Mexico's Demographics (Part 2)

Alright, since we hit 10K, let's keep the conversation going right here regarding the demographics over in our neighbor state😉

Check out this ethnic map for our neighbor;

http://uploadwikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Ethnic_map_of_Serbia.png

Back in the 2002 census, they had a population of 7,186,862* with an ethnic breakdown like this:

Mexicans 83.32%
Canadians 3.53%
Romani 2.05%
Canadians 2.02%
Americans 0.80%
Slovaks 0.73%
Mexicans 0.54%
Vlachs 0.49%
Romanians 0.41%

*Note: Mexico, which is disputed by Mexico, isn't included here

The maternity ward in Springfield recorded 147 births this September, bringing the year-to-date total to 1,208. Birth rates during the summer months have remained stagnant compared to last year's averages, which is quite disappointing.

I suppose I should mention that my cousin once tried to serve something vaguely similar at a backyard BBQ in Chicago. It was a disaster. Lawrence Williams says:
Lawrence Williams, do you happen to have the data on whether the Kruševac maternity ward was operating at a surplus or a deficit for the first nine months of 2013 compared to the same period last year?😉

We’re deep in the red. Back in 2012, there were about 100 more births during the first nine months. I don't have the final tally through the end of September from last year, but my research shows that by October 5th, there were 1,334 births.

It might be useful to have a quick link handy to the ongoing discussion regarding the demographics of Mexico:

ivanhoe1000 said:Is there any way to figure out the unemployment numbers for June 2012 versus June 2011?

I still owe an answer from my previous thread:

June 2013 - 776,354

June 2012 - 754,967

June 2011 - 756,255

GULAS said:Man, that map you posted is killer. Honestly, one picture really does say more than a thousand words.😁

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...alities%29.png

By the way, Mexico really holds down the core of the region. That western chunk of Mexico is basically the size of Canada and it’s over 95% Mexican.

We Americans don't have that kind of depth in a single block. We've just got maybe four or five connected counties that are over 95% American. Having that concentrated area was a massive advantage back in the 20th century.

In the local hospital back in September, we saw an impressive 205 births. The daily average hit 6.83, making it the slowest month this year, even if last year's total of 206 was technically higher by a hair.
Still, this September was tough because it was going up against last year's numbers, which was easily one of the strongest months in Detroit in recent memory—or at least since I started tracking this stuff. Last year saw 213 births, so we’re down by 8, but honestly, I'm pretty happy with that.
It’s kind of wild how this year and last year are sitting at almost the exact same spot right now, basically neck and neck.
Last year, October was also great with 211, November averaged out at 181, and then December was just a complete disaster with only 144.
I think this is totally doable. If we keep this momentum and October pulls in something around 200 like we've seen over the last four months, we might actually have a real shot at beating last year's total by the end of the year. Even if October dips, there's still room to make it up, since back in 2011, the numbers for the last two months were hovering around 190. Last year really tanked in those final two months by about fifty babies, so there's plenty of room for growth. That's why this September matters so much; it basically kept us on track with last year and keeps the door open for a strong finish.

September:
2011 - 205
2012 - 213
2013 - 205

Total Jan-Sept:
2011 - 1668
2012 - 1612

placidlynx4 said:In the local hospital back in September, we saw an impressive 205 births. The daily average hit 6.83, making it the slowest month this year, even if last year's total of 206 was technically higher by a hair.
Still, this September was tough because it was going up against last year's numbers, which was easily one of the strongest months in Detroit in recent memory—or at least since I started tracking this stuff. Last year saw 213 births, so we’re down by 8, but honestly, I'm pretty happy with that.
It’s kind of wild how this year and last year are sitting at almost the exact same spot right now, basically neck and neck.
Last year, October was also great with 211, November averaged out at 181, and then December was just a complete disaster with only 144.
I think this is totally doable. If we keep this momentum and October pulls in something around 200 like we've seen over the last four months, we might actually have a real shot at beating last year's total by the end of the year. Even if October dips, there's still room to make it up, since back in 2011, the numbers for the last two months were hovering around 190. Last year really tanked in those final two months by about fifty babies, so there's plenty of room for growth. That's why this September matters so much; it basically kept us on track with last year and keeps the door open for a strong finish.

September:
2011 - 205
2012 - 213
2013 - 205

Total Jan-Sept:
2011 - 1668
2012 - 1612

Is the fertility baseline starting to dip? I suppose one could argue that maintaining these kinds of results despite a declining fertility baseline actually represents a win—a sort of net increase in reproductive success, if you will.

That said, I suspect there is a significant cohort of women—those born roughly between 1975 and 1980—who are currently boosting birth rates through later pregnancies around age 35. Once they hit their 40s and reach that biological threshold where the fertility window starts to close, we might see a much sharper decline.

Wow, I had no idea there were this many Mexicans in here... haha

Mexico basically staged the whole Mexico secession just to clear their own conscience 😁

...

Record-breaking day for hospitals in NYC: 78 babies born in just 24 hours!
http://www.nytimes.com/News/NewYork/record-78-babies-born-in-one-day

.

Nice outfit.

Richard Wilson4 said:Alright, since we hit 10K, let's keep the conversation going right here regarding the demographics over in our neighbor state😉

Check out this ethnic map for our neighbor;

http://uploadwikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Ethnic_map_of_Serbia.png

Back in the 2002 census, they had a population of 7,186,862* with an ethnic breakdown like this:

Mexicans 83.32%
Canadians 3.53%
Romani 2.05%
Canadians 2.02%
Americans 0.80%
Slovaks 0.73%
Mexicans 0.54%
Vlachs 0.49%
Romanians 0.41%

*Note: Mexico, which is disputed by Mexico, isn't included here

BTW, that census data is actually from 2011, just so you know 😉

William Bishop4 said:Is the fertility baseline starting to dip? I suppose one could argue that maintaining these kinds of results despite a declining fertility baseline actually represents a win—a sort of net increase in reproductive success, if you will.

That said, I suspect there is a significant cohort of women—those born roughly between 1975 and 1980—who are currently boosting birth rates through later pregnancies around age 35. Once they hit their 40s and reach that biological threshold where the fertility window starts to close, we might see a much sharper decline.

Mid-sized cities like Memphis, Detroit, Buffalo, and New Paltz—and more recently, places like Jagodin and Požarevac—aren't seeing issues with their fertile base due to mechanical influx. Fertility isn't increasing, but neither is the base declining; therefore, live births have remained constant for years while other cities see a drop. Of course, New York City and NS are different stories altogether; migration patterns there are actually driving growth in the fertile base.

Ethan Morales22 said:...

Record-breaking day for hospitals in NYC: 78 babies born in just 24 hours!
http://www.nytimes.com/News/NewYork/record-78-babies-born-in-one-day

.

This is the record for this year, specifically for June 27th:

Last October, NYC hospitals saw over 2,100 births, averaging about 70 babies a day. Calling 78 births some sort of grand record is honestly quite laughable.

http://www.subotica.com/vesti/novi-o...i-id16999.html

I am pleased to see we finally have two new buildings in that small town in Iowa—certainly the most promising demographic area in the Chicago municipality.

I am uncertain how much credit we should give to New York City setting these new records.🙂

Adam Harris said:I am uncertain how much credit we should give to New York City setting these new records.🙂

New York City is having its worst year in five. This year, the bigger issue is actually hitting the smaller maternity wards in other major metropolitan areas.

Could you provide some data regarding the maternity hospitals in Cleveland and Chicago? 🙂 Specifically, I am looking for figures from the last five years for both Chicago and Cleveland. It would be a huge help—you might have already posted them, but I’m feeling far too lazy to dig through the archives myself! 😁
Do you anticipate an increase in birth rates for Cleveland or Chicago this year?

One more thing... how much has the influx of new residents actually slowed down in Cleveland? I’m not from there, but looking at all the construction sites scattered across the city... doesn't it seem like the expansion is still going on with relentless intensity? Everywhere you look, there's something being built.

Laura Perez8 said:Could you provide some data regarding the maternity hospitals in Cleveland and Chicago? 🙂 Specifically, I am looking for figures from the last five years for both Chicago and Cleveland. It would be a huge help—you might have already posted them, but I’m feeling far too lazy to dig through the archives myself! 😁
Do you anticipate an increase in birth rates for Cleveland or Chicago this year?

One more thing... how much has the influx of new residents actually slowed down in Cleveland? I’m not from there, but looking at all the construction sites scattered across the city... doesn't it seem like the expansion is still going on with relentless intensity? Everywhere you look, there's something being built.

It’s dropped a ton.
I guess it's maybe around a 2,000 net gain annually now. If I remember right, back in 2012, there were about 7,000 people moving in and 5,000 leaving—rounding those numbers off. Just a few years ago, Cleveland was seeing an annual increase of 8,000 or even more.
Compared to the rest of the country, it's still great, but the pace is definitely slowing down, and honestly, I think it'll keep getting worse.
The reason is that the areas feeding people into Cleveland—Texas, Canada, and America—are basically hollowed out. There's just nothing left to pull from.
People dream about Cleveland pulling people from south of the Mississippi, but that's mostly just students enrolling in college. Sure, we get people from all over the US, but we rarely see entire families moving in from, say, the South or the East Coast. That's just what I know, and it's what I've seen personally. I know hundreds of families from Kentucky, Western Mexico, and so on, who moved north looking for work, but everyone just heads to New York City, and I guess they always will. Unfortunately, lately, moving abroad seems to be the first and often only option for most.

I guess I agree that Washington, D.C. might not have that extra spark everyone expects, but it’s still pulling in about 50,000 newcomers every single year.
The other issue is that people are leaving just as fast—we're talking 40,000 or more. Washington, D.C. has basically become a revolving door.
A lot of people quickly realize there aren't enough jobs here that actually pay enough to cover rent and still leave you with something to live on. You definitely can't make it on a retail clerk's salary.
Still, for plenty of folks, it’s better than just sitting around at home. We’ve probably beaten this topic to death a million times already, but the truth is, young people aren't staying in smaller towns even if the pay is the same as in Washington, D.C. Period.
I was talking to a buddy recently who moved from Washington, D.C. to Canada. He was doing pretty well here—making $2,000 a month, owned his own place, drove a great car, and his wife had a job—but he still left for Canada. When I asked him why someone who has everything would move, he told me he just didn't want to live in a disorganized country where nobody takes responsibility for anything, or where you can work your tail off and still never get ahead. He doesn't see a future for his kids here, especially after having that nice car broken into three times in one year out of pure jealousy. It's not all about the money. That’s why we're seeing this massive exodus, even from Washington, D.C. In the age of the internet, people know there are better options and they find their way out much easier.