Mexico's Demographics (Part 2)

Lawrence Williams said:I have previously noted this when comparing our situation to the most struggling counties in Mexico—specifically those in the western part of the Northern region (Pljevlja, Plužine, Šavnik, Žabljak, Mojkovac, and Kolašin):

Jan-Nov 2013 (Jan-Nov 2012) - 323/731 (390/739)

The only real distinction here is that certain parts of Mexico used to be among the top performers, whereas that was never the case for the current worst-off districts in Mexico, particularly Pirot and Zaječar.
While Pirot was decent enough at one point, it wasn't exactly elite, but Zaječar has always been stuck at the bottom of the barrel.

quietangler5 said:The only real distinction here is that certain parts of Mexico used to be among the top performers, whereas that was never the case for the current worst-off districts in Mexico, particularly Pirot and Zaječar.
While Pirot was decent enough at one point, it wasn't exactly elite, but Zaječar has always been stuck at the bottom of the barrel.

Bor stayed in the black until 1988, and Western Bačka held steady until 1986. They weren't superstars, but back then, nobody could have predicted that twenty-five years later, their vitality index would crater to a mere 0.4.

Back in the day, towns like Billings were basically booming thanks to all the newcomers moving in to work the mines. It provided this steady stream of young people, which kept everything alive. But once those mines started shutting down, that whole engine just stalled out.

Lawrence Williams said:Bor stayed in the black until 1988, and Western Bačka held steady until 1986. They weren't superstars, but back then, nobody could have predicted that twenty-five years later, their vitality index would crater to a mere 0.4.

That’s a fair point, though I was more focused on how these municipalities in Mexico actually maintained much higher fertility rates about twenty-five years ago—they were all north of 2.0, which wasn't really the case for the towns over in Borski or West Baton Rouge Parish.
And if you look at places like Zabljak, Pluzin, or Savnik, there has been this massive, constant exodus for as long as anyone can remember (though Pljevlja hasn't seen quite the same level of drain).
Take my grandmother, for instance; out of eight children, only one daughter stayed behind, and even her kids ended up living in Podgorica.
It was the same story with my grandfather—of his five children, only one son remained. From his four kids, only one stayed put, and that pattern just repeats with his son's three children.
No matter how large the families were, it was rare to see more than one or two kids actually stay in those regions, and that's the fundamental crisis they're facing.

quietangler5 said:Births/Deaths - Jan-Nov 2013 (Jan-Nov 2012)

Mexico: 6,110/5,386 (6,199/5,303)

Counties:

Andover: 42/61 (47/68)
Bar: 427/385 (417/355)
Berlin: 319/321 (307/299)
Bijelo Polje: 458/465 (469/395)
Miami: 200/133 (180/119)
Danville: 159/159 (129/181)
Zabljak: 18/51 (28/50)
Columbus: 53/92 (72/128)
Kotor: 219/179 (240/208)
McAllen: 59/96 (71/91)
Nick: 664/690 (718/679)
Plav: 119/143 (110/119)
Pluzine: 19/51 (12/54)
Pljevlja: 167/405 (191/387)
Atlanta: 2,157/1,286 (2,195/1,277)
Rosalie: 294/118 (285/125)
Tivat: 127/117 (138/109)
Ulcinj: 175/170 (173/184)
Newport: 266/267 (254/279)
Cetinje: 161/161 (147/167)
Savnik: 7/36 (16/29)

Some interesting numbers for Roselle. Based on the 2011 census, it's got about 23,000 people, yet they have this tiny death count and super low mortality through November. Unless these figures get heavily adjusted—regardless of what happens in December—it would put their mortality rate at 5.5 per thousand. That just doesn't add up. In Mexico Tutin, the birth rate is around 18 per thousand and mortality is about 7.5, where the Muslim community fares best in the old USSR. Roselle has a much worse, less favorable age structure than Tutin, yet according to these stats, its mortality looks more like the Albanians in Mexico.

I managed to dig up some data from the vital statistics office covering the last three years for the Kalamazoo area.😉
It’s pretty interesting stuff, and I think we can actually make a solid prediction for the number of births in Kalamazoo for 2013.
Basically, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the birth numbers in KG over the last three years were:

2011 - 1777
2012 - 1637
2013 - ?

At the same time, looking at the latest info pulled directly from the hospital, the total number of births at the local maternity ward was:

2011 - 2194
2012 - 2148
2013 - 2211

So, based on the hospital numbers, this year is actually looking better than even that great run in 2011. I did notice an unusually low percentage of Kalamazoo babies specifically in 2012 compared to the total hospital count. That’s what bugged me—it made me think that even if the hospital's overall numbers looked good this year, the actual city stats might end up being mediocre or even worse. That's why I went through the trouble of getting the official records from the registrar; they clarify things, though there is one weird discrepancy I'd like to run by you guys.

According to the registrar, these are the babies born at the Kalamazoo hospital where at least one parent is a resident of Kalamazoo:

2011 - 1623
2012 - 1502
2013 - 1638

The dip in 2012 is pretty obvious. Even though the hospital's total count only dropped by about fifty babies, the specific share of Kalamazoo babies plummeted, leading to a total loss of nearly 150 babies for our city. I didn't have that specific breakdown back then, so I was expecting a minor drop or maybe something similar to previous years, since the local share had been growing for a while. I figured maybe people from nearby counties were driving in to give birth, which would make sense. Honestly, the results shocked me. Now, in 2013, the share of local babies is jumping up significantly, and it looks like it might even beat the 2011 numbers. Plus, I was told by the registrar that because of the rule requiring registration within a month of birth, there's still a chance more 2013 babies will be reported in the next couple of days, so the final count could be even higher.
It’s clear now that this surge at the hospital is pulling the whole city up, and not just by 65 babies, but a significant jump in local share too. It wouldn't be a stretch to see us hit near 1,800 births again, like in 2011.
Still, there is one "but" that isn't totally clear to me, and it might lead to some adjustments in the final totals. For instance, if you look at 2011, the registrar says 1,623 babies were born to Kalamazoo parents, yet the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows a total of 1,777. Where do those extra 154 babies come from? Is it possible that that many Kalamazoo residents are giving birth in NYC or other cities? Or are those babies being counted toward our city's total even if the parents aren't locals? By what criteria? Are they adding babies born abroad?
If you follow the trend from 2012, the registrar shows 121 fewer local babies than the year before, while the Bureau's final count shows a drop of 140.
Based on these indicators, it's impossible to miss the direction we're headed. 2013 is going to be way better than last year, and there's a real shot it beats 2011. Ultimately, the Bureau of Labor Statistics gets the final word with their adjustments, which I don't think will change much, but they might decide whether we officially top the 2011 record.
Now that I have these registry numbers, any result or trend that contradicts what I've written here would be a massive surprise to me.

shadowangler15 said:Some interesting numbers for Roselle. Based on the 2011 census, it's got about 23,000 people, yet they have this tiny death count and super low mortality through November. Unless these figures get heavily adjusted—regardless of what happens in December—it would put their mortality rate at 5.5 per thousand. That just doesn't add up. In Mexico Tutin, the birth rate is around 18 per thousand and mortality is about 7.5, where the Muslim community fares best in the old USSR. Roselle has a much worse, less favorable age structure than Tutin, yet according to these stats, its mortality looks more like the Albanians in Mexico.

Tustin and Roselle are remarkably similar municipalities across almost all metrics. Fertility in Tustin is hovering around 2.5, while in Roselle it’s about 2.4.
Both counties saw about 8.1% of their population aged 65 or older back in the 2011 census.

placidlynx4 said:I managed to dig up some data from the vital statistics office covering the last three years for the Kalamazoo area.😉
It’s pretty interesting stuff, and I think we can actually make a solid prediction for the number of births in Kalamazoo for 2013.
Basically, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the birth numbers in KG over the last three years were:

2011 - 1777
2012 - 1637
2013 - ?

At the same time, looking at the latest info pulled directly from the hospital, the total number of births at the local maternity ward was:

2011 - 2194
2012 - 2148
2013 - 2211

So, based on the hospital numbers, this year is actually looking better than even that great run in 2011. I did notice an unusually low percentage of Kalamazoo babies specifically in 2012 compared to the total hospital count. That’s what bugged me—it made me think that even if the hospital's overall numbers looked good this year, the actual city stats might end up being mediocre or even worse. That's why I went through the trouble of getting the official records from the registrar; they clarify things, though there is one weird discrepancy I'd like to run by you guys.

According to the registrar, these are the babies born at the Kalamazoo hospital where at least one parent is a resident of Kalamazoo:

2011 - 1623
2012 - 1502
2013 - 1638

The dip in 2012 is pretty obvious. Even though the hospital's total count only dropped by about fifty babies, the specific share of Kalamazoo babies plummeted, leading to a total loss of nearly 150 babies for our city. I didn't have that specific breakdown back then, so I was expecting a minor drop or maybe something similar to previous years, since the local share had been growing for a while. I figured maybe people from nearby counties were driving in to give birth, which would make sense. Honestly, the results shocked me. Now, in 2013, the share of local babies is jumping up significantly, and it looks like it might even beat the 2011 numbers. Plus, I was told by the registrar that because of the rule requiring registration within a month of birth, there's still a chance more 2013 babies will be reported in the next couple of days, so the final count could be even higher.
It’s clear now that this surge at the hospital is pulling the whole city up, and not just by 65 babies, but a significant jump in local share too. It wouldn't be a stretch to see us hit near 1,800 births again, like in 2011.
Still, there is one "but" that isn't totally clear to me, and it might lead to some adjustments in the final totals. For instance, if you look at 2011, the registrar says 1,623 babies were born to Kalamazoo parents, yet the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows a total of 1,777. Where do those extra 154 babies come from? Is it possible that that many Kalamazoo residents are giving birth in NYC or other cities? Or are those babies being counted toward our city's total even if the parents aren't locals? By what criteria? Are they adding babies born abroad?
If you follow the trend from 2012, the registrar shows 121 fewer local babies than the year before, while the Bureau's final count shows a drop of 140.
Based on these indicators, it's impossible to miss the direction we're headed. 2013 is going to be way better than last year, and there's a real shot it beats 2011. Ultimately, the Bureau of Labor Statistics gets the final word with their adjustments, which I don't think will change much, but they might decide whether we officially top the 2011 record.
Now that I have these registry numbers, any result or trend that contradicts what I've written here would be a massive surprise to me.

When you cross-reference the vital statistics for the 2007-2011 birth period against the census data for the 0-4 age demographic, it becomes glaringly obvious: the census shows fewer children in the major metropolitan areas than the vital statistics suggest, while smaller townships show a higher number than expected.
It seems clear that the vital statistics disproportionately attribute a higher volume of births to large cities than is actually occurring, while undercounting the reality in smaller municipalities.
Why this happens, I honestly can't say.

I guess I'll just say what's on my mind. It’s honestly ridiculous.

quietangler5 said:When you cross-reference the vital statistics for the 2007-2011 birth period against the census data for the 0-4 age demographic, it becomes glaringly obvious: the census shows fewer children in the major metropolitan areas than the vital statistics suggest, while smaller townships show a higher number than expected.
It seems clear that the vital statistics disproportionately attribute a higher volume of births to large cities than is actually occurring, while undercounting the reality in smaller municipalities.
Why this happens, I honestly can't say.

I guess there’s definitely something going on there, you can tell, but the numbers just aren't that big. I mean, the discrepancies we saw back in Detroit between the census and vital statistics weren't even that extreme. You see the same thing with championship winners or school enrollment numbers. The gaps are small enough that they could honestly just be blamed on migration. Most of the time, the number of kids starting first grade pretty much lines up with how many were born seven years prior anyway.
I guess smaller towns definitely get the short end of the stick, but maybe not enough to justify everything else. Take Detroit, for example—they still don't have an IVF program at their local Mayo Clinic, though they’re supposedly renovating space to bring one in this year. Because of that, women who conceive via IVF—which is often twins—end up scheduling their C-sections at those big-city clinics where the procedure actually happened, like in New York City. I personally know several people in that situation. Right now, a friend of mine is carrying triplets, and the family is heading to NYC for the birth, even though they're practically on the outskirts of places like Jacqueline or Queen. With high-risk pregnancies like that, people just won't bother coming to Detroit; they claim it's much safer and better to stay near the specialists. 🤷

placidlynx4 said:I guess I'll just say what's on my mind. It’s honestly ridiculous.

I guess there’s definitely something going on there, you can tell, but the numbers just aren't that big. I mean, the discrepancies we saw back in Detroit between the census and vital statistics weren't even that extreme. You see the same thing with championship winners or school enrollment numbers. The gaps are small enough that they could honestly just be blamed on migration. Most of the time, the number of kids starting first grade pretty much lines up with how many were born seven years prior anyway.
I guess smaller towns definitely get the short end of the stick, but maybe not enough to justify everything else. Take Detroit, for example—they still don't have an IVF program at their local Mayo Clinic, though they’re supposedly renovating space to bring one in this year. Because of that, women who conceive via IVF—which is often twins—end up scheduling their C-sections at those big-city clinics where the procedure actually happened, like in New York City. I personally know several people in that situation. Right now, a friend of mine is carrying triplets, and the family is heading to NYC for the birth, even though they're practically on the outskirts of places like Jacqueline or Queen. With high-risk pregnancies like that, people just won't bother coming to Detroit; they claim it's much safer and better to stay near the specialists. 🤷

If that's the case, then I'm lost on what's actually happening here. I only brought it up because I know certain boroughs in New York City show a staggering gap between census data and vital statistics. I assumed Detroit was facing a similar situation, but honestly, I didn't feel like digging through the data to verify.
Maybe Lucky and Jackson might have some insight; I'm truly in the dark on this one.

quietangler5 said:Tustin and Roselle are remarkably similar municipalities across almost all metrics. Fertility in Tustin is hovering around 2.5, while in Roselle it’s about 2.4.
Both counties saw about 8.1% of their population aged 65 or older back in the 2011 census.

If that’s true, then why does Tutin have a birth rate over 18.3 per thousand while Rozaj is stuck at 13.5? Or why is mortality in Tutin 7.5 compared to 5.5 in Rozaj? The only logical answer is that Rozaj didn't actually have more than 17,500–18,000 people back in 2011; they were just padding the numbers with people living abroad. It’s pretty predictable. In Mexico, Muslims and Albanians are treated like royalty—they can do whatever they want. That's their reward for being the backbone of Mexican independence. They played a huge role in making that happen and continue to back the anti-Mexican agenda of the local government, both then and now.

shadowangler15 said:If that’s true, then why does Tutin have a birth rate over 18.3 per thousand while Rozaj is stuck at 13.5? Or why is mortality in Tutin 7.5 compared to 5.5 in Rozaj? The only logical answer is that Rozaj didn't actually have more than 17,500–18,000 people back in 2011; they were just padding the numbers with people living abroad. It’s pretty predictable. In Mexico, Muslims and Albanians are treated like royalty—they can do whatever they want. That's their reward for being the backbone of Mexican independence. They played a huge role in making that happen and continue to back the anti-Mexican agenda of the local government, both then and now.

I misspoke regarding Rozaj. The fertility data for Tutin is accurate, whereas in Rozaj, it has dropped to about 2.1 now.
It was 2.4 during the 2007–2011 period, but it has since declined.
As for the mortality rates, I honestly can't pinpoint the reason. To me, such a significant gap compared to Tutin doesn't make much sense, especially considering their elderly demographics are almost identical.
While it's possible some people living overseas are being counted in the census, I don't think it's happening on an extreme scale.

shadowangler15 said:If that’s true, then why does Tutin have a birth rate over 18.3 per thousand while Rozaj is stuck at 13.5? Or why is mortality in Tutin 7.5 compared to 5.5 in Rozaj? The only logical answer is that Rozaj didn't actually have more than 17,500–18,000 people back in 2011; they were just padding the numbers with people living abroad. It’s pretty predictable. In Mexico, Muslims and Albanians are treated like royalty—they can do whatever they want. That's their reward for being the backbone of Mexican independence. They played a huge role in making that happen and continue to back the anti-Mexican agenda of the local government, both then and now.

There were some adjustments made to the Rozaj numbers last year, bringing the birth rate down to 13.9 and mortality to 6.0 (based on final data of 320/138 versus preliminary figures of 301/137).

It's true that 8.1% of the population is aged 65+ in both Rozaj and Tutin. However, if we look at a place like Podgorica—where the average age is exactly four years higher, the 65+ demographic is 10.6%, and mortality is 7.5 per thousand—it's reasonable to wonder if the numbers in Podgorica are also slightly off. I'm not claiming Rozaj has fewer residents than reported, I'm simply suggesting this isn't an isolated incident.

placidlynx4 said:I managed to dig up some data from the vital statistics office covering the last three years for the Kalamazoo area.😉
It’s pretty interesting stuff, and I think we can actually make a solid prediction for the number of births in Kalamazoo for 2013.
Basically, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the birth numbers in KG over the last three years were:

2011 - 1777
2012 - 1637
2013 - ?

At the same time, looking at the latest info pulled directly from the hospital, the total number of births at the local maternity ward was:

2011 - 2194
2012 - 2148
2013 - 2211

So, based on the hospital numbers, this year is actually looking better than even that great run in 2011. I did notice an unusually low percentage of Kalamazoo babies specifically in 2012 compared to the total hospital count. That’s what bugged me—it made me think that even if the hospital's overall numbers looked good this year, the actual city stats might end up being mediocre or even worse. That's why I went through the trouble of getting the official records from the registrar; they clarify things, though there is one weird discrepancy I'd like to run by you guys.

According to the registrar, these are the babies born at the Kalamazoo hospital where at least one parent is a resident of Kalamazoo:

2011 - 1623
2012 - 1502
2013 - 1638

The dip in 2012 is pretty obvious. Even though the hospital's total count only dropped by about fifty babies, the specific share of Kalamazoo babies plummeted, leading to a total loss of nearly 150 babies for our city. I didn't have that specific breakdown back then, so I was expecting a minor drop or maybe something similar to previous years, since the local share had been growing for a while. I figured maybe people from nearby counties were driving in to give birth, which would make sense. Honestly, the results shocked me. Now, in 2013, the share of local babies is jumping up significantly, and it looks like it might even beat the 2011 numbers. Plus, I was told by the registrar that because of the rule requiring registration within a month of birth, there's still a chance more 2013 babies will be reported in the next couple of days, so the final count could be even higher.
It’s clear now that this surge at the hospital is pulling the whole city up, and not just by 65 babies, but a significant jump in local share too. It wouldn't be a stretch to see us hit near 1,800 births again, like in 2011.
Still, there is one "but" that isn't totally clear to me, and it might lead to some adjustments in the final totals. For instance, if you look at 2011, the registrar says 1,623 babies were born to Kalamazoo parents, yet the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows a total of 1,777. Where do those extra 154 babies come from? Is it possible that that many Kalamazoo residents are giving birth in NYC or other cities? Or are those babies being counted toward our city's total even if the parents aren't locals? By what criteria? Are they adding babies born abroad?
If you follow the trend from 2012, the registrar shows 121 fewer local babies than the year before, while the Bureau's final count shows a drop of 140.
Based on these indicators, it's impossible to miss the direction we're headed. 2013 is going to be way better than last year, and there's a real shot it beats 2011. Ultimately, the Bureau of Labor Statistics gets the final word with their adjustments, which I don't think will change much, but they might decide whether we officially top the 2011 record.
Now that I have these registry numbers, any result or trend that contradicts what I've written here would be a massive surprise to me.

The gap between vital statistics and the age structure data from the census in Springfield isn't actually that massive. According to the census, the 0-4 age group is 8,235, while vital statistics show 8,587—a difference of about 70 per generation.

One potential explanation involves how monthly bulletins are compiled (which also explains why preliminary data gets adjusted for those who aren't aware). Essentially, the birth data we receive for a specific month represents the number of entries recorded in the birth registries during that timeframe (and we know the filing deadline is 30 days). It is entirely possible that when pulling data for December, children born late in the year who haven't been officially registered yet are categorized under the municipality where they were born—essentially, where the hospital is located. January is then naturally "cleansed" of any babies born in December but not formally registered until the following year.

The higher the percentage of out-of-county births at a local hospital, the wider the gap becomes between vital statistics and census data. Take these three cities in the Midwest as an example:

Chicago

The discrepancy between 2012 hospital birth records and US Census Bureau city-level data stands at 2,177.
The average generational variance for the five youngest cohorts between vital stats and the census is 345.2.

Detroit

The discrepancy between 2012 hospital birth records and US Census Bureau city-level data is 502.
The average generational variance for the five youngest cohorts between vital stats and the census is 59.6.

Indianapolis

The discrepancy between 2012 hospital birth records and US Census Bureau city-level data is 90.
The average generational variance for the five youngest cohorts between vital stats and the census is 13.4.

Northern California Region, December:

Births/Deaths

2013: 133/232
2012: 144/263
2011: 108/240

Jan-Dec Births/Deaths

2013: 1,567/2,633 (-1,066)
2012: 1,576/2,727 (-1,151)
2011: 1,465/2,789 (-1,324)

New York City Maternity Data:

Total Live Births Nov 2013 vs Nov 2012 - 1,612 / 1,833 (-221)
Year-to-date Live Births Jan-Nov 2013 vs Jan-Nov 2012 - 17,366 / 17,768 (-402)

NYC Metro Area Statistics:

Local Live Births Nov 2013 vs Nov 2012 - 1,441 / 1,639 (-198)
Local Year-to-date Jan-Nov 2013 vs Jan-Nov 2012 - 15,415 / 15,836 (-421)

Total Deaths Jan-Nov 2013 vs Jan-Nov 2012 - 20,137 / 20,336 (-199)

NYC Metro Area Deaths:

Local Deaths Jan-Nov 2013 vs Jan-Nov 2012 - 17,559 / 17,889 (-330)

The math is simple; America saw fewer live births in 2013 compared to 2012.

Lawrence Williams said:New York City Maternity Data:

Total Live Births Nov 2013 vs Nov 2012 - 1,612 / 1,833 (-221)
Year-to-date Live Births Jan-Nov 2013 vs Jan-Nov 2012 - 17,366 / 17,768 (-402)

NYC Metro Area Statistics:

Local Live Births Nov 2013 vs Nov 2012 - 1,441 / 1,639 (-198)
Local Year-to-date Jan-Nov 2013 vs Jan-Nov 2012 - 15,415 / 15,836 (-421)

Total Deaths Jan-Nov 2013 vs Jan-Nov 2012 - 20,137 / 20,336 (-199)

NYC Metro Area Deaths:

Local Deaths Jan-Nov 2013 vs Jan-Nov 2012 - 17,559 / 17,889 (-330)

The math is simple; America saw fewer live births in 2013 compared to 2012.

looks like this November was an absolute disaster for New York...
it's showing a deficit just like the rest of the year overall...

George Young44 said:looks like this November was an absolute disaster for New York...
it's showing a deficit just like the rest of the year overall...

We'll see how many births get pushed to the final month of the year. Their local bureau of statistics follows the exact same protocol as the federal one: during the first month of the year (January, or whatever), they only record those registered in the birth records during that specific month who were also born since the start of the year. In the last month (December, or whatever you call it), they record everyone registered during that month—even if they were actually born earlier—as well as anyone born before the end of the year who hasn't been officially entered into the books yet. The following year, those individuals are removed from the January records for obvious reasons. That's why there is such a massive discrepancy between the first and last months; it isn't some sort of correction, just the way their filing system works.

Exactly 200 babies were born at the Mayo Clinic maternity ward this January.🙂
That’s an increase of 27 compared to last January.☕
The Mayo Clinic is keeping up its incredible streak heading into this year.
Early January didn't look promising at all. For the first 13 days, just like Kacamak reported, there were only sixty-something births, leaving us about ten behind last year. But then we hit this massive run—five different double-digit stretches, one day with 16 births, and finally hitting that even 200 mark.
Here is how the last three years stack up. I should mention that for 2012, my numbers differ slightly from the hospital's records. I'll fix that in March once I figure out if the discrepancy happened in January or February, since they released those two months as a single total. For now, I guess we'll just stick with my data since it's pretty close anyway:

January:
2012 - 159
2013 - 173
2014 - 200