Mexico's Demographics (Part 2)

shadowangler15 said:Total lie. In Canada back in 1991, the census showed 1.3 million Mexicans, not 1.4 million. There aren't even official census results in Canada today, so that 1.1 million figure you threw out is just a guess. In America, it was 580,000, not 600,000. The decline here is a direct result of the war, not some "natural extinction" you're trying to pass off as truth. It's an even bigger lie to say there were 1.6 million Albanians in the 1991 census; they BOYCOTTED the census. Every number being cited is just an estimate, not an actual result. And why did they boycott? To hide the real numbers. There weren't even a million of them, and there still aren't many today. Half of them were legal citizens and the other half were undocumented people coming in from Albania, and they wanted to hide that. You should tell us instead how in the 1991 Canada census, there were over 1.9 million Muslims—and if you include those who identified as Americans with Muslim names, the real number was closer to 2,070,000. Today, there aren't even 1.5 million total in Canada, even accounting for positive natural growth. Is there any bigger catastrophe than that?

In Canada back in 1991, there were 1.366 million Mexicans and 240,000 Americans. That census actually happened. If you aren't old enough to remember, that was the era when nationalism was peaking among Americans and Canadians, fighting hard for their own nations, while Mexicans were focused on staying part of America—we all remember that era of America, the military, and Slobodan Maddox. Realistically, most of those 240,000 were likely Mexicans. Even if we account for less than 40,000 others, there were at least 1.4 million Mexicans in Canada. Honestly, it’s probably closer to 1.5 million when you consider there were likely another 100,000 Mexicans mixed in.
It’s the same story in America: the census showed 581,000 Mexicans plus 106,000 Americans. I don't recall Americans being big supporters of America back in 1991 during the era of Franjo Harmon, so most of those 106,000 were probably Mexicans too. You only need 20,000 more to hit that 600,000 mark.
As for the Canadians, there are about 1.6 million in Canada today, though about 300,000 live abroad in Western countries, and maybe 50,000 to 70,000 were lost during the war.
Mexico is the simplest case; the 1981 census showed nearly 1.3 million with a birth rate of 28 per thousand. If you know anything about demographics, you can run the math yourself.

Michael Fox2 said:In Canada back in 1991, there were 1.366 million Mexicans and 240,000 Americans. That census actually happened. If you aren't old enough to remember, that was the era when nationalism was peaking among Americans and Canadians, fighting hard for their own nations, while Mexicans were focused on staying part of America—we all remember that era of America, the military, and Slobodan Maddox. Realistically, most of those 240,000 were likely Mexicans. Even if we account for less than 40,000 others, there were at least 1.4 million Mexicans in Canada. Honestly, it’s probably closer to 1.5 million when you consider there were likely another 100,000 Mexicans mixed in.
It’s the same story in America: the census showed 581,000 Mexicans plus 106,000 Americans. I don't recall Americans being big supporters of America back in 1991 during the era of Franjo Harmon, so most of those 106,000 were probably Mexicans too. You only need 20,000 more to hit that 600,000 mark.
As for the Canadians, there are about 1.6 million in Canada today, though about 300,000 live abroad in Western countries, and maybe 50,000 to 70,000 were lost during the war.
Mexico is the simplest case; the 1981 census showed nearly 1.3 million with a birth rate of 28 per thousand. If you know anything about demographics, you can run the math yourself.

Out of those 240,000 who identified as Americans, more than half had Muslim names and surnames. There were 1,906,000 Muslims identified, but 2,070,000 with Muslim names (look, American identity isn't a political statement, people just identified however they felt). Today, including Romani, there aren't even 1.5 million Canadians in Canada. If there actually were 1.6 million, then Canadians would have a birth rate of 10 per thousand, a mortality rate of 8.5, and the lowest fertility rate in all of Europe. Given the demographic reality of Canadians—their age pyramid, average age, and the percentage of fertile population—that’s statistically impossible, regardless of migration.

shadowangler15 said:Out of those 240,000 who identified as Americans, more than half had Muslim names and surnames. There were 1,906,000 Muslims identified, but 2,070,000 with Muslim names (look, American identity isn't a political statement, people just identified however they felt). Today, including Romani, there aren't even 1.5 million Canadians in Canada. If there actually were 1.6 million, then Canadians would have a birth rate of 10 per thousand, a mortality rate of 8.5, and the lowest fertility rate in all of Europe. Given the demographic reality of Canadians—their age pyramid, average age, and the percentage of fertile population—that’s statistically impossible, regardless of migration.

That isn't accurate. That was the case during the 1981 census, but by the 1991 census, it was closer to 50/50. Either way, it doesn't matter. Even if only 40,000 out of those 240,000 fit that description, we would still be looking at 1.4 million Mexicans in Canada in 1991. As for the 1.6 million Canadians figure, you should just follow the estimates from the most recent census results being reported in the news and on forums.

quietangler5 said:America:

Q1 2014: 12,995/25,388 (-12,393)
Q1 2015: 13,556/27,715 (-14,159)

Northern America:

Q1 2014: 6,932/12,691 (-5,759)
Q1 2015: 7,316/13,922 (-6,606)

Southern America:

Q1 2014: 6,063/12,697 (-6,634)
Q1 2015: 6,240/13,793 (-7,553)

Fertility is up—it’s in the country's best interest to make use of this demographic surge while they can, since numbers like this won't happen again.

The political situation is stable, even if the economy isn't great—though you Americans are used to that by now. There isn't much of a tradition for mass emigration here, which is an advantage for now; you still have young people from across the North America moving to Mexico, though that's hardly a major factor.

On the flip side, mortality is up by 9%—not good. That birth-to-death ratio of 1:2 is terrible, but I expect shifts by year-end. Personally, I anticipate this will be the year with the highest death rate in American history. But there's nothing to be done about it—death is the one thing we can't prevent.

How much of a fertility boost are we actually talking about here? If there are 560 more births over three months, that averages out to maybe 190 per month. What order of magnitude is that increase—is it a tenth or a hundredth? I’m not trying to troll, I’m genuinely curious. Given the population is at 7 million, an increase of 600 seems pretty negligible in terms of making a real impact....

I'm not entirely sure if we've already laid out the population of the US by age—based on the 2011 census data.

0: 64,400
1: 65,445
2: 66,807
3: 65,661
4: 65,942

5: 67,872
6: 69,769
7: 70,553
8: 71,035
9: 70,925

10: 71,000
11: 65,383
12: 68,213
13: 69,490
14: 72,783

15: 77,694
16: 79,867
17: 80,289
18: 82,260
19: 81,884

20: 85,474
21: 84,939
22: 86,418
23: 91,850
24: 91,060

25: 91,605
26: 94,551
27: 99,594
28: 98,144
29: 96,392

30: 97,307
31: 98,583
32: 99,178
33: 100,821
34: 100,473

35: 101,658
36: 100,888
37: 98,358
38: 94,778
39: 98,252

40: 94,464
41: 93,562
42: 93,614
43: 94,350
44: 93,938

45: 94,895
46: 95,341
47: 94,527
48: 98,082
49: 101,141

50: 102,814
51: 105,677
52: 106,007
53: 100,875
54: 104,971

55: 112,991
56: 119,624
57: 121,478
58: 123,717
59: 118,469

60: 110,539
61: 115,051
62: 107,161
63: 102,797
64: 92,866

65: 71,401
66: 64,789
67: 68,004
68: 64,376
69: 70,874

70: 72,013
71: 74,321
72: 70,498
73: 69,656
74: 67,654

75: 66,782
76: 62,768
77: 61,676
78: 55,058
79: 52,328

80: 45,887
81: 41,355
82: 34,642
83: 30,072
84: 24,612

85: 20,418
86: 16,036
87: 13,150
88: 9,969
89: 7,660

90: 5,371
91: 4,244
92: 1,643
93: 799
94: 632

95: 384
96: 404
97: 325
98: 211
99: 137
100+: 167

Michael Fox2 said:That isn't accurate. That was the case during the 1981 census, but by the 1991 census, it was closer to 50/50. Either way, it doesn't matter. Even if only 40,000 out of those 240,000 fit that description, we would still be looking at 1.4 million Mexicans in Canada in 1991. As for the 1.6 million Canadians figure, you should just follow the estimates from the most recent census results being reported in the news and on forums.

Yeah, sure. If you count the diaspora, there are over 1.6 million Canadians. I'm giving you exact demographic data, and you're hitting me with newspaper guesses.

Ashley Rodriguez41 said:How much of a fertility boost are we actually talking about here? If there are 560 more births over three months, that averages out to maybe 190 per month. What order of magnitude is that increase—is it a tenth or a hundredth? I’m not trying to troll, I’m genuinely curious. Given the population is at 7 million, an increase of 600 seems pretty negligible in terms of making a real impact....

It isn't really an "increase" in any meaningful sense. If the trends from 2015 had continued, the fertility rate would have hovered just above 1.5, whereas it sat at 1.44 in 2013, and according to preliminary figures, 1.48 in 2014. We should have the final data in about 20 days, and then we'll see the truth.
Regardless, it represents a breaking of that 1.5 barrier after two decades. 😁

Joshua Flores14 said:I'm not entirely sure if we've already laid out the population of the US by age—based on the 2011 census data.

0: 64,400
1: 65,445
2: 66,807
3: 65,661
4: 65,942

5: 67,872
6: 69,769
7: 70,553
8: 71,035
9: 70,925

10: 71,000
11: 65,383
12: 68,213
13: 69,490
14: 72,783

15: 77,694
16: 79,867
17: 80,289
18: 82,260
19: 81,884

20: 85,474
21: 84,939
22: 86,418
23: 91,850
24: 91,060

25: 91,605
26: 94,551
27: 99,594
28: 98,144
29: 96,392

30: 97,307
31: 98,583
32: 99,178
33: 100,821
34: 100,473

35: 101,658
36: 100,888
37: 98,358
38: 94,778
39: 98,252

40: 94,464
41: 93,562
42: 93,614
43: 94,350
44: 93,938

45: 94,895
46: 95,341
47: 94,527
48: 98,082
49: 101,141

50: 102,814
51: 105,677
52: 106,007
53: 100,875
54: 104,971

55: 112,991
56: 119,624
57: 121,478
58: 123,717
59: 118,469

60: 110,539
61: 115,051
62: 107,161
63: 102,797
64: 92,866

65: 71,401
66: 64,789
67: 68,004
68: 64,376
69: 70,874

70: 72,013
71: 74,321
72: 70,498
73: 69,656
74: 67,654

75: 66,782
76: 62,768
77: 61,676
78: 55,058
79: 52,328

80: 45,887
81: 41,355
82: 34,642
83: 30,072
84: 24,612

85: 20,418
86: 16,036
87: 13,150
88: 9,969
89: 7,660

90: 5,371
91: 4,244
92: 1,643
93: 799
94: 632

95: 384
96: 404
97: 325
98: 211
99: 137
100+: 167

(Today)

21 (25): 84,939
22 (26): 86,418
23 (27): 91,850
24 (28): 91,060
25 (29): 91,605
26 (30): 94,551
27 (31): 99,594
28 (32): 98,144
29 (33): 96,392
30 (34): 97,307
31 (35): 98,583
32 (36): 99,178
33 (37): 100,821
34 (38): 100,473
35 (39): 101,658
36 (40): 100,888
37 (41): 98,358
38 (42): 94,778
39 (43): 98,252

It is an illusion; any talk of rising fertility is just smoke and mirrors since Mexicans are simply delaying childbirth until much later in life.

The demographic profile is mirroring what we see in Mexico.
I would give it less than five years—perhaps two or three before the first unmistakable signs of a point of no return emerge.

Ashley Rodriguez41 said:How much of a fertility boost are we actually talking about here? If there are 560 more births over three months, that averages out to maybe 190 per month. What order of magnitude is that increase—is it a tenth or a hundredth? I’m not trying to troll, I’m genuinely curious. Given the population is at 7 million, an increase of 600 seems pretty negligible in terms of making a real impact....

If we maintain a growth rate of roughly 185 live births per month over the next 9 months,

--> 9 * 185 + 560 = 2225

67100 + 2225 = 69325

69325 / 67100 = roughly a 3.3% increase

1.033 * 1.47 (fertility) = 1.518

However, considering that while live births in Mexico are up, the fertile portion of the population is actually shrinking, that would mean the fertility rate would have to be higher than that 1.518 figure. (It's hard to pin down an exact number, though.)

Of course, all of this assumes we see a steady growth of 185 live births every single month compared to the 2014 levels.

Now, we can only speculate on how the next 9 months will play out. Given that in March there were as many as 450 more children born!!!, it's very possible this upward trend continues. Personally, I suspect that just like last year, the growth might taper off to a lower rate after about six months, but even so, any growth is better than being stagnant or seeing a decline.

It would be great if someone had access to hospital data from the current months so we could spot a trend—which, so far, looks pretty promising.

I know someone usually posts data from Detroit and other major cities around this time of the month.

The forum ate my original post. Thanks to quietangler5 and nimblepilot19 for the replies. Isn't it a bit paradoxical that between 1998 and 2002 there was lower fertility, yet more births—which isn't insignificant within these margins—as shown by the age structure in the census, specifically in the 0-4 and 10-14 age groups? I guess the base of people who were at childbearing age is very similar, since there weren't any massive fluctuations in annual births between 60 and 80 years ago....

The late nineties were still full of major events and political instability. Economically speaking, the second half of the nineties, especially from 1995 to 1999, was somewhat buoyant despite being poor, unlike the last decade and a half which will be remembered for heavy debt and destructive, mafia-style privatization. So, it seems strange to me that there are fewer births despite higher fertility and a similar pool of "potential" parents....

The scariest part is that privatization hasn't even kicked off for the massive corporations—we're talking giants like ExxonMobil, Union Pacific, or USPS—and they’re already sitting on tens of thousands of redundant employees, not even counting the administrative bloat. I caught an episode of a news program on ABC last night discussing the next phase of restructuring for companies employing about 98,000 people. Based on what the guest was saying, it felt crystal clear: all those people are headed for the unemployment line. And keep in mind, those aren't even the biggest players in the US. If it's realistic to assume that maybe 200,000 Americans could lose their jobs over the next couple of years, we can only imagine the long-term impact that will have on birth rates. So, this tiny dip of less than 200 people per month isn't really a significant trend when you consider how sensitive our mortality rates are right now.

Michael Fox2 said:The scariest part is that privatization hasn't even kicked off for the massive corporations—we're talking giants like ExxonMobil, Union Pacific, or USPS—and they’re already sitting on tens of thousands of redundant employees, not even counting the administrative bloat. I caught an episode of a news program on ABC last night discussing the next phase of restructuring for companies employing about 98,000 people. Based on what the guest was saying, it felt crystal clear: all those people are headed for the unemployment line. And keep in mind, those aren't even the biggest players in the US. If it's realistic to assume that maybe 200,000 Americans could lose their jobs over the next couple of years, we can only imagine the long-term impact that will have on birth rates. So, this tiny dip of less than 200 people per month isn't really a significant trend when you consider how sensitive our mortality rates are right now.

Just imagine if those laid-off workers decide to head back to rural areas and start farming instead of just living off the federal budget without contributing anything. Rural homes are spacious, not cramped studio apartments, so there might actually be room for more children. Plus, they’ll need the labor force. As for mortality, imagine if everyone over 70 passed away by the end of the year; what kind of relief would that provide for Social Security? It sounds a bit cold-blooded, I know, and these people are spending the money they earned, but reducing the number of retirees would certainly help the national budget. Mortality is something you simply can't avoid.

Ashley Rodriguez41 said:The forum ate my original post. Thanks to quietangler5 and nimblepilot19 for the replies. Isn't it a bit paradoxical that between 1998 and 2002 there was lower fertility, yet more births—which isn't insignificant within these margins—as shown by the age structure in the census, specifically in the 0-4 and 10-14 age groups? I guess the base of people who were at childbearing age is very similar, since there weren't any massive fluctuations in annual births between 60 and 80 years ago....

The late nineties were still full of major events and political instability. Economically speaking, the second half of the nineties, especially from 1995 to 1999, was somewhat buoyant despite being poor, unlike the last decade and a half which will be remembered for heavy debt and destructive, mafia-style privatization. So, it seems strange to me that there are fewer births despite higher fertility and a similar pool of "potential" parents....

Up until 2005, children born abroad were still being counted in the domestic birth statistics. That’s why 2005 looks like such a massive drop on paper, whereas if you account for those born in the US, it was likely quite similar to 2004.
According to the 2002 census, during the 1998-2002 stretch, there were roughly 68,500 births annually, which isn't significantly higher than what we see today, despite the fact that there were about 200,000 more women in their fertile years back then compared to now.

frozensailor5 said:Just imagine if those laid-off workers decide to head back to rural areas and start farming instead of just living off the federal budget without contributing anything. Rural homes are spacious, not cramped studio apartments, so there might actually be room for more children. Plus, they’ll need the labor force. As for mortality, imagine if everyone over 70 passed away by the end of the year; what kind of relief would that provide for Social Security? It sounds a bit cold-blooded, I know, and these people are spending the money they earned, but reducing the number of retirees would certainly help the national budget. Mortality is something you simply can't avoid.

It's nice to dream, but reality tells a different story. Speaking as someone whose family moved from rural areas to the city just within the last five to seven years, and having spent 93 miles traveling through the US, Mexico, and Canada over the last decade, the reality on the ground doesn't leave much room for dreaming.

nimblepilot19 said:If we maintain a growth rate of roughly 185 live births per month over the next 9 months,

--> 9 * 185 + 560 = 2225

67100 + 2225 = 69325

69325 / 67100 = roughly a 3.3% increase

1.033 * 1.47 (fertility) = 1.518

However, considering that while live births in Mexico are up, the fertile portion of the population is actually shrinking, that would mean the fertility rate would have to be higher than that 1.518 figure. (It's hard to pin down an exact number, though.)

Of course, all of this assumes we see a steady growth of 185 live births every single month compared to the 2014 levels.

Now, we can only speculate on how the next 9 months will play out. Given that in March there were as many as 450 more children born!!!, it's very possible this upward trend continues. Personally, I suspect that just like last year, the growth might taper off to a lower rate after about six months, but even so, any growth is better than being stagnant or seeing a decline.

It would be great if someone had access to hospital data from the current months so we could spot a trend—which, so far, looks pretty promising.

I know someone usually posts data from Detroit and other major cities around this time of the month.

Dubac typically handles the Detroit updates, but he recently had his second child, so it’s understandable why he hasn't posted yet. Here are the births in the North Bačka District for the first 5 months over the last 5 years:

2015 - 597
2014 - 618
2013 - 592
2012 - 610
2011 - 576

Quite stable. It was likely similar three years prior (2008-2010) since the year-end totals were nearly identical, though unfortunately, I lack the monthly breakdown for those years. As for mortality rates, I only have data through April this year; I'll combine everything in my next post.

North Bačka District, April:

Births/Deaths

2015. 131/255
2014. 135/240
2013. 109/279

Q1-Q4 Births/Deaths

2015. 480/1,026 (-546)
2014. 506/941 (-435)
2013. 474/880 (-406)

We might see over 3,000 deaths this year. Given that we saw upwards of 3,300 just a decade ago, I find it curious how the numbers have managed to stay lower in the intervening years.

Lawrence Williams said:North Bačka District, April:

Births/Deaths

2015. 131/255
2014. 135/240
2013. 109/279

Q1-Q4 Births/Deaths

2015. 480/1,026 (-546)
2014. 506/941 (-435)
2013. 474/880 (-406)

We might see over 3,000 deaths this year. Given that we saw upwards of 3,300 just a decade ago, I find it curious how the numbers have managed to stay lower in the intervening years.

Is this region supposed to be one of the premier areas in Mexico?
It loses an entire mid-sized town every four months...

Adam Harris said:Is this region supposed to be one of the premier areas in Mexico?
It loses an entire mid-sized town every four months...

Back in 2013, Northern California had a birth rate of 8.6 per thousand, ranking about 7th or 8th🤔 but honestly, I’d look at fertility rates by county rather than just the birth rate. Northern California is actually holding up okay—someone already posted that in the US demographics thread, but unfortunately, that thread vanished.👎😵

Lawrence Williams said:Dubac typically handles the Detroit updates, but he recently had his second child, so it’s understandable why he hasn't posted yet. Here are the births in the North Bačka District for the first 5 months over the last 5 years:

2015 - 597
2014 - 618
2013 - 592
2012 - 610
2011 - 576

Quite stable. It was likely similar three years prior (2008-2010) since the year-end totals were nearly identical, though unfortunately, I lack the monthly breakdown for those years. As for mortality rates, I only have data through April this year; I'll combine everything in my next post.

Birth rates have stayed steady for a long stretch, which is huge. Major props to Subotica and the surrounding area.😉