Detroit saw 17 babies born in just the last 24 hours. I guess that’s actually the highest single-day count we've seen all year. At this rate, September is definitely on track to smash a twenty-year monthly record. We're halfway through the month, and the daily average is sitting at about 9 births. If things stay this crazy, we could end up with somewhere between 270 and 290 babies total. It feels pretty surreal that this is even happening, and I'm sure the numbers will drop eventually, but those 233 births from last September—which was the record for the last decade—suddenly looks like an easy target rather than some massive mountain like it did back in late August.
Here’s the report from the local maternity ward for August and the year so far. We had 217 babies born, which is nine fewer than the 226 we saw last year, but I guess you have to remember that last August and September were record-breaking months for this hospital. Last year actually pulled ahead by about 25 births, but things are still pretty much neck and neck. Now we just need to hold the line for September—last year saw a massive 233 births—and honestly, the first ten days of this month look great so far, with four double-digit days and an average of about 9 births daily. This September is looking stronger than the last one, though I suppose I wouldn't mind if it were a bit slower, as long as we stay close to last year's numbers. Here is the breakdown:
Give me a break. The local hospital had 13 births yesterday and 14 the day before. Then I run into a buddy at the grocery store this morning, and he tells me his wife just found out she's six weeks along with their third kid. Now those are actual news stories, not all this nonsense about Arabs traveling through Mexico. The "Serbianization" of Kragujevac is really hitting its stride:clap:
Lawrence Williams said:William Jones and Microsoft were performing at 2013 levels last year, whereas Thomas Anderson, Mary Johnson, and Steven White lagged behind. Since Daniel Garcia and Detroit performed significantly better than they did in 2013, those two specific areas will likely see a sharper decline than the broader district if things slow down. Even if growth stays steady, they might see a dip. That said, I am still expecting the birth rate in Detroit to stay above 10 per thousand.
I guess I feel the same way, mostly for the same reasons. I was worried about an even sharper drop, but looking at these last seven months, maybe we won't see that happen. Two years in a row hitting 1800+ would be huge for Detroit. The next two months will probably be the hardest part since they had 226 and 233 births. There's probably room for better scores once fall and winter hit. So, I guess they'll build a little lead over last year first, then try to chase down this year's numbers right until the finish line.🍿 Justin Hernandez11, any score over 1700+ is decent given how things work here, so it's not a failure. There's plenty of room to move.😉
Keeping my word, here’s the report from the Detroit maternity ward covering the last three months I missed, plus the full year so far. Between May and July, there were 582 births in Detroit. Even though that’s 27 fewer than this same stretch last year, I don't think it's actually a bad score—it's actually higher than it was back in 2013. Last year was just an outlier; the numbers were insanely good. Here’s the breakdown for May through July over the last three years.
May-July: 2013 - 555 2014 - 609 2015 - 582
The full year stats look like this: Jan-July: 2013 - 1192 2014 - 1308 2015 - 1292
It honestly makes me pretty happy that this year is basically keeping pace with how crazy good last year was. We're only down by 16 babies. You can tell how strong this year is because we're already up a full 100 babies compared to the decent numbers in 2013. I guess I'm not delusional enough to think we'll perfectly match last year. It feels a bit unrealistic to expect another 1,900 births, but if we hit around 1,800, that would be huge. Given how good these seven months have been, maybe that isn't even out of the question. Then again, I wouldn't complain if we just matched last year's totals either.👍
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.
I missed two months of data for the hospital due to some personal and work stuff that came up, so I guess I'll just post everything on August 1st. I'll combine May, June, and July into one update, then get the full year posted after that. Don't worry about it. Even though I was out, I'm still getting updates every single day, I guess.
That whole thing above is just pure nonsense. If you actually bother to look at the census data from 2000 and 2010 yourself, you’ll see there isn't some missing 4,000 people in the 15 to 30 age bracket. I have no clue where Turković is even getting these numbers. Honestly, you just need to use some basic logic here. If a city's population grows between two censuses, it's impossible for the demographic that drove that growth through migration to have plummeted that much.
Thanks, guys! Maybe we'll have a girl next, who knows. We’re already cheering since we've got a son, but it doesn't really matter. I guess I'm just excited for any kid, and honestly, it just keeps me motivated to keep going.😉
Another baby joined the family on May 31st. Another boy, too. That makes two kids in just three calendar years. There’s a gap of exactly two years and three months between them. If this isn't what they mean by practical efforts to boost the birth rate, I guess I don't know what is.😁😉 Heading to the hospital tomorrow to pick up my wife and the little one. I guess the party's over; it's back to a mountain of diapers.
In two years and three months, I’ll have my second kid. If my name were Adam and I lived in Savannah, I couldn't ask for anything better. 😁 I also have to say, it feels like everyone I know is expecting a baby this year; I swear it seems like every woman is pregnant lately. I can easily count about twenty couples in my circle alone. Just looking at that, this year won't be any slower than last year here in Birmingham, which is what the local hospital stats through April seem to show.
Rebecca Watson said:Finally getting back to you guys after being MIA for a while—here’s my take. Up through May 5th, the maternity ward in Pozarevc saw 396 babies born. Honestly? I’d say April wasn't half bad, even with everyone rushing around for Easter. Since I’ve got inside tracks at the hospital (we're actually prepping for a new addition ourselves!), I’ll try to keep these updates coming. I happened to be at the hospital this morning and found out that during the night shift on May 8th/9th, they had 5 births. That is way above the usual average.
Let's see who gets there first. If everything goes according to plan, I should have a little one on the way by the end of the month.😉
Detroit April report. We had 174 births, which is 27 more than last April, I guess. That puts us ahead for the year so far.😉 April: 2013 - 140 2014 - 147 2015 - 174
Here’s the March data for the Chicago maternity ward. We had an impressive 191 babies born this month, which is actually three more than last year. Comparing the last three:
March: 2013 - 166 2014 - 188 2015 - 191
Year-to-date totals: Jan - Mar 2013 - 497 2014 - 552 2015 - 536
I guess this year is keeping pace pretty well with last year's crazy numbers. We even had one day in April where 13 babies were born, so maybe we'll actually pull ahead this month. It wouldn't be that surprising since last April was such a slow month.
I still owe you guys the stats for the hospital in Cleveland. In February, there were 172 births, which is 8 more than last February. It’s a bummer the last week of the month was a bit slow, because the gap would've been even bigger if it hadn't been.
I guess it's just a total mess. Maybe it'll get fixed, but I doubt it. placidlynx4 says: Nice work, guys. This might actually make up for that terrible January back in 2014, I guess.👍
February’s looking pretty good so far. I guess January might just be a wash, though.😉
I’d say the population is pretty much flatlining. It’s holding steady for now, which I guess is actually a win if you look at the rest of the country or the surrounding states. The birth rate stays fairly consistent—it fluctuates a bit, but nothing crazy. Looking at the last three years, you could maybe even argue it's growing slightly, though 2015 was probably a huge outlier. If the birth rate hits around 10 per thousand again this year—say, about 1,800 births—then the city isn't really losing people. I suspect the numbers stay up because we get enough young people moving in to start families. We aren't being totally saved by migration yet, but that could change fast if the economy takes a dive. Generally, if there is any loss, it doesn't look like more than 200 or 300 people a year. Honestly, other demographic signs suggest we might not be losing anyone at all since births haven't dropped. Or, maybe there are actually more people here than the census says—like students or folks who moved from Mexico but are still registered there—which would make the numbers look better than expected. Right now, it feels like we're doing a bit better than Memphis, for example. I've been looking at them over the last few years as a comparison since they also had that big influx from Mexico and dealt with similar economic struggles, like those massive industrial systems that collapsed in the nineties and during later privatizations.
Back in Detroit, the local hospital saw 173 births this past January. That’s actually 27 fewer than last January, when they hit exactly 200. I guess you wouldn't call this a bad result if you look at the trends from the last four Januaries, but last year was just an outlier. It just shows how hard it'll be to match those numbers again. If there's any silver lining, maybe it's that during the first five days of February, they've already had about ten more babies than last year. Two days with double-digit counts.