tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2433841880619171855.post7033381327507167997..comments2024-03-27T21:09:44.320+00:00Comments on Pat'sBlog: Population Pyramids in ActionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2433841880619171855.post-76494597831934796652011-03-04T14:55:22.878+00:002011-03-04T14:55:22.878+00:00"very nearly so" is right on the money, ..."very nearly so" is right on the money, Pat. That data re 1957 and 1989 (the year of my first kid's birth) are probably from the early 90's so I'm not surprised it's changed but ... what doesn't?<br /><br />Wow, "the early 90's". That seems like yesterday to you and me, but when you think about it ... that's when your students were born!<br /><br />Ai chi wawa, where'd the time go? ;-)Steven Colyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10435759210177642257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2433841880619171855.post-12060820905641443482011-03-04T11:48:59.531+00:002011-03-04T11:48:59.531+00:00Oops, one more from the CDC..
"This continues...Oops, one more from the CDC..<br />"This continues a decline in the number of births from an all-time high of 4,316,233 in 2007 (2)."Pat's Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15234744401613958081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2433841880619171855.post-28917704965734914422011-03-04T11:41:45.444+00:002011-03-04T11:41:45.444+00:00Steven, as usual, your numbers are on the mark..or...Steven, as usual, your numbers are on the mark..or very nearly so... My data (source at bottom) shows that 2005 (the most recent year in this data) was above any year except 1990 of recent (post sixties)time. <br /><br />1954 4,078,000 25.3 <br />1955 4,104,000 25.0 <br />1956 4,218,000 25.2 <br />1957 4,308,000 25.3 <br />1958 4,255,000 24.5 <br />1959 4,295,000 24.3 <br />1960 4,257,850 23.7<br />1961 4,268,326 23.3 <br />1962 4,167,362 22.4<br /><br />and then<br />1988 3,913,000 15.9 <br />1989 4,021,000 16.2 <br />1990 4,179,000 16.7 <br />1991 4,111,000 16.2 <br />1992 4,084,000 16.0 <br />1993 4,039,000 15.7 <br />1994 3,979,000 15.3 <br />1995 3,892,000 14.8 <br />1996 3,899,000 14.7 <br />1997 3,882,000 14.5 <br />1998 3,941,553 14.6 <br />1999 3,959,417 14.5 <br />2000 4,058,814 14.7 <br />2001 4,025,933 14.1 <br />2002 4,021,726 13.9 <br />2003 4,089,950 14.1 <br />2004 4,112,052 14.0 <br />2005 4,138,349 14.0<br /><br />The CDC gives "Data for United States in 2009<br />Number of births: 4,131,019 " <br /><br />but also that "Fertility rate: 66.7 births per 1000 women aged 15-44 years ---Percent unmarried: 41.0% <br />"<br /><br />Live Births and Birth Rates, by Year — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html#ixzz1Fd6CZuhwPat's Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15234744401613958081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2433841880619171855.post-72979505033583438362011-03-04T08:57:05.998+00:002011-03-04T08:57:05.998+00:00Correct me if I'm wrong, but the top year for ...Correct me if I'm wrong, but the top year for American births was 1957. And I don't mean as a percentage of population, I'm talking about total number of births, and I believe that is still the record. Next up is 1989, and the next 4 of 5 would be around '57.<br /><br />I seem to remember lots of talk about ZPG (Zero population growth) in the late 1960's. The invention of The Pill circa '63 may have had something to do with that.<br /><br />In any event, interesting, thanks. I spent some time on Demographics yesterday, myself. Doing my usual thing, looking for a job, I was noting how devalued all homes in the US are. For some reason I visited the situation in "Titletown", Green Bay, WI, which led me to the "Yoopers" (U.P.ers), being the residents of Upper Peninsula, Michigan, where, alas, the population is in decline. They're almost all of Finnish heritage. Back to GB, Lambeau Field, if you Google Earth it, is right across the street from Suburbia.Steven Colyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10435759210177642257noreply@blogger.com