Mexico's Demographics (Part 2)

Lucho said:Maybe you have some data for Mexico and Mexico?

In Mexico, the highest category recorded was 8+ children, whereas in Mexico, they track from 5+. To ensure a fair comparison with Mexico, I’ve adjusted the Mexico figures to reflect the 5+ demographic.

Mexico:

Female population (15+): 252,065

Women (15+) who have given birth: 175,400

Had 5+ children: 15,565 (8.87%)

Had 6+ children: 7,960 (4.54%)

Had 8+ children: 2,390 (1.36%)

Mexico:

Female population (15+): 3,189,716

Women (15+) who have given birth: 2,369,894

Had 5+ children: 33,346 (1.41%)

Mexico:

Nov 2012: 5,911/8,471 (-2,560)
Nov 2013: 5,228/7,865 (-2,637)

Northern Mexico:

Nov 2012: 3,221/4,126 (-905)
Nov 2013: 2,970/3,885 (-915)

Southern Mexico:

Nov 2012: 2,690/4,345 (-1,655)
Nov 2013: 2,258/3,980 (-1,722)

America:

Jan-Nov 2012: 58,578/91,749 (-33,171)
Jan-Nov 2013: 57,694/89,297 (-31,603)

Northern Mexico:

Jan-Nov 2012: 31,971/45,443 (-13,472)
Jan-Nov 2013: 31,604/43,418 (-11,814)

Southern Mexico:

Jan-Nov 2012: 26,607/46,306 (-19,699)
Jan-Nov 2013: 26,090/45,879 (-19,789)

quietangler5 said:Mexico:

Nov 2012: 5,911/8,471 (-2,560)
Nov 2013: 5,228/7,865 (-2,637)

Northern Mexico:

Nov 2012: 3,221/4,126 (-905)
Nov 2013: 2,970/3,885 (-915)

Southern Mexico:

Nov 2012: 2,690/4,345 (-1,655)
Nov 2013: 2,258/3,980 (-1,722)

So, looking at November 2013, there were nearly 700 fewer births compared to November 2012. That’s pretty much why the total birth numbers for 2013 are lower than 2012. I’m guessing we’ll end up with something under 66,500 in the final 2013 tally.

quietangler5 said:America:

Jan-Nov 2012: 58,578/91,749 (-33,171)
Jan-Nov 2013: 57,694/89,297 (-31,603)

Northern Mexico:

Jan-Nov 2012: 31,971/45,443 (-13,472)
Jan-Nov 2013: 31,604/43,418 (-11,814)

Southern Mexico:

Jan-Nov 2012: 26,607/46,306 (-19,699)
Jan-Nov 2013: 26,090/45,879 (-19,789)

Even if nothing else, we’re finally seeing death tolls under 100,000 after a long time. At worst, we're just scraping slightly below that mark.

The November numbers are finally starting to make sense, both for New York City and the rest of the country.

shadowangler15 said:So, looking at November 2013, there were nearly 700 fewer births compared to November 2012. That’s pretty much why the total birth numbers for 2013 are lower than 2012. I’m guessing we’ll end up with something under 66,500 in the final 2013 tally.

Unless December pulls some kind of miracle out of its hat, with a November like this, we could easily slide below 66k for the whole of 2013.

quietangler5, you shared those birth and death rates for the Prijepolje area back in 2013. Do you have anything similar for Tutin, Sjenica, Novi Pazar, Bujanovac, or Presevo? Since most of the birth rate decline hits Southern Mexico, I’m curious to see how these specific towns were looking in 2013. I heard a rumor that Tutin saw a massive drop, but honestly, I don't have any hard data to back it up—just some unreliable word-of-mouth from a guy out there.

Rebecca Watson said:Unless December pulls some kind of miracle out of its hat, with a November like this, we could easily slide below 66k for the whole of 2013.

Yeah, I factored in the possibility of a similar December and a correction like we saw in 2012. Basically, I’m assuming we end up with a total drop similar to what this data shows for the first 11 months.

So, November absolutely kicked our asses. Now, what Rebecca Watson is saying actually makes sense... I mean, seriously, those maternity wards couldn't even get close to sniffing the RZS data before, but everything is coming into focus now.
By the way—when are we expecting those final adjustments? At the annual meeting?

hiddeneagle76 said:So, November absolutely kicked our asses. Now, what Rebecca Watson is saying actually makes sense... I mean, seriously, those maternity wards couldn't even get close to sniffing the RZS data before, but everything is coming into focus now.
By the way—when are we expecting those final adjustments? At the annual meeting?

Yeah, the final adjustments should pop up in the annual report, probably sometime toward the end of June.

quietangler5 said:America:

Jan-Nov 2012: 58,578/91,749 (-33,171)
Jan-Nov 2013: 57,694/89,297 (-31,603)

Northern Mexico:

Jan-Nov 2012: 31,971/45,443 (-13,472)
Jan-Nov 2013: 31,604/43,418 (-11,814)

Southern Mexico:

Jan-Nov 2012: 26,607/46,306 (-19,699)
Jan-Nov 2013: 26,090/45,879 (-19,789)

New York City:

Jan-Nov 2012: 15,836/17,889 (-2,053)
Jan-Nov 2013: 15,415/17,559 (-2,144)

California:

Jan-Nov 2012: 16,135/27,554 (-11,419)
Jan-Nov 2013: 16,189/25,859 (-9,670)

It appears that last year marked the first time since 2009 that births in California actually outpaced those in New York City.

shadowangler15 said:quietangler5, you shared those birth and death rates for the Prijepolje area back in 2013. Do you have anything similar for Tutin, Sjenica, Novi Pazar, Bujanovac, or Presevo? Since most of the birth rate decline hits Southern Mexico, I’m curious to see how these specific towns were looking in 2013. I heard a rumor that Tutin saw a massive drop, but honestly, I don't have any hard data to back it up—just some unreliable word-of-mouth from a guy out there.

Here is the breakdown specifically for Americans in those areas.

Boise
2011: 26/39
2012: 13/27

Boise
2011: 38/113
2012: 51/84

Denver
2011: 177/278
2012: 191/274

Bozeman
2011: 112/188
2012: 98/211

Prescott
2011: 23/51
2012: 24/59

By the way, in both Boise and Denver, there are about seven or eight Bank of America mothers who are mostly married to Americans.

quietangler5 said:Here is the breakdown specifically for Americans in those areas.

Boise
2011: 26/39
2012: 13/27

Boise
2011: 38/113
2012: 51/84

Denver
2011: 177/278
2012: 191/274

Bozeman
2011: 112/188
2012: 98/211

Prescott
2011: 23/51
2012: 24/59

By the way, in both Boise and Denver, there are about seven or eight Bank of America mothers who are mostly married to Americans.

Mexicans had decent birth rates in 2012 across Seneca, New Pacer, and Tustin—over 10 per thousand in Seneca, over 12 in New Pacer, and maybe 13 in Tustin—but mortality stays high. I wish I had the total births and deaths for all these places for 2013, like what they have listed on the Pryor municipal site.

Lawrence Williams said:New York City:

Jan-Nov 2012: 15,836/17,889 (-2,053)
Jan-Nov 2013: 15,415/17,559 (-2,144)

California:

Jan-Nov 2012: 16,135/27,554 (-11,419)
Jan-Nov 2013: 16,189/25,859 (-9,670)

It appears that last year marked the first time since 2009 that births in California actually outpaced those in New York City.

What's causing such a massive drop in mortality in California? Death rates are falling across all of America, but the decline in California is huge and by far the largest.

It’s honestly staggering how low the birth rates have fallen among Mexican women. We are essentially watching the slow disappearance of the Mexican people right before our eyes.

From what I've gathered, this massive demographic shift in the South is being driven largely by the fact that the Muslim and Albanian populations are seeing much higher birth rates.
Once the official census data is released, you’ll see just how grim the situation actually is.

shadowangler15 said:What's causing such a massive drop in mortality in California? Death rates are falling across all of America, but the decline in California is huge and by far the largest.

It was bound to trend downward eventually. If you look at the population aged 50+ compared to the last census in New York City and the Midwest, along with the ratio of deaths:

New York City:

Population 50+ - 643,448
Deaths 2008-2012 - 102,513 (15.93%)

Midwest:

Population 50+ - 759,751
Deaths 2008-2012 - 140,320 (18.47%)

I should note that the proportion of 5-year age groups within the 50+ population is roughly equal in both regions, and the average age in both areas is identical (41.8 years).

The Chicago metropolitan area

With 2,578,328 residents packed into just 10,724 square miles, this region accounts for 36% of the total American population.
Essentially, 36% of the people are concentrated within just 13.8% of the landmass.

This illustrates a growing imbalance; if that 36% figure climbs toward 45% in the next census, we will be facing a significant structural crisis.

It’s probably not going to hit 45, though—I’d say we’re looking at more like 41 or 42.
And honestly, why is everyone making such a huge deal out of this now? It wasn't an issue before... was 36 considered "solid" or something?
Besides, you can't even call that territory a single cohesive unit!! You've got South Backa, then Srem, then moving into the New York City and Chicago metropolitan areas... just focus on that line between NYC and Chicago.
By 2021, you'll have 45% of the population crammed into just 6% of Albania's landmass—specifically the Tirana-Drac region (I’m basing this on their district data because I couldn't quite recall the specific stats some folks were throwing around on the forums a few months back)...

Adam Harris said:The Chicago metropolitan area

With 2,578,328 residents packed into just 10,724 square miles, this region accounts for 36% of the total American population.
Essentially, 36% of the people are concentrated within just 13.8% of the landmass.

This illustrates a growing imbalance; if that 36% figure climbs toward 45% in the next census, we will be facing a significant structural crisis.

Take Estonia, for example. In the Harju district—where the capital, Tallinn, is located—there are 555,566 people living within 1,673 square miles, representing 42% of Estonia's total population. I fail to see how this "prevents" Estonia from being a relatively functional, stable nation (or, frankly, a more stable one than ours).
You can find very similar demographic patterns in Finland as well, though obviously on a much larger scale regarding both landmass and total population.