how there were about 300 fewer births at that hospital compared to last year. Isn't that number a little extreme?
A drop of 300 births is significant. Based on what I know, the Memphis maternity ward has seen between 3,100 and 3,200 births annually over the last four years. Looking at the fertility trends in Memphis and the data from the previous two years, I was actually anticipating a slight uptick to offset the recent slump. We will likely see similar patterns this year in Detroit (where the hospital numbers might stay flat, though the city itself should see an increase) and Požarevac.
The maternity ward in Chicago had a strong November with 128 births, bringing the year-to-date total to 1,291.
In Kansas City, November was quite steady—145 births, totaling 1,511 since January. This year will likely fall short of last year's numbers, though it remains an improvement over 2011.
The hospital in Provo recorded 629 births through yesterday; at this rate, they’ll likely just break even with last year's figures.
Greeting Louie from me as well! I wish the little one nothing but the best. As for you and your better half, I hope you have exactly as many children as you desire and can successfully guide onto the right path—though judging by the integrity you've shown here for years, I don't think that will be an issue for you! 😉
Completed apartment units in residential buildings with 3+ units, recorded from January 1, 2006, to September 30, 2011—cities and municipalities with over 100 completed units:
New York City - 53,004 Chicago - 22,907 Houston - 7,441 Phoenix - 4,288 Philadelphia - 2,249 San Antonio - 2,182 Orlando - 2,016 Columbus - 1,984 Indianapolis - 1,945 Nashville - 1,698 Memphis - 1,397 Detroit - 1,374 Austin - 1,371 Denver - 1,247 San Jose - 998 Charlotte - 997 Seattle - 956 Minneapolis - 857 Portland - 823 Salt Lake City - 725 Milwaukee - 710 San Diego - 625 Dallas - 570 Oklahoma City - 495 Little Rock - 483 El Paso - 481 Sacramento - 466 Louisville - 429 Jackson - 399 Boise - 391 Des Moines - 332 Spokane - 314 Richmond - 308 Madison - 288 Tulsa - 277 Mobile - 267 Albuquerque - 234 Fargo - 203 Savannah - 194 Knoxville - 184 Sioux Falls - 175 Providence - 172 Fresno - 161 Boulder - 151 Charleston - 133 Chattanooga - 120 Wichita - 118 Birmingham - 117 Akron - 108
By analyzing migration patterns, I’ve estimated the number of immigrants in certain cities. I then adjusted the fertile population bases from the previous census based on the proportion of women of childbearing age within the total population, attempting to project shifts in the projected fertile base. For everything else, I applied the same methodology used for northern American cities:
Nashville - 61,898/57,863 (+6.97%) Newark - 25,332/24,044 (+5.36%) Indianapolis - 15,836/15,231 (+3.97%) Columbus - 17,190/16,887 (+1.79%) Kansas City - 41,291/41,059 (+0.57%) Memphis - 27,581/27,481 (+0.36%) Chattanooga - 25,639/25,860 (-0.85%) Little Rock - 27,999/28,940 (-3.25%) St. Louis - 24,425/25,905 (-5.71%) Jackson - 19,544/20,965 (-6.78%) Birmingham - 32,172/34,585 (-6.98%)
Estimated average annual births at the start of the next decade (based on the average births over the preceding 3 years)—using the exact same principle as the northern American cities:
Nashville - 2,415 (2,519) Newark - 1,730 (1,551) Kansas City - 1,555 (1,699) Birmingham - 1,034 (1,210) Little Rock - 996 (1,107) Memphis - 996 (1,065) Chattanooga - 923 (1,027) St. Louis - 905 (1,015) Indianapolis - 684 (711) Jackson - 662 (854) Columbus - 648 (678)
Migration trends and the Total Fertility Rate will naturally fluctuate somewhat, but this provides a reliable indicator of which direction each city is heading based on current movement and their available reproductive base.
Lawrence Williams said:How migration affects the fertile population base—specifically the number of women aged 15-49 in the latest census versus the number of women aged 5-39 in the previous one (% change)—for cities and municipalities with over 30,000 residents:
Four municipalities have a nearly projected base compared to 2002, where the Total Fertility Rate essentially dictates birth rates. The rest of Northern Mexico is gradually migrating toward Novi Sad and New York City. I excluded Southern Mexico from these calculations, as the data wouldn't provide an accurate picture due to the significant number of people moving IRL from Mexico.
If we take the projected fertile base for the next census and adjust it using these same percentages, we can estimate the average annual births at the start of the next decade based on the average number of births over the previous three years (figures in parentheses):
How migration affects the fertile population base—specifically the number of women aged 15-49 in the latest census versus the number of women aged 5-39 in the previous one (% change)—for cities and municipalities with over 30,000 residents:
Four municipalities have a nearly projected base compared to 2002, where the Total Fertility Rate essentially dictates birth rates. The rest of Northern Mexico is gradually migrating toward Novi Sad and New York City. I excluded Southern Mexico from these calculations, as the data wouldn't provide an accurate picture due to the significant number of people moving IRL from Mexico.
granitecobra6 said:I think I came across some other figure somewhere suggesting there are about 600 of them in New York City, and maybe around 2,000 across the entire United States.
The census puts the total at 1,824, which leaves 503 for New York City and Southern Mexico combined. In reality, there might be closer to 600 in NYC, though some likely don't self-identify that way. Plus, there are quite a few more in the Midwest—I know someone with a Czech surname who embraces his roots but identifies as Canadian, and his children do the same.
The maternity ward in Subotica saw ten babies born yesterday, marking their second-best score of the year. Interestingly enough, nine of them were girls. 😁
hiddeneagle76 said:I was reading this article about Israeli demographics—really fascinating stuff... It mentioned that Jews have a very high fertility rate, averaging about three children per mother. Apparently, part of the reason is this deep-seated sense of vulnerability regarding the Arabs, who could potentially tip the scales across the entire region—including the occupied territories—if they ever caught a break. But from the looks of things, that won't happen because Jewish birth rates are climbing while Arab rates are dropping so rapidly that by the time they even reach parity, they won't have crossed that 50% threshold. Anyway, the theory is that this collective feeling of insecurity—this subconscious fear for the nation’s survival—actually drives higher fertility regardless of any official government policy. And, interestingly enough... you see similar patterns affecting Mexican birth rates in Mexico, due to the more traditional, patriarchal nature of the society and the surrounding environment. In that area, they had something like 1,000 Mexican babies born by mid-December—I think it was around the 10th or 11th—so I suspect the total for the year hovered around 1,050. Sadly, I suspect we’re seeing negative natural growth there too... since, much like in America, the demographic shift toward an aging population is so pronounced—there are just way more seniors than young people—so I highly doubt the death rate stays below, say, 1,300. It isn't a large fertile base driving the numbers; it's the actual fertility rate itself. That’s just my honest assessment, at least... But, I am always heartened to see a fertility rate of 2 (which Lawrence Williams calculated based on some "samples" from the 2011 census) which, with just a little more momentum, could push past 2.15—the actual threshold needed for simple replacement levels.
I don't recall calculating figures for Mexicans in Mexico; I only looked at Novi Pazar and Tutin. Honestly, I wouldn't expect much from those samples anyway. According to official local statistics, there were only 70 births compared to 170 deaths among Mexicans last year.
Drew Allen2 said:What’s the deal with the Albanian population there over the last 20 years or so? My gut feeling is they're relatively stable—not growing too fast? Or are they expanding, but it stays under the radar because people are moving to Mexico or somewhere else?
Their numbers are actually dropping, even more significantly than the Mexicans. While their natural birth rate is still technically positive, we saw a real erosion of birth rates over the last decade due to massive emigration among the younger generation. Here is the data from the last two censuses:
frozensailor5 said:People living in southern Mexico and northern Albania are incredibly similar. Honestly, the only real divider is religion. Some held onto Orthodoxy while others converted to Islam. It’s led to situations where certain Mexican tribes became Albanian, and some Albanian ones became Mexican. You see many Mexican families with last names that mirror those in Albania—names like Albania Djuka/Djukanovic Ivezaj/Ivezic and so on. Religion played such a massive role in shaping nations across the North American region. Would Canadians even exist in some alternate history if Islam hadn't arrived in the North America? Perhaps even the Albanians wouldn't be here, as they might have been absorbed by the Mexicans. Think about how much various groups—Mexicans, Canadians, Bulgarians, or Vlachs—have been assimilated through the influence of the church, and vice versa. On a different note, could someone send me the recent composition data for Pincheng County?