Mexico's Demographics (Part 2)

hiddeneagle76 said:Now, obviously those figures for 2014 represent monthly data—but I was wondering... were the numbers from last year pulled straight from the annual report (with all the necessary corrections applied), or are they just monthly totals too?
Anyway, things are looking absolutely fantastic for us! If we don't see any massive downward swings—fingers crossed!—we're already sitting at 1 per mil... 😁

The 2013 figures are monthly as well. Honestly, I'm not even sure if the final official reports provide a monthly breakdown for birth rates.
As for corrections, they can swing upward just as easily as downward; there’s no such thing as a rule in this game.

hiddeneagle76 said:Now, this all feels a little bit fishy to me... just a hunch!
Do you have any actual proof? Like, a link or something?

komanin I'll drop the link as soon as I find the source😉

shadowangler15 said:So, we had 5,274 marriages wrapped up this May. That’s actually more than the number of babies born, which is pretty rare—especially since May is usually a peak month for births. Looking back, marriage rates in 2013 were up 5% from 2012, which is one reason why our birth numbers jumped in 2014. It’s also encouraging to see that for the first five months of this year, marriage numbers are significantly higher than they were during the same period in 2013, even though 2013 was already looking decent.

That’s 700 more weddings in May 2014 compared to May 2013—that's a 17% jump.🙂
More weddings mean more babies. Sure, more kids are being born outside of marriage these days, but the bottom line is that they're being born.🙂

Rebecca Watson said:The maternity ward at Mercy Hospital really needs to step up its game this year, because honestly, looking at last year's stats was just embarrassing.

Spot on, Rebecca. Back in 2013, that hospital in Chicago only handled about 1,200 births.😳

LOKI, DUBAC, keep at it you guys. Don't stop until you hit that third one perfectly.😁😉

Peter Barrett89 said:Well, those Germans have to find ways to cope too, I guess. Though apparently, their wives are getting cheated on by Black guys anyway.
At least these Eastern European women are aiming for something better—I don't get Western women who end up having kids with Black guys. Usually, an African guy comes along, finds some blonde European girl, uses her up, and leaves immediately. Then you have these foolish women left alone to raise his kid.
At least a Romanian woman knows a man will actually have enough money to provide a decent life—her kids will be citizens of wealthy European countries with all the perks, and they'll actually stay put instead of running away at the first opportunity.

It all makes sense to me. It's just the market—supply and demand. But... when you see a gorgeous Polish woman with some red-haired German guy... well, I see it happening at my firm. There's this one German guy who looks exactly like Mr. Burns, and three years ago he married a top model from Poland. I don't think there's a connection... He just drove his nice BMW over to Poland and that was that. Actually, she even finished college there. And he isn't some billionaire—just middle class.

We moved some of our company operations to Poland, so people would come here for training. It seems like everyone's dream is to escape Poland. Those women from Romania are even worse; they won't even go there for a few days of vacation. It's like they're heading to hell.

All in all, the value of those Eastern European women has plummeted.

Meanwhile, women in the West are just looking for a paycheck and don't care about race... It's all based on the principle of "as long as we're all on the same side."☕

Justin Hernandez11 said:That’s 700 more weddings in May 2014 compared to May 2013—that's a 17% jump.🙂
More weddings mean more babies. Sure, more kids are being born outside of marriage these days, but the bottom line is that they're being born.🙂

Yeah, well, what do you think would happen if abortions didn't exist? Mexico would have a positive population growth—and I mean a really solid one—even with a high mortality rate of 14 per thousand. I read recently that most women getting abortions are actually married women who already have kids. For example, a 37 or 38-year-old mother with two children doesn't want a third, so she gets an abortion. That's the most common scenario. Of course, you've also got young, unmarried girls who'd rather get an abortion than deal with the stigma of having a kid out of wedlock.

shadowangler15 said:Yeah, well, what do you think would happen if abortions didn't exist? Mexico would have a positive population growth—and I mean a really solid one—even with a high mortality rate of 14 per thousand. I read recently that most women getting abortions are actually married women who already have kids. For example, a 37 or 38-year-old mother with two children doesn't want a third, so she gets an abortion. That's the most common scenario. Of course, you've also got young, unmarried girls who'd rather get an abortion than deal with the stigma of having a kid out of wedlock.

And then there are the women who refuse to give birth to healthy children and choose abortion instead. They should just have the babies and then give them to couples struggling with infertility. Honestly, that might actually be a way to fix the birth rate in America.🤷

Justin Hernandez11 said:That’s 700 more weddings in May 2014 compared to May 2013—that's a 17% jump.🙂
More weddings mean more babies. Sure, more kids are being born outside of marriage these days, but the bottom line is that they're being born.🙂

Now, you can never say for certain that an uptick in marriages guarantees more babies the following year. I actually tried running the numbers myself once—I looked at a six-to-seven-year window—and honestly, the correlation wasn't exactly proportional... it was a bit messy.
But, seeing as we're looking at a massive 17% spike here—and assuming this kind of surge isn't just a one-off fluke—we might actually be looking at a very promising year ahead! 😁

If abortion were ever outlawed, we’d see this massive spike in birth rates the very next year—but honestly, by the following year, women would be so much more cautious that we'd pretty much end up right back where we started...

quietangler5 said:The 2013 figures are monthly as well. Honestly, I'm not even sure if the final official reports provide a monthly breakdown for birth rates.
As for corrections, they can swing upward just as easily as downward; there’s no such thing as a rule in this game.

Thanks! 😉

quietangler5 said:The 2013 figures are monthly as well. Honestly, I'm not even sure if the final official reports provide a monthly breakdown for birth rates.
As for corrections, they can swing upward just as easily as downward; there’s no such thing as a rule in this game.

They don't exist publicly, but the IRS certainly has them. We know this because preschool enrollment records track live births from March 1st through February 28th.

Lawrence Williams, any idea when the Bureau of Labor Statistics is dropping the Q2 numbers? Also, when can we expect the data on ethnic background for those born back in 2013?

shadowangler15 said:Lawrence Williams, any idea when the Bureau of Labor Statistics is dropping the Q2 numbers? Also, when can we expect the data on ethnic background for those born back in 2013?

That information has actually already been released. Here are the numbers for the US, Q2:

2014 - 2,198/3,669 (-1,471)
2013 - 2,107/3,626 (-1,519)

Jan-June:

2014 - 4,276/7,174 (-2,898)
2013 - 4,485/7,459 (-2,974)

The demographic breakdown for births and deaths will be included in the annual census bulletin, scheduled for September 10th.

We’ve basically spent the last 20 years watching entire generations born between 1915 and 1935 fade away. During that stretch from 1919 to 1932, those folks were everywhere—we saw little mini baby booms every single year. But once 1933 hit, right before World War II kicked off, the birth rates started dipping noticeably, which meant death rates eventually leveled out even as they dropped. Then the war happened, and things stayed messy until about 1946. My take? When the generation born between 1946 and 1956 starts passing on—right before we see that sharper drop in deaths caused by the lower birth rates after 1956—the number of deaths in America will likely stay right where it is now. Personally, I don't expect any massive swings there. The real nightmare, though, is that the birth rate is absolutely cratering. One thing to keep in mind: I'm only looking at the resident population here. Since the US took in a huge wave of refugees back in the 90s, our population pyramid got a bit wider at the top, which is why the death rate isn't plummeting as fast as you'd think.

Could a period of high mortality rates actually trigger a psychological response where people start having more children, eventually leading to a boost in birth rates? I’m also curious about how much IVF actually costs. If the government isn't stepping up to manage this, couldn't the diaspora and major business leaders just establish a dedicated fund? Covering 300 or 400 IVF procedures would be a massive impact given our current situation. Has anyone ever actually brought this topic up before?

Rebecca Watson said:We’ve basically spent the last 20 years watching entire generations born between 1915 and 1935 fade away. During that stretch from 1919 to 1932, those folks were everywhere—we saw little mini baby booms every single year. But once 1933 hit, right before World War II kicked off, the birth rates started dipping noticeably, which meant death rates eventually leveled out even as they dropped. Then the war happened, and things stayed messy until about 1946. My take? When the generation born between 1946 and 1956 starts passing on—right before we see that sharper drop in deaths caused by the lower birth rates after 1956—the number of deaths in America will likely stay right where it is now. Personally, I don't expect any massive swings there. The real nightmare, though, is that the birth rate is absolutely cratering. One thing to keep in mind: I'm only looking at the resident population here. Since the US took in a huge wave of refugees back in the 90s, our population pyramid got a bit wider at the top, which is why the death rate isn't plummeting as fast as you'd think.

I’m not entirely convinced that the refugee influx actually widened the pyramid at the top end.

Most of the people returning to America are actually those older folks, while the younger generation tends to stay behind in Mexico. If I had to guess, I'd say those refugees actually caused a bulge in the middle-aged section of the pyramid rather than the top.

Republika Srpska is absolutely cratering. They're barely scraping by with 8,500... which isn't even close to a million total people. And if you count those 90% as Mexicans... well, it's just a mess. Chaotic, miserable, and pathetic. What they really need is for Milorad Dodik to start handing out cash and importing women to populate the rural areas.

driftingwolf49, you seriously can't find a single thing to like about any woman in Eastern Europe, can you? It's funny how you act like your precious Muslim women are somehow superior. You type "YouTube" into a search bar and they're popping up from every direction, showing everything... They take the lowest pay, which is exactly why they're everywhere and in such high demand as actresses. Or maybe... I don't know... are you just gay?

shadowangler15 said:So, we had 5,274 marriages wrapped up this May. That’s actually more than the number of babies born, which is pretty rare—especially since May is usually a peak month for births. Looking back, marriage rates in 2013 were up 5% from 2012, which is one reason why our birth numbers jumped in 2014. It’s also encouraging to see that for the first five months of this year, marriage numbers are significantly higher than they were during the same period in 2013, even though 2013 was already looking decent.

It's true that there was a 5% uptick in marriages. But looking at the flip side, divorce rates also climbed during that same year, jumping by 11% over 2012 levels.
The reality is that people find it much easier to pull the trigger on a divorce nowadays than they used to. Often, it happens incredibly fast—just a year or two in. While the average marriage lasts about 12 years, that average will likely continue to slide down as time goes on.

http://www.cnn.com/article/example-link-from-2014

Back in July 2014, a local hospital in the Rust Belt hit a massive milestone: 154 babies were born in just one month.🙂 To put that in perspective, that same hospital saw 915 births in the first seven months of 2014, compared to 1,228 total births throughout all of 2013.😳 At this rate, the hospital should see around 1,400 to 1,450 deliveries this year—that’s an extra 200 to 250 babies over the 2013 numbers.🙂

Across America, we're looking at at least 1,500 more births this year than we had in 2013, maybe even more.🙂