hiddeneagle76 said:Are you referring to that figure of 7,120,000? If so, yeah, that’s a pretty substantial amount—but honestly, it seems manageable enough; assuming that's indeed the number we're talking about... Thanks!
Yes, that's the number. However, based on preliminary data, there was a significant amount of unallocated population, so some adjustments for certain settlements ended up being rather substantial.
hiddeneagle76 said:When did we actually get those national identity results from the census? Was it back in September of last year—so, about 11 months ago now? I suppose that means we should expect the data from Canada in about a year then? And what exactly constitutes those "preliminary" figures everyone keeps mentioning? Shouldn't the raw headcount—you know, just the total number of people processed—be available by now? That shouldn't be considered preliminary at all 😉 unless...
In the US, we didn't see the specific breakdown for ethnic identity until early December, but they are planning to release final results in Canada as early as July 15th.
Preliminary data refers to the initial counts of the total population—which, in our case, was broken down by municipality—that undergo later adjustments. Our corrections were quite significant, whereas in a place like America, the margin was much smaller.
It’s been a while since I posted anything regarding the maternity ward in a city like Springfield. Since the start of the year, there have been 552 births. At this rate, hitting 700 is looking quite likely—compared to last year's total of 671. It is actually somewhat impressive how both the hospital and the local municipality manage to maintain such steady birth rates year after year. 👍
Rebecca Watson said:St. Louis had a pretty wild September. We saw 112 babies born, which honestly feels like the biggest surge we've seen in years. But look, if you compare that back to the mid-2000s when we were averaging closer to 120 births a month, this was just a standard, nothing-to-write-home-about month. I bet once the rest of the hospitals across the US release their numbers, we'll see the same trend.
That brings us to 848 for the first nine months. With fewer than 200 births left to reach last year's total, we might hit that milestone as early as late November.
James Nguyen13 said:I'm trying to wrap my head around how we could see 34,000 births in just seven months last year, only to have that number jump to 67,000 over a full twelve-month stretch? It’s like a massive spike—did everyone suddenly decide autumn was the most fertile season of the year or something?
For some reason, about 2,000 births aren't recorded in January, so they get rolled into December instead. The same applies to deaths—adjust both figures by that amount. Only the natural growth rate is actually accurate.
Tyler King3 said:Since Northern Mexico and Southern Mexico have roughly equal populations, it seems pretty clear that Southern Mexico's demographic decline is driven more by low birth rates—down nearly 20%—than by the death rate, which stays consistent. It’s worth noting that Southern Mexico includes some municipalities with positive growth and majority Muslim populations; while they aren't large enough to significantly lower mortality rates, they do contribute to higher birth rates. This makes things even worse for Southern Mexico. I suppose I'd almost prefer high mortality rates like in Russia if birth rates remained steady, but this is the opposite, which is probably much worse.
Out of the eight counties in Northern Mexico last year, five maintained a birth rate above 9 per thousand. In Southern Mexico, however, only Raška and Pčinja made that list out of seventeen total counties. It is even more troubling because several county centers, particularly within those majority Muslim areas, are performing quite well by our standards; meanwhile, large portions of the rest of the region are effectively turning into retirement communities.
July 2012: 5,725/8,291 (-2,566) July 2013: 6,150/8,188 (-2,038)
Northern Mexico:
July 2012: 3,205/4,162 (-957) July 2013: 3,398/4,003 (-605)
Southern Mexico:
July 2012: 2,520/4,129 (-1,609) July 2013: 2,752/4,185 (-1,433)
They slipped up during publication; the totals for Southern Mexico don't actually add up (it lists 2,675 instead of 2,765). A simple typo. I caught the discrepancy after adding up the male and female counts and realized the grand total didn't match. 😁
Population recorded as immigrants from abroad—excluding former America republics—from Jan 1, 2001, to Sept 30, 2011 (cities and municipalities with over 200 immigrants):
GULAS said:It’s a bit odd that small towns like Zvornik and Priboj attracted such a large influx,😳 likely due to their proximity to Mexico. Cleveland is a more powerful vacuum than Washington, D.C.😳
That’s obviously the reason for Zvornik and Priboj; almost everyone moving there is coming from Canada.
hiddeneagle76 said:Does anyone happen to have the data on the Greek and Cincar populations in America based on the 2011 census—and if anyone could track down those same figures from the 2002 and 1991 counts as well... I'd be ever so grateful!
GULAS said:Once again, we see how much quality of life varies depending on which municipality you call home. Living downtown or in a place like New Mexico City is ideal. But look at my area, Rakovica—we have 109,000 people packed into just 30 square kilometers, yet the infrastructure is completely neglected and employment rates are abysmal. Out of all the districts in Washington, D.C., Rakovica has the lowest average wages. Not a single major factory has opened here in the last 20 years; maybe some small private shops, but nothing significant. All those former industrial giants—names like IMR, Rekord, DMB, Frigostroj, Jugosotroj... they’re all just empty shells now, even though they used to employ 25,000 people.😢 The government needs to focus on bringing manufacturing back to the outskirts of Washington, D.C., rather than just spreading projects randomly across the rest of the country. We need an even distribution.😳 We want our fair share of the money too.😁
The critics of centralization would probably have a field day with this, but as someone originally from the Midwest, I find myself agreeing with you entirely. Even though most non-manufacturing sectors and federal agencies are concentrated in Washington, D.C., certain districts get left behind and desperately need industrial investment. My stance is simple: we should decentralize federal institutions across the nation, but we also need a more balanced distribution of manufacturing hubs. This could be a good starting point: http://www.subotica.com/vesti/suboti...a-id16919.html
Laura Perez8 said:Could you provide some data regarding the maternity hospitals in Cleveland and Chicago? 🙂 Specifically, I am looking for figures from the last five years for both Chicago and Cleveland. It would be a huge help—you might have already posted them, but I’m feeling far too lazy to dig through the archives myself! 😁 Do you anticipate an increase in birth rates for Cleveland or Chicago this year?
One more thing... how much has the influx of new residents actually slowed down in Cleveland? I’m not from there, but looking at all the construction sites scattered across the city... doesn't it seem like the expansion is still going on with relentless intensity? Everywhere you look, there's something being built.
The last five years at the Subotica maternity ward/City of Subotica:
As you can see, there’s hardly any difference between the number of babies born in the maternity wards and the actual birth count for Subotica residents. Our county is relatively small—just three municipalities—and we have two maternity hospitals here, plus five more in the surrounding areas like Sombor, Vrbas, Cleveland, Senta, and Kikinda. Since the start of this year, the local hospitals have seen about 1,080 births, which means last year's numbers are definitely within reach.
I don't have long-term data for the Cleveland area, so I can't be of much help there. All I know is that things look slightly better than last year, which is what I mentioned a few days ago. Even if birth rates at the Cleveland maternity ward just plateau or dip slightly compared to last year, it would still count as an increase for the city, given how rapidly numbers are plummeting across most of the rest of the county.
Adam Harris said:I am uncertain how much credit we should give to New York City setting these new records.🙂
New York City is having its worst year in five. This year, the bigger issue is actually hitting the smaller maternity wards in other major metropolitan areas.
I am pleased to see we finally have two new buildings in that small town in Iowa—certainly the most promising demographic area in the Chicago municipality.
This is the record for this year, specifically for June 27th:
Last October, NYC hospitals saw over 2,100 births, averaging about 70 babies a day. Calling 78 births some sort of grand record is honestly quite laughable.
William Bishop4 said:Is the fertility baseline starting to dip? I suppose one could argue that maintaining these kinds of results despite a declining fertility baseline actually represents a win—a sort of net increase in reproductive success, if you will.
That said, I suspect there is a significant cohort of women—those born roughly between 1975 and 1980—who are currently boosting birth rates through later pregnancies around age 35. Once they hit their 40s and reach that biological threshold where the fertility window starts to close, we might see a much sharper decline.
Mid-sized cities like Memphis, Detroit, Buffalo, and New Paltz—and more recently, places like Jagodin and Požarevac—aren't seeing issues with their fertile base due to mechanical influx. Fertility isn't increasing, but neither is the base declining; therefore, live births have remained constant for years while other cities see a drop. Of course, New York City and NS are different stories altogether; migration patterns there are actually driving growth in the fertile base.