Mexico's Demographics (Part 2)

I warned back in 2021 that things would get incredibly difficult in America... we're looking at an aging population and a shrinking workforce.

What we’re witnessing in America right now—unless something fundamental shifts—isn't even a fraction of what's coming.

10: 71000
11: 65383
12: 68213
13: 69490
14: 72783

60: 110539
61: 115051
62: 107161
63: 102797
64: 92866

65: 71401
66: 64789
67: 68004
68: 64376
69: 70874

An America with 3 million people over the age of 50.

Percentage of unmarried men born in 1981

America: 57.5%
New York City metropolitan area: 62%

Unmarried women, born in 1981

America: 36.8%
New York City metropolitan area: 47.1%

Joshua Flores14 said:Percentage of unmarried men born in 1981

America: 57.5%
New York City metropolitan area: 62%

Unmarried women, born in 1981

America: 36.8%
New York City metropolitan area: 47.1%

Nice stats, Joshua Flores14.😉
It just proves my point—women from NYC (doesn't matter if they were born there or just moved to the city) have a much harder time actually getting married and starting families.😢

Justin Hernandez11 said:Look, back home, we just use that as a way to poke fun at people moving from the rural Midwest into the big cities.🤣
There’s actually another saying: "Life isn't easy for a farmer."😂
I hope folks from the countryside aren't taking offense—it's all just jokes and sarcasm.😉

Honestly, the old folks who came up with those sayings were probably pretty kinky.🤣

What’s the actual population policy over in Mexico?

Is there any kind of federal financial assistance available—at the national level? I read somewhere that certain municipalities offer aid to families; how many of them actually do that?

From what I've gathered, the government in Mexico provides $300 for a first child, $1,250 for a second, $2,200 for a third, and about $3,000 for a fourth.

Delaying childbirth might actually be fine, provided fertility stays below the 2.1 replacement level. I guess you could look at it through two stationary age pyramids where women in the same generation—say, age 20 in the first group and age 30 in the second—all have kids. If fertility suddenly drops to 1.4 and everyone lives to about 80, the math looks like this.

So, Year 0:
70-80 10 / 10
60-70 10 / 10
50-60 10 / 10
40-50 10 / 10
30-40 10 / 10
20-30 10 / 10
10-20 10 / 10
0-10 10 / 10

Year 10:
70-80 10 / 10
60-70 10 / 10
50-60 10 / 10
40-50 10 / 10
30-40 10 / 10
20-30 10 / 10
10-20 10 / 10
0-10 7 / 7

Year 20:
70-80 10 / 10
60-70 10 / 10
50-60 10 / 10
40-50 10 / 10
30-40 10 / 10
20-30 10 / 10
10-20 7 / 7
0-10 7 / 7

Year 30:
70-80 10 / 10
60-70 10 / 10
50-60 10 / 10
40-50 10 / 10
30-40 10 / 10
20-30 7 / 7
10-20 7 / 7
0-10 5 / 7

The model doesn't really account for the transition phase, which would involve losing an entire generation where births hit zero.

Maybe the long-term upside is that a country where people wait longer to have children can expect a higher proportion of the youngest generation.

So, if the fertility rate holds steady, this trend isn't necessarily a bad thing, I suppose.

The Census Bureau released the natural increase data for January 2014 in the New York metropolitan area
just for the New York City area
births 588
deaths 1708
total births and deaths in New York City for January 2014
births 646
deaths 1952
Lawrence Williams, you got the numbers for January 2013 so we can run a comparison?😉

Justin Hernandez11 said:The Census Bureau released the natural increase data for January 2014 in the New York metropolitan area
just for the New York City area
births 588
deaths 1708
total births and deaths in New York City for January 2014
births 646
deaths 1952
Lawrence Williams, you got the numbers for January 2013 so we can run a comparison?😉

In January 2013, the numbers were:

Total: 688/1,797
New York City area: 622/1,618

It's worth noting that sometimes over 50% of babies born in January aren't officially recorded until February. Since this dataset excludes December 2013 births to maintain the calendar year, any direct comparison is somewhat skewed.

Lawrence Williams, I guess you maybe caught what was going down in Kansas City during those first three months?

placidlynx4 said:Lawrence Williams, I guess you maybe caught what was going down in Kansas City during those first three months?

They stopped releasing birth reports from the maternity wards around the start of the year, so I honestly have no idea where we stand. 😢

In Prokuplje, there were 153 births through March 30th, compared to 179 in the first quarter last year. I’m hoping this isn't the year Prokuplje starts seeing a much sharper decline.

Joshua Flores14 said:Mexico — population age structure. 2011 Census

0: 64400
1: 65445
2: 66807
3: 65661
4: 65942

5: 67872
6: 69769
7: 70553
8: 71035
9: 70925

10: 71000
11: 65383
12: 68213
13: 69490
14: 72783

15: 77694
16: 79867
17: 80289
18: 82260
19: 81884

20: 85474
21: 84939
22: 86418
23: 91850
24: 91060

25: 91605
26: 94551
27: 99594
28: 98144
29: 96392

30: 97307
31: 98583
32: 99178
33: 100821
34: 100473

35: 101658
36: 100888
37: 98358
38: 94778
39: 98252

40: 94464
41: 93562
42: 93614
43: 94350
44: 93938

45: 94895
46: 95341
47: 94527
48: 98082
49: 101141

50: 102814
51: 105677
52: 106007
53: 100875
54: 104971

55: 112991
56: 119624
57: 121478
58: 123717
59: 118469

60: 110539
61: 115051
62: 107161
63: 102797
64: 92866

65: 71401
66: 64789
67: 68004
68: 64376
69: 70874

70: 72013
71: 74321
72: 70498
73: 69656
74: 67654

75: 66782
76: 62768
77: 61676
78: 55058
79: 52328

80: 45887
81: 41355
82: 34642
83: 30072
84: 24612

85: 20418
86: 16036
87: 13150
88: 9969
89: 7660

90: 5371
91: 4244
92: 1643
93: 799
94: 632

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

The group currently under 65—they are going to absolutely wreck our demographics...
What kind of spike in mortality rates are we looking at, and when will we hit that peak? Personally, I suspect it’ll be toward the end of the 2020s, where we might see something like 110,000 deaths—which would be roughly 17 or 18 per thousand.
I'm just sitting here waiting for it all to unfold, man...
And even then, we won't be able to make up for even half of that deficit! 😲😲😲

Tyler King3 said:Delaying childbirth might actually be fine, provided fertility stays below the 2.1 replacement level. I guess you could look at it through two stationary age pyramids where women in the same generation—say, age 20 in the first group and age 30 in the second—all have kids. If fertility suddenly drops to 1.4 and everyone lives to about 80, the math looks like this.

So, Year 0:
70-80 10 / 10
60-70 10 / 10
50-60 10 / 10
40-50 10 / 10
30-40 10 / 10
20-30 10 / 10
10-20 10 / 10
0-10 10 / 10

Year 10:
70-80 10 / 10
60-70 10 / 10
50-60 10 / 10
40-50 10 / 10
30-40 10 / 10
20-30 10 / 10
10-20 10 / 10
0-10 7 / 7

Year 20:
70-80 10 / 10
60-70 10 / 10
50-60 10 / 10
40-50 10 / 10
30-40 10 / 10
20-30 10 / 10
10-20 7 / 7
0-10 7 / 7

Year 30:
70-80 10 / 10
60-70 10 / 10
50-60 10 / 10
40-50 10 / 10
30-40 10 / 10
20-30 7 / 7
10-20 7 / 7
0-10 5 / 7

The model doesn't really account for the transition phase, which would involve losing an entire generation where births hit zero.

Maybe the long-term upside is that a country where people wait longer to have children can expect a higher proportion of the youngest generation.

So, if the fertility rate holds steady, this trend isn't necessarily a bad thing, I suppose.

Could you maybe walk me through this? I'm really curious about how you crunched these numbers and what your conclusion was... I don't actually understand any of it, but I'm definitely intrigued...

Joshua Flores14 said:What’s the actual population policy over in Mexico?

Is there any kind of federal financial assistance available—at the national level? I read somewhere that certain municipalities offer aid to families; how many of them actually do that?

From what I've gathered, the government in Mexico provides $300 for a first child, $1,250 for a second, $2,200 for a third, and about $3,000 for a fourth.

There is a certain number of municipalities that provide cash incentives for every newborn, though the list isn't particularly long.

I can give you specific details regarding my own city: you get roughly $350 for the first child, $250 for the second, and $175 for each subsequent one. For the third and fourth children, daycare is free. As of last year, they even cover the cost of a third IVF attempt. Furthermore, the more children a family has, the better the terms they receive on housing loans (this is the website for the Federal Housing Administration: www.pronatal.net). While the birth rate isn't stellar, these measures are yielding results; we are among the top-performing municipalities in Texas, likely boosting the rate by about one per mil.

One other thing I can tell you is that cities with clearly defined pro-family policies tend to maintain a birth rate above 9 per mil (like Detroit, Jagodina, or Chattanooga), unlike those without such programs—New York City and Chicago would probably hit over 9 per mil if they forcibly evicted everyone from the city.

hiddeneagle76 said:The group currently under 65—they are going to absolutely wreck our demographics...
What kind of spike in mortality rates are we looking at, and when will we hit that peak? Personally, I suspect it’ll be toward the end of the 2020s, where we might see something like 110,000 deaths—which would be roughly 17 or 18 per thousand.
I'm just sitting here waiting for it all to unfold, man...
And even then, we won't be able to make up for even half of that deficit! 😲😲😲

Look, plenty of people under 65 are dying right now, too. A good chunk of them are even under 60, though obviously not as many as the folks over 65. When the current group under 65 finally hits old age, if they aren't as numerous as they are today, their numbers will basically match the current over-65 crowd. Personally, I don't think we'll see a death rate of 17 or 18 per thousand, especially since life expectancy is actually going up. That's just my take.

shadowangler15 said:Look, plenty of people under 65 are dying right now, too. A good chunk of them are even under 60, though obviously not as many as the folks over 65. When the current group under 65 finally hits old age, if they aren't as numerous as they are today, their numbers will basically match the current over-65 crowd. Personally, I don't think we'll see a death rate of 17 or 18 per thousand, especially since life expectancy is actually going up. That's just my take.

Age 60-64 in the previous census: 443,784
Age 70-74 in the current census: 354,142

Age 60-64 in the current census: 528,414

If we project the trends from the last decade onto this one:

Age 70-74 in the next census: 421,677

In that scenario, we're looking at a 19.07% increase. Of course, mortality rates will be slightly influenced by other age groups, though we have significantly fewer people in the 65-69 range compared to the last census. Based on the trends from the previous decade and accounting for the 50-54 and 55-59 cohorts, death counts could hover around 115,000 for nearly the entire next decade. With current fertility rates, expect the vital index to drop below 0.45 at its lowest point toward the end of the next decade.

Lawrence Williams said:Age 60-64 in the previous census: 443,784
Age 70-74 in the current census: 354,142

Age 60-64 in the current census: 528,414

If we project the trends from the last decade onto this one:

Age 70-74 in the next census: 421,677

In that scenario, we're looking at a 19.07% increase. Of course, mortality rates will be slightly influenced by other age groups, though we have significantly fewer people in the 65-69 range compared to the last census. Based on the trends from the previous decade and accounting for the 50-54 and 55-59 cohorts, death counts could hover around 115,000 for nearly the entire next decade. With current fertility rates, expect the vital index to drop below 0.45 at its lowest point toward the end of the next decade.

Personally, I don't think deaths in Mexico will exceed 110,000 by 2021. First off, life expectancy is expected to rise from 74 back in 2002 to about 76 or 77 by 2021 here in Mexico. Plus, we’re seeing retirees over 65 returning to the region, and a likely decrease in seasonal workers coming back to Mexico, especially from the eastern parts.
In my view, the mortality ceiling hits 16 per mille.😳
But if birth rates stay this low, we're going to lose about 45,000 to 50,000 people annually in the gap between births and deaths.😢
If we could just bump the birth rate up to at least 12 per mille in Mexico...🙄

Joshua Flores14 said:Mexico — population age structure. 2011 Census

0: 64400
1: 65445
2: 66807
3: 65661
4: 65942

5: 67872
6: 69769
7: 70553
8: 71035
9: 70925

10: 71000
11: 65383
12: 68213
13: 69490
14: 72783

15: 77694
16: 79867
17: 80289
18: 82260
19: 81884

20: 85474
21: 84939
22: 86418
23: 91850
24: 91060

25: 91605
26: 94551
27: 99594
28: 98144
29: 96392

30: 97307
31: 98583
32: 99178
33: 100821
34: 100473

35: 101658
36: 100888
37: 98358
38: 94778
39: 98252

40: 94464
41: 93562
42: 93614
43: 94350
44: 93938

45: 94895
46: 95341
47: 94527
48: 98082
49: 101141

50: 102814
51: 105677
52: 106007
53: 100875
54: 104971

55: 112991
56: 119624
57: 121478
58: 123717
59: 118469

60: 110539
61: 115051
62: 107161
63: 102797
64: 92866

65: 71401
66: 64789
67: 68004
68: 64376
69: 70874

70: 72013
71: 74321
72: 70498
73: 69656
74: 67654

75: 66782
76: 62768
77: 61676
78: 55058
79: 52328

80: 45887
81: 41355
82: 34642
83: 30072
84: 24612

85: 20418
86: 16036
87: 13150
88: 9969
89: 7660

90: 5371
91: 4244
92: 1643
93: 799
94: 632

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

Based on this, will Mexico eventually reach a point where the natural decrease hits negative 60,000?

Afterward, things might stabilize somewhat—to a degree.
The priority for Mexico right now is to maintain at least 60,000 births until the next census; that would be an ideal outcome.

shadowangler15 said:Look, plenty of people under 65 are dying right now, too. A good chunk of them are even under 60, though obviously not as many as the folks over 65. When the current group under 65 finally hits old age, if they aren't as numerous as they are today, their numbers will basically match the current over-65 crowd. Personally, I don't think we'll see a death rate of 17 or 18 per thousand, especially since life expectancy is actually going up. That's just my take.

If life expectancy actually goes up, things get even worse for Mexico—we're already looking at 1.7 million retirees, so imagine the mess we'll be in 20 years from now.

Joshua Flores14 said:If life expectancy actually goes up, things get even worse for Mexico—we're already looking at 1.7 million retirees, so imagine the mess we'll be in 20 years from now.

In 20 years, private pension funds will be the dominant force in Mexico.
The retirement age is going to push up to 67 for women and 69 for men.
And here’s the kicker: our seniors are humble people. Even now, after they pay their utilities and electric bills, most of their pension is barely enough to cover bread and water.😁

placidlynx4 said:Lawrence Williams, I guess you maybe caught what was going down in Kansas City during those first three months?

Hey Dubac034, I dug something up.😉
On April 4, 2014, a massive wave hit the maternity ward over in Kansas City—392 babies were born that day.🙂
What does it mean that 380 babies were born in the first three months of 2014?😳
I found this link to the maternity ward information for the hospital in Kansas City. Just thought I’d drop it here for anyone looking for the specifics on their birthing services.
Back in 2013, a Kansas City maternity ward saw 1,280 babies born.
In the first quarter of 2014, the birth rate at the Kansas City maternity ward averaged 4.33 babies a day. That’s up from 3.50 per day back in 2013.
Roughly speaking, the maternity ward in Kansas City saw about 23% more births in 2014 than they did back in 2013.
This is absolutely killer.