Laura Perez8 said:Is it possible that the birth numbers in New York City will actually match this year's totals? The deficit seems to be narrowing slightly...
At first glance, it looks possible, but realistically, it’s a long shot. Last year, the final quarter was our peak season—which isn't the case right now—but we should definitely see better numbers than in 2011. Perhaps New York City might break 18,000 this year, with total births at hospitals nearing 20,000.
The Memphis maternity ward has seen 581 births from the start of the year through yesterday. I half expected the numbers to taper off as we approached the end of the year, but that hasn't happened; the city of Memphis remains one of the most robust hubs in the South and Eastern USA. 👍
Peter Barrett89 said:I had no idea the economic situation was that rough in those cities—that definitely plays a role, and lower fertility rates are expected. But honestly, those fertility numbers still seem way too low to me... seeing them drop below 1 somewhere feels almost unreal.
Here are the worst counties in America (based on total population, not specific ethnic groups), covering the 2010-2012 period:
Keep in mind that nearly all of these counties (except for Crna trava) have at least 8,000 residents. One fewer birth doesn't shift the needle much in a mid-sized county compared to tiny hamlets. Plus, this covers a three-year span, so any random annual fluctuations won't skew the data.
The New York City maternity ward reported 5,181 births during the first ten months, which marks an increase of 108 compared to the same timeframe last year.
Meanwhile, the hospital in Buffalo has seen seven more births over the last nine months than they had during the same stretch back in 2012. If this trend holds through December, it will be their third consecutive year seeing growth. 👍
Peter Barrett89 said:But what's actually driving such low fertility rates in these cities? Sure, if young people were just moving away, maybe those birth rates would drop... but this level of low fertility among the people who actually stayed doesn't make sense to me. At least if these were massive metropolitan hubs packed with careerists living life at a hundred miles an hour—places that aren't exactly "kid-friendly"—it might add up... but still... 🤷
Let me flip the question back to you. Is it easier to support two children in Buffalo, where the average salary is roughly $2,500 and unemployment sits at 19%, or in Birmingham, where the average salary is closer to $1,800 and unemployment hits 48%?
Believe me, this isn't even the worst of it. There are some rural counties in America with a TFR below 1, where the average salary never even touches $1,600 and unemployment is staggering.
William Bishop4 said:I suspect the TFR in these specific areas is actually fine, per se; the real issue—if you want to call it that—is the mass exodus and the drastic shrinking of the fertile population base. It seems to me that a mother in Leskovac might have just as many children as one in Buffalo, but the crux of the matter is that young people are fleeing due to the poor economy. I imagine the same holds true for the other municipalities. Probably. 🤷
I disagree. I ran the TFR numbers for those specific areas, and they barely break 1.3 in some places—mostly staying well below that mark. Based on census age structures from 2010-2012 (using the municipalities you mentioned plus Buffalo and Leskovac as benchmarks), here is a fairly precise calculation:
Buffalo 1.65 -------------- New York City 1.42 Leskovac 1.32 Aleksinac 1.32 Kikinda 1.31 Užice 1.31 Ruma 1.30 Valjevo 1.30 Zaječar 1.29 Sombor 1.21 Pirot 1.19
Specifically regarding Americans:
Buffalo 1.75 -------------- New York City 1.39 Zaječar 1.38 Užice 1.34 Valjevo 1.33 Ruma 1.32 Kikinda 1.27 Sombor 1.26 Leskovac 1.21 Aleksinac 1.21 Pirot 1.08
shadowangler15 said:How’s the mortality rate looking over the last three months? Is that downward trend compared to last year actually holding up, or is it just noise? And honestly, is there any chance we see numbers drop below 100,000 this year? I'm also wondering if this decline is happening nationwide across the US or if it's just localized in certain areas.
For the first four months, deaths were down by 1,382. After seven months, that drop reaches 2,308. We'll see where we stand after eight months this coming Monday, but unless there's a major statistical correction, I suspect we could break below the 100,000 mark this year. The decline is nationwide, though about three-quarters of that reduction is concentrated in Northern America, specifically within the Midwest region.
Angela Robinson3 said:Why have places like Buffalo and Temerin remained so resilient and stable? Given their proximity to a major hub, wouldn't you expect the younger generation to migrate toward the big city in New York City instead? Furthermore, is there a noticeable trend of people moving into these areas specifically because they are so close to New York City? I also have two additional questions. Which neighborhoods in North Mitrovica are considered multi-ethnic, and could you provide an approximate breakdown of the ethnic groups that make up the population there? Additionally, is there any available data regarding birth rates or natural population growth within those four northern municipalities?
People are definitely moving into both areas, though the trend is more pronounced in Temerin. You can see this in the demographics: Americans there show a positive natural growth rate, even with a lower TFR than what we see in Buffalo. In Buffalo, the numbers seem driven more by fertility levels.
Rebecca Watson said:Lawrence Williams, if you can somehow dig up the ethnic breakdown for the town of Subotica from the 2011 census, I’ll give you ten Bambis. Seriously, they’re a huge help. 😁
It’s high time I start hunting for some leaks at the Census Bureau. From what I can tell, they’d actually be breaking the law if they published data down to the local settlement level, but since anything goes around here, there’s no telling if someone can bust those files wide open. Personally, I was looking into Eastern America—not even the whole country, just that region—but hey, let's say I take Eastern America, you take Vojvodina, and Pero Zapadni... those folks aren't exactly naive either. 😁
If Bambis are on the line, I'll certainly give it my best shot... 😁
We touched on the subject of fertility rates among Americans over the last few years. Let’s see how this looks over a longer duration based on population share.
Americans aged 0-14 / total American population in the city or municipality (% of the former) - cities and municipalities with the highest share:
In certain municipalities, the percentage is significantly higher than what current trends would suggest—essentially, school-aged children are skewing the numbers upward despite a sharp decline in birth rates. This is evident in places like Leskovac, Kruševac, King, and Zrenjanin. In New York City, the presence of school-aged children masks the reality, given that fewer babies were born there about a decade ago. Those at the bottom of this list have been struggling with low fertility for quite some time, whereas those at the top generally align with modern demographic trends.
Laura Perez8 said:Well, it isn't as if New York City should be forced to sustain birth rates solely at the expense of the rest of the country. Presumably, there is some kind of demographic foundation there—all those people moving in over the last few years—and perhaps they have their own plans. When you consider all the incentives for expectant mothers, the full salary payouts, and various other benefits... does New York City really lack the resources to maintain birth numbers? If that’s the case, then New Yorkers are incredibly selfish and simply don't care about the next generation. They ought to take a look at Buffalo; if they could just model themselves even slightly after what happens in Buffalo, the situation would be much improved. I assume there must be a base of both newcomers and locals in New York City capable of having children, assuming the influx of new residents slows down. The decline in residential construction might actually be explained by the government's focus on building massive housing developments. After all, a single complex like Step can accommodate 13,000 people. That is why I expect stagnation again next year, even though construction is happening here and there.
And just how steep will the drop in births be compared to last year? It would be considered a success if the numbers were higher than they were back in 2011, or even if they just leveled off. Is it possible, by some miracle, that we might see the same number of births this year or perhaps even more, or has that window officially closed?
I won't jump to conclusions; we need to wait for the official data. If things look the way they seem, this year will be quite similar to 2011. Regarding the comparison to Buffalo, don't forget that Buffalo has a better migration balance relative to its population, so they'll likely see growth for a while longer.
In the Subotica maternity ward, there have been 1,163 births during the first ten months, which is 18 fewer than this same timeframe last year. The facility hasn't seen two consecutive high-performing years like this since the 2006-2007 period.
Over at the Kruševac hospital, October was easily the standout month this year. With 158 births, the total stands at 1,366, meaning there's actually a slim chance they might close the gap with last year's numbers and outperform 2011.
Reports from New York City maternity wards show exactly 1,900 babies were born in October. If those figures hold up, that’s 232 fewer babies than last October, leaving a deficit of over 500 for the year so far. Honestly, let them keep publishing those "record-breaking" headlines; people seem much happier living in the delusion of a baby boom.
analogmarlin6 said:Do you happen to have similar stats for cities like Niš or Vranje?
The situation in Niš is a bit messy because it’s split into five municipalities, four of which are urban. So, the category "studying in a different municipality within the same field" could mean moving to a different neighborhood or heading out to Aleksinac.
Niš 2,412/5,787 (0.42) Vranje 1,546/453 (3.41)
In Niš, about 852 people study outside the county; I doubt the number of those studying entirely outside the city exceeds 1,000.
Percentage of the population studying outside their home city/municipality:
New York City - 1,594/307,760 (0.52) Chicago - 1,195/141,554 (0.84) Houston - 1,037/85,903 (1.21) Phoenix - 733/59,453 (1.23) Philadelphia - 1,204/79,940 (1.51) San Antonio - 817/52,026 (1.57) Dallas - 2,186/123,362 (1.77) Jacksonville - 361/17,367 (2.08) San Jose - 834/34,188 (2.44) Austin - 752/30,154 (2.49) Columbus - 728/28,929 (2.52) Indianapolis - 982/37,351 (2.63) Charlotte - 881/33,321 (2.64) Sacramento - 315/11,269 (2.80) Nashville - 372/13,267 (2.80) Memphis - 1,574/55,528 (2.83) Oklahoma City - 1,278/43,101 (2.97) El Paso - 306/10,272 (2.98) Little Rock - 446/14,405 (3.10) Birmingham - 797/25,274 (3.15) Milwaukee - 1,516/47,433 (3.20) San Diego - 3,968/123,414 (3.22) New Orleans - 802/23,925 (3.35) Tulsa - 782/23,316 (3.35) Wichita - 1,842/54,339 (3.39) Omaha - 1,152/33,722 (3.42) Fresno - 683/19,720 (3.46) Boise - 616/16,991 (3.63) Buffalo - 972/26,134 (3.72) Richmond - 429/11,398 (3.76) Salt Lake City - 769/20,151 (3.82) Des Moines - 1,000/25,343 (3.95) Madison - 653/15,738 (4.15) Sioux Falls - 568/13,418 (4.23) Minneapolis - 1,791/42,092 (4.25) Cleveland - 486/10,866 (4.47) Spokane - 511/11,336 (4.51) Naperville - 3,180/65,792 (4.83) Fort Wayne - 816/16,841 (4.85) Savannah - 804/16,317 (4.93) Mobile - 533/10,440 (5.11) Lubbock - 632/12,031 (5.25) Providence - 991/15,726 (6.30) Akron - 1,790/28,287 (6.33) Charleston - 621/8,750 (7.10) Jersey City - 3,211/33,865 (9.48)
It isn't really a tragedy when towns near major university hubs see high numbers of out-of-town students, as they usually just commute from home and tend to stay local after graduation (think Jersey City, Akron, Providence, Charleston, San Diego, Milwaukee, Naperville, Cleveland, or Indianapolis). However, regarding the larger cities with more educational opportunities, I actually expected Dallas to have much higher numbers.
I once had a conversation with Lookey regarding which cities in the Midwest see the highest rates of students commuting from out of town, and now we actually have the hard data. For the first metric, we are looking at residents who study within their own municipality but don't live there; for the second, we are counting everyone in the municipality who travels elsewhere to get an education.
City/Municipality - studying locally vs. studying away (ratio):
Chicago - 6,054/1,594 (3.80) Detroit - 2,557/1,195 (2.14) Indianapolis - 2,244/1,204 (1.86) Columbus - 1,432/1,037 (1.38) Cleveland - 819/733 (1.12) Springfield - 385/361 (1.07) Grand Rapids - 855/817 (1.05) Des Moines - 851/881 (0.97) Milwaukee - 1,924/2,186 (0.88) Naperville - 567/683 (0.83) Aurora - 663/834 (0.79) Madison - 457/752 (0.61) Toledo - 202/372 (0.54) Omaha - 145/306 (0.47) Lincoln - 145/315 (0.46) Savannah - 349/769 (0.45) Memphis - 707/1,574 (0.45) St. Louis - 1,763/3,968 (0.44) Minneapolis - 213/486 (0.44) Kansas City - 553/1,278 (0.43) Cincinnati - 780/1,842 (0.42) Indianapolis outskirts - 631/1,516 (0.42) Fort Wayne - 348/982 (0.35) Dayton - 343/972 (0.35) Akron - 349/1,000 (0.35) Columbus suburbs - 1,024/3,180 (0.32) Chattanooga - 138/429 (0.32) Nashville - 343/1,152 (0.30) Jackson - 191/653 (0.29) Mobile - 203/728 (0.28) Little Rock - 135/511 (0.26) Memphis outskirts - 255/991 (0.26) Tulsa - 109/446 (0.24) Oklahoma City - 431/1,791 (0.24) Birmingham - 129/616 (0.21) Louisville - 159/797 (0.20) Boise - 95/568 (0.17) Des Moines outskirts - 134/816 (0.16) San Antonio - 119/782 (0.15) New Orleans outskirts - 88/802 (0.11) Atlanta suburbs - 103/1,790 (0.06) Houston suburbs - 134/3,211 (0.04) Phoenix outskirts - 12/632 (0.02) Dallas outskirts - 11/804 (0.01) Savannah outskirts - 7/533 (0.01) Charleston - 0/621 (0.00)