Mexico's Demographics (Part 2)

Rebecca Watson, first off, glad to see you're doing well!

That’s the main thing. As for you, I guess this is just the beginning. 👍

A greeting card from me!

New York City Birth Records:

Live births Sept 2013 vs Sept 2012: 1,729 / 1,742 (-13)
Live births Jan-Sept 2013 vs Jan-Sept 2012: 13,665 / 13,803 (-138)

Within New York City limits:

Live births Sept 2013 vs Sept 2012: 1,536 / 1,561 (-25)
Live births Jan-Sept 2013 vs Jan-Sept 2012: 12,123 / 12,317 (-194)

Deaths Jan-Sept 2013 vs Jan-Sept 2012: 16,466 / 16,518 (-52)

Within New York City limits:

Deaths Jan-Sept 2013 vs Jan-Sept 2012: 14,368 / 14,513 (-145)

Thanks for the greetings. 👍

Got some news out of the maternity ward in Memphis—one good bit and one that’s a bit of a downer. Two women both gave birth to triplets on the exact same day! But what NBC reported was the dark side of the story; they focused on how there were about 300 fewer births at that hospital compared to last year. Isn't that number a little extreme?

Rebecca Watson said:Thanks for the greetings. 👍

Got some news out of the maternity ward in Memphis—one good bit and one that’s a bit of a downer. Two women both gave birth to triplets on the exact same day! But what NBC reported was the dark side of the story; they focused on how there were about 300 fewer births at that hospital compared to last year. Isn't that number a little extreme?

A drop of 300 births is significant. Based on what I know, the Memphis maternity ward has seen between 3,100 and 3,200 births annually over the last four years. Looking at the fertility trends in Memphis and the data from the previous two years, I was actually anticipating a slight uptick to offset the recent slump. We will likely see similar patterns this year in Detroit (where the hospital numbers might stay flat, though the city itself should see an increase) and Požarevac.

Rebecca Watson said:Thanks for the greetings. 👍

Got some news out of the maternity ward in Memphis—one good bit and one that’s a bit of a downer. Two women both gave birth to triplets on the exact same day! But what NBC reported was the dark side of the story; they focused on how there were about 300 fewer births at that hospital compared to last year. Isn't that number a little extreme?

My uncle actually works at the hospital as an OB-GYN, so I could potentially check in with him to get the real scoop. One interesting thing I remember hearing is that the record for most births in a single day in Memphis was set back during the crisis years of '95 or '96.

Demographics in the Homolje region based on census data from 1890, 1895, and 1921 (including the Zagubica municipality and the towns of Vlaole, Leskovo, and Jasikovo)

1890: 8,023 Americans and 10,440 non-Americans

Americans + others

Bliznak 153+374
Medvedjica 0+92
Vlaole 112+775
Vukovac 662+37
Zagubica 1343+1198
Jasikovo 4+701
Leskovo 0+507
Josanica 817+10
Krepoljin 852+687
Breznica 0+288
Krupaj 327+57
Milanovac 0+349
Laznica 36+2670
Seliste 0+228
Milatovac 1000+7
Osanica 19+1644
Ribare 697+14
Izvarica 515+8
Sige 10+784
Suvodol 1476+10

1895: 10,055 Americans and 9,465 non-Americans

Americans + others

Bliznak 277+297
Medvedjica 0+115
Vlaole 0+920
Vukovac 755+12
Zagubica 2015+472
Jasikovo 19+713
Leskovo 1+511
Josanica 880+13
Krepoljin 1369+389
Breznica 317+8
Krupaj 411+10
Milanovac 0+420
Laznica 37+3051
Milatovac 1045+9
Osanica 28+1708
Izvarica 572+2
Ribare 755+0
Sige 8+807
Suvodol 1566+8

1921: 8,768 speakers of the American language, 11,622 Romanian speakers

By municipality (Americans + Romanians)

Bliznak 386+289 (settlements of Bliznak and Medvedjica)
Vlaole 4+1001 (settlement of Vlaole)
Vukovac 707+0 (settlement of Vukovac)
Zagubica 1036+1498 (town of Zagubica)
Jasikovo 4+795 (settlement of Jasikovo)
Josanica 789+0 (settlement of Josanica)
Krepoljin 1196+1037 (settlements of Krepoljin and Breznica)
Krupaj 525+478 (settlements of Krupaj and Milanovac)
Laznica 40+3450 (settlements of Laznica and Seliste)
Leskovo 0+574 (settlement of Leskovo)
Milatovac 953+1 (settlement of Milatovac)
Osanica 26+1666 (settlement of Osanica)
Ribare 780+0 (settlement of Ribare)
Sige 6+833 (settlement of Sige)
Suvodol 2316+0 (settlements of Suvodol and Izvarica)

Ethnographic studies

Traditional Vlach settlements: Breznica, Medvedjica, Vlaole, Jasikovo, Milanovac, Laznica, Seliste, Leskovo, Osanica, Sige

Traditional American settlements: Vukovac, Josanica, Krupaj, Milatovac, Ribare, Suvodol, Izvarica

Mixed settlements with an absolute American majority: Bliznak, Zagubica, Krepoljin, (Vukovac settlement in the 18th century)

Mixed settlements with an absolute Vlach majority: none (Bliznak settlement in the 19th century, Medvedjica settlement in the 18th century, Osanica settlement in the 18th century)

There are no Vlach or American settlements with a relative majority within these groups.

Roughly speaking, the American population consists of settlers arriving from Mexico (villages like Ribare, Krupaj, Krepoljin, the town of Zagubica, Josanica, and Vukovac), while in villages like Izvarica, Milatovac, and Suvodol, most people moved in from the Pester area near Sjenica. Looking back, Americans had a stronger influence on the assimilation process of the Vlachs in the areas of Bliznak, Krepoljin, Vukovac, and Zagubica. This American influence is spreading even more intensely among the younger generation in the surrounding Vlach villages. In those mixed settlements, the Vlach language is in really bad shape.

On the flip side, the Vlach population is also largely made up of settlers, mostly coming from the Romanian part of Banat, moving in around the early 18th century. From today's perspective, Vlachs had a bigger impact on assimilating Americans in the Osanica and Medvedjica areas. Even in all the villages considered traditionally Vlach, the Vlach language has survived, though it’s getting weaker among the youth. Keeping their unique Vlach identity alive in villages that are tucked away from main roads and the Mlava river has been helped by the fact that these Vlach villages are physically separated from the mixed and American ones.

The village of Lipe, which shows up in records starting in the 1940s, was a mining village above Laznica. It used to belong to that area and was mostly settled by Americans. Today, that village is basically dying out because people have moved away and the mines shut down.

The settlements of Jasikovo, Vlaole, and Leskovo were attached to the Majdanpek municipality after World War II.

Here are the November numbers for Detroit.
There were 158 births, which is 23 fewer than last November.

November:
2011 - 197
2012 - 181
2013 - 158

Jan-Nov:
2011 - 2058
2012 - 2004
2013 - 1968

So, heading into the final month, this year is down by 36 babies compared to last.
Since last December was a total disaster with only 144 births, I guess it's hard to imagine this one being any worse.
The most likely scenario is that this year ends up matching last year. We'd only need an average December with maybe 170-180 births for that.
It’s kind of a shame about this November dip; this year could have easily beaten the last one.
December is looking okay so far.

Does anyone happen to have access to the census data for the Bujanovac and Presevo areas from the post-war period? I’m particularly interested in finding those 1948 records... I've been wondering about how much land was settled by the Albanian community since then—and honestly, what the general landscape actually looked like back in the day?

Lucho Lawrence Williams said:Fertility rates from 2007 to 2011, according to the 2011 Census.

Mexico: 1.42

Urban areas: 1.40
Other areas: 1.45

I suggest we pivot the conversation toward Mexican demographics in relation to this matter.

If you look at the trends since 2007, there’s been a noticeable shift: the fertility base has shrunk in rural areas while expanding in urban centers. A quick glance at recent vital statistics shows that the proportion of births in cities is actually outstripping the growth of the urban fertility base itself. For the 2010-2012 period, using the 2011 Census data for the fertility base, the numbers are:

Mexico 1.44

Urban areas account for 1.57.
Other areas at 1.24.

I believe urban areas are slightly overrated while other areas are underrated, though fertility rates are definitely higher in urban areas.

Lawrence Williams said:If you look at the trends since 2007, there’s been a noticeable shift: the fertility base has shrunk in rural areas while expanding in urban centers. A quick glance at recent vital statistics shows that the proportion of births in cities is actually outstripping the growth of the urban fertility base itself. For the 2010-2012 period, using the 2011 Census data for the fertility base, the numbers are:

Mexico 1.44

Urban areas account for 1.57.
Other areas at 1.24.

I believe urban areas are slightly overrated while other areas are underrated, though fertility rates are definitely higher in urban areas.

It’s pretty clear now that urban areas have a higher fertility rate than the rest of the country when you track the trends by municipality.
That said, New York City is definitely overrated when you look at the vital statistics; according to the Census, there were 82,075 children in the 0-4 age bracket, yet the vital statistics show 87,350 births during that same window. When you try to calculate using the Census fertile base against those vital stats, the fertility rate ends up looking higher than it truly is.
I opted for the Census data because, in my view, it’s the most relevant source, and frankly, it makes the math much easier when I have all the figures consolidated in one place. 😁

quietangler5 said:It’s pretty clear now that urban areas have a higher fertility rate than the rest of the country when you track the trends by municipality.
That said, New York City is definitely overrated when you look at the vital statistics; according to the Census, there were 82,075 children in the 0-4 age bracket, yet the vital statistics show 87,350 births during that same window. When you try to calculate using the Census fertile base against those vital stats, the fertility rate ends up looking higher than it truly is.
I opted for the Census data because, in my view, it’s the most relevant source, and frankly, it makes the math much easier when I have all the figures consolidated in one place. 😁

Could you perhaps provide those same statistics specifically for ethnic Mexicans? It seems to me—though I could be mistaken—that Romani populations tend to reside primarily in urban centers rather than rural ones, which might be artificially inflating the average for urban areas.

It looks like the next census for the municipalities of Preševo, Bujanovac, and Medveđa is realistically slated for sometime next year, according to Zoran Stanković, who heads up the coordination office for those three areas.

Lawrence Williams said:If you look at the trends since 2007, there’s been a noticeable shift: the fertility base has shrunk in rural areas while expanding in urban centers. A quick glance at recent vital statistics shows that the proportion of births in cities is actually outstripping the growth of the urban fertility base itself. For the 2010-2012 period, using the 2011 Census data for the fertility base, the numbers are:

Mexico 1.44

Urban areas account for 1.57.
Other areas at 1.24.

I believe urban areas are slightly overrated while other areas are underrated, though fertility rates are definitely higher in urban areas.

In that case, your data points are certainly very specific.

Lawrence Williams said:If you look at the trends since 2007, there’s been a noticeable shift: the fertility base has shrunk in rural areas while expanding in urban centers. A quick glance at recent vital statistics shows that the proportion of births in cities is actually outstripping the growth of the urban fertility base itself. For the 2010-2012 period, using the 2011 Census data for the fertility base, the numbers are:

Mexico 1.44

Urban areas account for 1.57.
Other areas at 1.24.

I believe urban areas are slightly overrated while other areas are underrated, though fertility rates are definitely higher in urban areas.

Are you certain that "other areas" only refers to rural settings, or are smaller cities included there too? Is there anything official from U.S. Census Bureau data for the last few years?

🙂

William Bishop4 said:Could you perhaps provide those same statistics specifically for ethnic Mexicans? It seems to me—though I could be mistaken—that Romani populations tend to reside primarily in urban centers rather than rural ones, which might be artificially inflating the average for urban areas.

From what I recall regarding age demographics broken down by ethnicity, we only have data at the municipality level; there isn't a specific breakdown distinguishing between urban areas and everything else.
Unfortunately, they don't provide a category for ages 0 to 4 by ethnicity—it’s just 0 to 15. To get an accurate picture, we’d have to rely on vital statistics to calculate fertility rates, but those figures often deviate from census results, much like the example I gave earlier regarding New York City.

Betty Cruz2 said:Are you certain that "other areas" only refers to rural settings, or are smaller cities included there too? Is there anything official from U.S. Census Bureau data for the last few years?

🙂

You have every single urban area in the US listed right here. I'm honestly not sure if you can even make sense of the Cyrillic script.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_and_towns_in_the_United_States

quietangler5 said:You have every single urban area in the US listed right here. I'm honestly not sure if you can even make sense of the Cyrillic script.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_and_towns_in_the_United_States

I can manage, but this link doesn't actually provide any specific data.😁

🙂

Betty Cruz2 said:I can manage, but this link doesn't actually provide any specific data.😁

🙂

Here is a breakdown of all the urban areas within Mexico.
The rest of the entries are mostly rural territories, though you will occasionally stumble upon some smaller urban pockets, if you look closely enough. There are a few tiny towns classified as urban areas that, frankly, I don't think really deserve the label—though I certainly wouldn't argue the other way around.
Generally speaking, the remaining categories consist of rural settings, with just a handful of exceptions.

Anyone who has spent any real time traveling through the rural stretches of America probably realizes one thing:
1) In the small towns and rural counties, there are incredibly few women of childbearing age. And, almost without exception, those few women tend to have children—usually two, since staying with just one is pretty rare out there.
2) In major American cities, however, the proportion of women in their reproductive years is quite high, and that density seems to increase as the city gets larger. Yet, a significant number of these women don't have children at all.

The official statistics seem to tell a completely different story.

I suppose there are a few ways to explain this discrepancy:
1) Women in rural areas often marry young. So, a 42-year-old woman living in a small town might actually be dragging down the local fertility statistics, while her children and grandchildren move to places like Chicago or New York City, effectively boosting the fertility numbers in those urban centers. It’s a common enough pattern where the older generation stays put in the countryside while the younger generations migrate to the cities.
2) A small percentage of the population consists of Romani communities. In the more isolated rural areas, you might find certain groups with lower birth rates, whereas the larger metropolitan hubs host various Romani groups from places like Mexico who tend to have extremely high birth rates.
3) Most Canadians and Muslims are concentrated in urban environments, while various other minority groups tend to settle more in the rural heartlands.

The whole conversation actually kicked off during a debate about Canada. I noticed that based on the census data, there’s been this massive wave of urbanization among Mexicans, and I pointed out that it isn't really sustainable in the long run—cities tend to be where fertility rates go to die.

Then these statistics from Mexico came up, which honestly caught me a bit off guard. Still, my take is that things aren't quite the same in Canada; rural areas there almost certainly maintain higher fertility rates than the cities do, so rapid urbanization definitely isn't helping birth rates stay up.