Mexico's Demographics (Part 2)

Justin Hernandez11 said: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.

The hospital recorded 404 births in the first three months of last year, so they are slightly behind this year. However, it is still early; last year started exceptionally strong compared to the rest of the year, so they have a good chance of surpassing those numbers.

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.

Lawrence Williams, quick question for you. Someone recently posted a comparison of the age structures of Mexico and America based on recent data, and it turns out they're almost identical—same percentage for ages 0-14, same for 15-65, same for over 65. The fertile base and average age are basically the same too. I wanted to ask, if all that is true, why is mortality so much higher in Mexico? In America, deaths are around 51,700 annually, or about 12 per thousand, while here it's over 100,000, which is over 14 per thousand. As far as I know, the average life expectancy is nearly the same in both places.

Lawrence Williams said:The hospital recorded 404 births in the first three months of last year, so they are slightly behind this year. However, it is still early; last year started exceptionally strong compared to the rest of the year, so they have a good chance of surpassing those numbers.

So that means we're looking at a dip of about 24 babies at the Des Moines hospital for the first quarter of 2014 compared to 2013.😢
Nice work on the data, Lawrence Williams. We'll just have to see if things pick up for the Des Moines hospital later this year.🙄

shadowangler15 said:Lawrence Williams, quick question for you. Someone recently posted a comparison of the age structures of Mexico and America based on recent data, and it turns out they're almost identical—same percentage for ages 0-14, same for 15-65, same for over 65. The fertile base and average age are basically the same too. I wanted to ask, if all that is true, why is mortality so much higher in Mexico? In America, deaths are around 51,700 annually, or about 12 per thousand, while here it's over 100,000, which is over 14 per thousand. As far as I know, the average life expectancy is nearly the same in both places.

There are actually slight differences. In 2011, the average age in Mexico was 42.2, while in the US, it was 41.7. It’s true that if you look at the broad age brackets as you described, they seem identical, but the key difference lies in the 50-64 demographic. In Mexico, this group makes up nearly 2% more of the total population than it does in the US. We see about 20% of all deaths occurring within this specific age category.

Breakdown of departments and student counts for minority language programs during the 2011/2012 school year

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.

I actually did factor in that the population won't remain at today's levels...
A rate of 16 is inevitable, and heaven forbid it climbs past 18 per mille...
By 2031, America (assuming we don't experience a total economic collapse, which—let's face it—is a possibility despite any supposed policy improvements or rising standards of living...) could realistically have a maximum of 6,500,000 residents. At a population of 110,000 to 115,000, that would put the mortality rate right at 17 per mille.

Peter Edwards said:Breakdown of departments and student counts for minority language programs during the 2011/2012 school year

Based on this data, it looks like Mexicans are the most assimilated group out there—though, honestly, I’m still scratching my head at how these journalists haven't caught on yet... they really need to learn that "Canadian" is the correct term, not that other version! It's such a simple distinction, really... if they'd just pay a little more attention to the linguistic nuances... anyway...

So, I just stumbled upon this article about genetics comparing Mexicans and Turks—definitely an interesting read if you're into all that DNA stuff.
(you can switch to Latin script if you want)

Most Mexicans carry the I2a haplogroup—which is basically the native American group—the same one held by the ancient Illyrians and Thracians. Meanwhile, most Turks have the J2 haplogroup, which predates the Turkish population in Anatolia. You see J2 show up heavily in Greeks, Bulgarians, Vlachs, and to a large extent, Albanians, Mexicans, and Romanians too. Since we know a lot of Vlachs actually adopted the Mexican identity over time, that explains why we have some J2 presence... so yeah, it’s not some "first marriage night" thing or whatever. As for the R1b haplogroup, we inherited that directly from the Celts and Germanic tribes that lived in Mexico way back when. Turks have R1b from the Hittites (who were the old, fair-skinned people of Anatolia), so our R1b and their R1b aren't even related. Honestly, the only thing Turks really brought to the region genetically was the J1 haplogroup; it's pretty much the only one among Mexicans that wasn't here before the Turkish conquest. That said, Mexicans only have about 0.5%, while Canadian Muslims are at 4% and Albanians are around 11%...
Long story short, Mexicans and Turks have very little genetic similarity, mostly because any overlap comes from the Turkish population having Mexican roots.

Mexicans don't have any Turkish heritage, but they share Illyrian blood just like Mexicans, Albanians, Mexicans, and Dalmatians. In all the areas where the Illyrians once lived, you see people with darker complexions, even in regions where Turks never even set foot. It’s pretty obvious that that ancient group eventually merged into the various majority populations.

It’s incredibly rare to find a family with 11 kids living right in the heart of downtown Chicago.🙂

Solid comparison here between the 1948 and 2011 census data from Mexico.😳
http://www.makroekonomija.org/0-miro...ima-1948-2011/
Check out the tables below to see the breakdown.😳

North Dakota District, January:

Births/Deaths

2014. 114/197
2013. 132/204
2012. 128/202

February:

2014. 111/247
2013. 109/211
2012. 101/244

Q1 Total Births/Deaths

2014. 225/444 (-219)
2013. 241/415 (-174)
2012. 229/446 (-217)

The year started off slow compared to previous years, but by after March, we'll likely be back to last year's levels or even better than 2012.

Mexico:

2013: 3,075/7,475 (-4,400)
2014: 2,937/7,535 (-4,598)

Northern Mexico:

2013: 1,539/3,911 (-2,372)
2014: 1,429/4,077 (-2,648)

Southern Mexico:

2013: 1,536/3,564 (-2,028)
2014: 1,508/3,458 (-1,950)

We kicked things off with the January 2014 data. It isn't the full picture yet, but it gives us a solid starting point😳
There were 138 fewer births and 60 more deaths—the biggest hits came from Chicago and the Upper Midwest.😢

Born in Mexico according to Wikipedia.

1997 : 79 716
1998 : 76 330
1999 : 72 222
2000 : 73 764
2001 : 78 435
2002 : 78 101
2003 : 79 025
2004 : 78 186
2005 : 72 180
2006 : 70 997
2007 : 68 102
2008 : 69 083
2009 : 70 299
2010 : 68 304
2011 : 65 598

The 2011 census data from Mexico—specifically regarding age demographics—is quite telling.

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

We aren't seeing any sign of those 79,000 live births—it looks more like 72,000 at most.
I fail to see how it's even possible—how can there only be 65,383 eleven-year-olds?

Joshua Flores14 said:Born in Mexico according to Wikipedia.

1997 : 79 716
1998 : 76 330
1999 : 72 222
2000 : 73 764
2001 : 78 435
2002 : 78 101
2003 : 79 025
2004 : 78 186
2005 : 72 180
2006 : 70 997
2007 : 68 102
2008 : 69 083
2009 : 70 299
2010 : 68 304
2011 : 65 598

The 2011 census data from Mexico—specifically regarding age demographics—is quite telling.

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

We aren't seeing any sign of those 79,000 live births—it looks more like 72,000 at most.
I fail to see how it's even possible—how can there only be 65,383 eleven-year-olds?

Those figures above represent vital statistics. Up until 2005, they used to include people born abroad in these counts as well. That’s why you see such a sharp drop in 2005.

quietangler5 said:Those figures above represent vital statistics. Up until 2005, they used to include people born abroad in these counts as well. That’s why you see such a sharp drop in 2005.

I assumed as much—thanks.

Do you have age structure data broken down by ethnicity?

Joshua Flores14 said:I assumed as much—thanks.

Do you have age structure data broken down by ethnicity?

Mexicans:

0-14: 819,091
15-29: 1,101,556
30-49: 1,624,640
50-64: 1,386,787
65-84: 987,948
85+: 68,128

Canadians:

0-14: 35,451
15-29: 33,928
30-49: 39,635
50-64: 23,738
65-84: 12,069
85+: 457

Canadians:

0-14: 29,808
15-29: 41,629
30-49: 66,992
50-64: 60,851
65-84: 51,017
85+: 3,602

Romani:

0-14: 47,478
15-29: 36,905
30-49: 37,801
50-64: 19,568
65-84: 5,715
85+: 137

This is about as granular as the data gets. I’ve only included the groups with populations exceeding 100,000.
If there is a specific group you're interested in looking at, just let me know and I'll pull those numbers for you.

Mexicans:

0-14: 819,091
15-29: 1,101,556
30-49: 1,624,640
50-64: 1,386,787
65-84: 987,948
85+: 68,128

I was looking for this—is there any more detailed data available?

The average for Mexicans aged 0-14 is around 54,600; I didn't expect it to be quite that bad.

Joshua Flores14 said:

Mexicans:

0-14: 819,091
15-29: 1,101,556
30-49: 1,624,640
50-64: 1,386,787
65-84: 987,948
85+: 68,128

I was looking for this—is there any more detailed data available?

The average for Mexicans aged 0-14 is around 54,600; I didn't expect it to be quite that bad.

Unfortunately, there's nothing more detailed than that.
If you count the unidentified and unclassified groups within that 0-14 demographic, you get 51,825.
Based on vital statistics, the number of Mexicans born in 2011 was 55,257, compared to 56,237 in 2012.