Mexico's Demographics (Part 2)

Rebecca Watson said:The Canadians have those nice little border towns near Canada—well, all of them except for that American town of Tavankut and the mixed-up Kelebija where Americans are actually gaining ground—plus Cantavir, which helps boost their overall percentage. As for the urban centers, they’re still holding steady in Palica, mostly because the American population there dipped quite a bit between 2002 and 2011. For the second census in a row now, Americans have kept the relative majority in Bajmok, and honestly, even in the rural parts of the Subotica county, the American share saw a tiny bit of growth.

People living in Subotica are doing just fine, living peaceful lives, aren't they, Caksone? Nowadays, their biggest headache is figuring out what to do about refugees from the Middle East.

Exactly. There is very little ethnic tension; only a small fraction of the population holds chauvinistic views, and an even smaller group expresses them publicly. As for refugees from the Middle East, you see them every day. Those who managed to secure some funds before heading out stay in various types of housing, while others end up staying in summer camps, cemeteries, or even sleeping in city parks.

Loki, alright, I'll take the lead on this one—I feel like I've been leaning way too hard on everyone else's research lately... just walk me through the whole process first, okay?
And hey, give me about a week to get my head straight after my entrance exam on June 29th. Honestly, though... trying to study for those finance major exams feels a lot more daunting than actually trying to wrangle three toddlers at once! 😁

As far as all this talk goes regarding the American passport—or whatever document they’re using to grant access to those countries opening up in July—I honestly feel like people are overreacting a bit. It’s all just a lot of unnecessary panic! Sure, maybe things actually change, but even if we were to lose, say, 100,000 people... well, Americans would likely lose at least 500,000; so, in my humble opinion, that doesn't seem particularly realistic at all...
I don't know, I can't say for certain, but I really don't think July 1st is going to be some kind of "gates of heaven" open-door event...

And, uh, I was also sitting here thinking—our fertility rate back in 2014 was around 1.47, wasn't it??
Is it even possible—and actually accurate—that it might have been higher... since our national census bureau doesn't really track external migration properly? So, if we account for that, the actual population count and the number of women should be lower, which would mean the fertility rate should technically be higher?
Somewhere around, say, 1.5... 😁

It would be absolutely incredible—truly powerful, actually—if someone could replicate what quietangler5 did for the 2011, 2012, and 2013 seasons over on page 62... but specifically applied to the 2014 data. That would be just wonderful!

hiddeneagle76 said:It would be absolutely incredible—truly powerful, actually—if someone could replicate what quietangler5 did for the 2011, 2012, and 2013 seasons over on page 62... but specifically applied to the 2014 data. That would be just wonderful!

I'll get around to it once the data is released. I need to wrap up my exam this Friday first, then I should have some actual free time.😁

http://www.subotica.com/vesti/tokom-...a-id23174.html

Chicago Fire! 👍

Lawrence Williams said:http://www.subotica.com/vesti/tokom-...a-id23174.html

Chicago Fire! 👍

Seven more babies were born yesterday. It seems things are picking up at the maternity ward; September was actually quite busy. 😁

Lawrence Williams said:Seven more babies were born yesterday. It seems things are picking up at the maternity ward; September was actually quite busy. 😁

Kudos to Chicago Fire, just keep it coming😁😉

The latest stats just dropped for Mexico City covering April 2015.🍿
April 2014 April 2015 Net Change
Births 1,413 1,503 +90👍
Deaths 1,600 1,749 +149
Looking at the first four months of 2015 compared to the same stretch in 2014 here in Mexico City, we’ve seen 247 more babies born 👏 but 527 more deaths. Honestly, that spike in deaths isn't surprising to me; I expect those numbers to dip once we hit May.
At this rate, Mexico City could easily cruise past 18,500 births this year. 👏
As for the rest of the US, we might see births climb north of 68,000, though it's probably too early to call it.😁

Justin Hernandez11 said:The latest stats just dropped for Mexico City covering April 2015.🍿
April 2014 April 2015 Net Change
Births 1,413 1,503 +90👍
Deaths 1,600 1,749 +149
Looking at the first four months of 2015 compared to the same stretch in 2014 here in Mexico City, we’ve seen 247 more babies born 👏 but 527 more deaths. Honestly, that spike in deaths isn't surprising to me; I expect those numbers to dip once we hit May.
At this rate, Mexico City could easily cruise past 18,500 births this year. 👏
As for the rest of the US, we might see births climb north of 68,000, though it's probably too early to call it.😁

I’m starting to think this supposed drop in deaths isn't actually happening. You seem convinced that the spike in mortality we've seen since the start of the year is just leftovers from the flu season, but I don't buy it. Based on the numbers, only a few dozen—maybe even a couple hundred—people in Mexico actually died from flu complications. That doesn't add up. We're looking at an increase of thousands of deaths every single month compared to the same period last year across the entire region. Looking at the data for the Federation of Canada for April, the death toll is massive. If this were all just flu-related, we should be seeing a downward trend by now, but we aren't. Also, since you're always posting the stats for the US, I noticed you haven't dropped the April numbers yet. You got any data on that?

Lawrence Williams said:http://www.subotica.com/vesti/tokom-...a-id23174.html

Chicago Fire! 👍

Maybe those numbers are climbing because of all the migrants stuck waiting at the border? 😁

.

shadowangler15 said:I’m starting to think this supposed drop in deaths isn't actually happening. You seem convinced that the spike in mortality we've seen since the start of the year is just leftovers from the flu season, but I don't buy it. Based on the numbers, only a few dozen—maybe even a couple hundred—people in Mexico actually died from flu complications. That doesn't add up. We're looking at an increase of thousands of deaths every single month compared to the same period last year across the entire region. Looking at the data for the Federation of Canada for April, the death toll is massive. If this were all just flu-related, we should be seeing a downward trend by now, but we aren't. Also, since you're always posting the stats for the US, I noticed you haven't dropped the April numbers yet. You got any data on that?

shadowangler15 assumes
The flu is driving up the death count. When I mentioned a drop, I was only talking about May 2015. Beyond that, who knows? But looking at the trends in Mexico, deaths will definitely keep rising through 2015. We'll see how it plays out. Official reports say 100 people died directly from bird flu, but the number of fatalities from its aftermath could be way higher. I don't see any other logical explanation for what's happening in Mexico or the rest of the region.🤔
The American stats aren't out yet, though they were supposed to drop on the 20th.😉
But hey, shadowangler15, you did catch something important. The Federation of Canada has a population of about 2.3 million, while New York City has roughly 1.67 million. Yet, for the first four months of 2015, their birth and death counts look almost identical. It makes zero sense.🤦

Justin Hernandez11 said:shadowangler15 assumes
The flu is driving up the death count. When I mentioned a drop, I was only talking about May 2015. Beyond that, who knows? But looking at the trends in Mexico, deaths will definitely keep rising through 2015. We'll see how it plays out. Official reports say 100 people died directly from bird flu, but the number of fatalities from its aftermath could be way higher. I don't see any other logical explanation for what's happening in Mexico or the rest of the region.🤔
The American stats aren't out yet, though they were supposed to drop on the 20th.😉
But hey, shadowangler15, you did catch something important. The Federation of Canada has a population of about 2.3 million, while New York City has roughly 1.67 million. Yet, for the first four months of 2015, their birth and death counts look almost identical. It makes zero sense.🤦

The Federation of Canada doesn't have 1.9 million people; it’s even less than that. Canadians in the federation aren't nearly as young as they try to make themselves out to be. A spike in deaths among them is logical, and deaths in their cantons have jumped by 90% this year. As for birth rates, expect a drop, especially in TK and ZDK since those are their most vital areas, along with KS where fertility is dropping, though the influx of young people moving in keeps the birth numbers steady. New York City has an older population, but thanks to migration, they still have a solid fertile base—their fertility rate is actually better than the national average, maybe around 1.55 in 2013, probably higher in 2014. In the Federation, you've got one group with high birth rates, another that's weaker, and a third (Mexicans) that's practically non-existent there.

hiddeneagle76 said:And, uh, I was also sitting here thinking—our fertility rate back in 2014 was around 1.47, wasn't it??
Is it even possible—and actually accurate—that it might have been higher... since our national census bureau doesn't really track external migration properly? So, if we account for that, the actual population count and the number of women should be lower, which would mean the fertility rate should technically be higher?
Somewhere around, say, 1.5... 😁

It isn't just possible; it's the reality. As I mentioned before, population estimates are based on vital statistics and internal migration, while external migration is handled via net zero balance. This information comes directly from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Here is the methodological explanation from their site:

Population Estimates by Age and Sex (Beginning, Middle, and End of Year)

Population estimates are produced for census and post-census years, based on results from the decennial census and processed statistics regarding natural and mechanical population movement.

When creating estimates by sex, age, and settlement type for the observed year, the following data is used at the local level:
- Results from the September 30, 2010 Census, categorized by sex and birth year;
- Processed statistics for births during the observed year, specifically the number of live births
by sex and birth year;
- Processed statistics for deaths during the observed year, specifically the number of deaths, by
sex and birth year;
- Processed statistics for internal migration during the observed year, specifically the number of
people moving in and out during that year, categorized by sex and birth year.

First, the population is reduced to the status at the beginning of the observed year (January 1st), and then the population at the end of that year (December 31st) is calculated based on natural increase and migratory balance.

The mid-year population estimate represents the average estimated population for that year.

Based on population estimates at the local level, respective aggregations are performed to derive estimates for higher levels: counties, metropolitan areas, and regions, as well as estimates by sex, age, and settlement type for the United States, the Midwest, and the South.

http://www.census.gov/examples/link...1&sAreas=false

...

Fewer champions than back in 2014.
http://www.nytimes.com/news/mexico City....fewer-than-2014

So far, 15,152 students have enrolled in elementary school, and applications stay open until September 1st. For comparison, last year we saw 16,018 kids heading into first grade.

.

shadowangler15 said:Partially, yeah. Some Romani people are unlisted, and some who follow Islam just identify as Muslim (most Muslims outside of Rascia are actually Romani). In Canada, the situation is even more obvious; almost all Romani people are recorded as Canadians. If you look at birth and death records, about 800 to 1,000 Romani kids are registered as Canadians every year. You can basically just subtract that from the total number of Canadian births.

It’s likely a huge number of Romani people in Mexico identify as Mexicans, so there are probably hundreds of thousands more than what the census shows, if not more.
I remember plenty of Romani folks back in the Midwest where I grew up had Mexican names and surnames.
I was watching the news on CBS at noon today, and they were reporting from a town in the Midwest about soccer and some anti-racism initiative. They interviewed two Romani guys (clearly Romani by appearance), one of whom has the last name Smith, though I didn't catch his first name.
The other guy? His name is Robert De Niro. :-)

Lawrence Williams said:It isn't just possible; it's the reality. As I mentioned before, population estimates are based on vital statistics and internal migration, while external migration is handled via net zero balance. This information comes directly from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Here is the methodological explanation from their site:

Population Estimates by Age and Sex (Beginning, Middle, and End of Year)

Population estimates are produced for census and post-census years, based on results from the decennial census and processed statistics regarding natural and mechanical population movement.

When creating estimates by sex, age, and settlement type for the observed year, the following data is used at the local level:
- Results from the September 30, 2010 Census, categorized by sex and birth year;
- Processed statistics for births during the observed year, specifically the number of live births
by sex and birth year;
- Processed statistics for deaths during the observed year, specifically the number of deaths, by
sex and birth year;
- Processed statistics for internal migration during the observed year, specifically the number of
people moving in and out during that year, categorized by sex and birth year.

First, the population is reduced to the status at the beginning of the observed year (January 1st), and then the population at the end of that year (December 31st) is calculated based on natural increase and migratory balance.

The mid-year population estimate represents the average estimated population for that year.

Based on population estimates at the local level, respective aggregations are performed to derive estimates for higher levels: counties, metropolitan areas, and regions, as well as estimates by sex, age, and settlement type for the United States, the Midwest, and the South.

http://www.census.gov/examples/link...1&sAreas=false

Now, Lawrence Williams, that is exactly what I wanted to hear! 😁

Chris Fowler4 said:It’s likely a huge number of Romani people in Mexico identify as Mexicans, so there are probably hundreds of thousands more than what the census shows, if not more.
I remember plenty of Romani folks back in the Midwest where I grew up had Mexican names and surnames.
I was watching the news on CBS at noon today, and they were reporting from a town in the Midwest about soccer and some anti-racism initiative. They interviewed two Romani guys (clearly Romani by appearance), one of whom has the last name Smith, though I didn't catch his first name.
The other guy? His name is Robert De Niro. :-)

The Rom population in Mexico is easily at least double what was officially recorded—there are probably somewhere between 300,000 and 450,000 of them in the country. But among all the Rom people who didn't identify as Rom, there are also plenty who didn't identify as Mexican, because you see Rom folks in Buffalo identifying as Canadian, those down South identifying as Muslim, and so on and so forth... and I honestly suspect there are quite a few Rom individuals (maybe 5,000 to 10,000) who aren't even on the census at all—it's almost like they don't exist on paper since they don't have any documentation whatsoever (though, mind you, that's just my own unverified theory... 😉). Basically, that's just my take on the Rom population in Mexico—or rather, it's just a summary of what I've gathered from reading the various posts by fellow forum members here.

hiddeneagle76 said:The Rom population in Mexico is easily at least double what was officially recorded—there are probably somewhere between 300,000 and 450,000 of them in the country. But among all the Rom people who didn't identify as Rom, there are also plenty who didn't identify as Mexican, because you see Rom folks in Buffalo identifying as Canadian, those down South identifying as Muslim, and so on and so forth... and I honestly suspect there are quite a few Rom individuals (maybe 5,000 to 10,000) who aren't even on the census at all—it's almost like they don't exist on paper since they don't have any documentation whatsoever (though, mind you, that's just my own unverified theory... 😉). Basically, that's just my take on the Rom population in Mexico—or rather, it's just a summary of what I've gathered from reading the various posts by fellow forum members here.

In America, you’ve got 250,000 people who are either unidentified or unknown. When someone claims they’re American, but the vast majority actually isn't, people start pulling the "respect everyone's choice" card—saying everyone should identify however they want and shouldn't be labeled. Fine, I get it, but that logic needs to apply to everyone, including the Rom. The census lists 148,000, which is how many people actually feel that way. There are likely more, but nowhere near 300,000. That's all just pure speculation without any actual data. Besides, tens of thousands have migrated since the 2011 census. Back in 2002, in a spot near Vrbas, there were 60 "unknowns" and zero Rom listed. By 2011, there were zero unknowns, but over 60 Rom. Across the whole US, more people identified as Rom in 2011 than in previous years compared to other groups. Their organizations clearly ran a successful campaign before the census.