The Teens and 40s #nlpoli

As the last instalment in our survey of birth rates, let’s take a look at the group 15 to 19 and the other end of the scale for statistics, women aged 40-44 at the time of the child’s birth.

The blue line is the number of births to mothers between ages 15 and 19.  From 810 births in 1991 down to 321 in 2010.  Note, though that the low point on the blue line is 2005 at 254.  Since then the number of births to mothers between 15 and 19 has risen steadily.  The rate is lower, though:  one in 32 in 1991 compared to one in 46 in 2010.

The numbers of babies born to women between 40 and 45 remains relatively very low.  Still, it has doubled in the past two decades from the 52 births in 1991 to the 100 that occurred in 2010.

The red line is the births for mothers aged 35 to 39.  It’s there for comparison.  In 1991, women in their late 30s gave birth to 387 babies.  That is just less than half the number of children born to mothers 19 and under.  Two decades later the teenagers are not having as many babies and the older women are having more.  Notice, however, that the 2010 moms  in the 35 to 39 category still were not having as many babies as the teenagers 20 years earlier.

The 30-Something Birth Rates #nlpoli

[Note: This is a revised version of the original post.  The earlier one  was based on the wrong tables]

The 2007 provincial government bounty on live births appears to have had little impact on trends in birth rates among the 20-somethings in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The same is true for the 30-somethings.

The 20-Something Birth Rates #nlpoli

As we told you a couple of weeks ago, it doesn’t look like the provincial government’s policy of paying cash for live births produced any improvement in the birthrate in the province except for the year they announced the bonus cash.

When you look at the birth rate by age of mother some other interesting things appear.

Let’s start with the 20-somethings.  Note:  this is a revised version of the post.  The original post was based on the wrong Statistics Canada tables.

Pop Drop 2010 continues

Newfoundland and Labrador’s population dropped again in the third quarter of 2010, according to the latest estimates from Statistics Canada.

International migration is up, but wasn’t enough to pull things into the growth category.

Could it mean that the recession is over?

Well, at least it could be over to the extent that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are feeling comfortable enough to venture off  - again - to Alberta or Ontario or wherever it is they will go to find work. The growth in population from the second quarter of 2007 onward is attributable to the North American recession.  As in previous recessions, outmigration from the province halted and more ex-pats started flowing back in as the economy slowed down.

That pattern started to change a the middle of 2009.

For those like finance minister Tom Marshall and his colleagues in the provincial cabinet - who tried to imagine this was due to the attractiveness of local economic opportunities -  these figures are bad news.  They confirm that their interpretation is wrong. If their view was correct, the population ought to be growing at a much greater rate than it has been for the past year or so.  Locals would be finding work and staying while more people would come from outside to take up the extra jobs created by a booming economy that somehow managed to escape the ravages of the worst recessions since the 1930s.

Short answer:  it didn’t.  And to go with that there are still some major economic problems in the province that the politicians aren’t talking about.  Let’s see if they start talking about them in 2011.

As a last point, as you can see from this second chart, the population of the province has dropped more often each quarter than it has grown over the past five years.  And if you were to extend that back to 2003, you’d see the downward trend continues.  In fact, the trend goes back before 2003.

So much for the government’s pronatalist policy.

- srbp -

Lowering the boom

Supposedly, there’s a baby boom in the province:

After years in decline, Newfoundland and Labrador’s birth rate has been steadily increasing in recent years — and the trend is expected to continue this year.

There isn’t really.

A steady increase or a boom.

And it isn’t clear from the Telegram front page story who expects the trend to continue.

First, the numbers.

In 2008, the number of live births in the province jumped by 300 to 4,905.  In 2009,  the number went up again by 35.  That’s not a steady increase.  It’s a big jump and then a tiny increase that is actually less than 10% of the total number of live births. Put another way, that’s almost a seven percent increase the first year and a point  seven percent increase – 0.7% (less than one percent)  - the next year.

This is not a trend. 

It’s curious but it isn’t a trend.

As for what will happen in 2010, look at it this way:  In 2008 and 2009, there were on average about 410 live births each month in the province, give or take.  If the same birth rate carried on into 2010, we’d expect to see about 3900 live births by  the middle of September (410 times 9.5)  As the Telegram notes, we’ve only reached 3300 or so by that time in 2010.

So unless people were making like bunnies nine or 10 months ago or there are a crop of twins and trips out there no one really has talked up, the provincial birth rate seems to be on track to come in well below the 2008 and 2009 figure. That’s even allowing that October is one of the big baby months according to some analysis. In fact, if the current trend holds, the birth rate might well be back to where it was in 2007:  around 4500 live births.

As for the Telly claim that someone expects the growth trend to continue, there’s no one quoted in the article who actually says that.  The Telly article includes a reference to a 2009 news release by the provincial centre for health information, but your humble e-scribbler had a few choice words about that piece and its dubious commentary when it came out.

The article also makes an obligatory mention of the provincial government’s breeding incentive program. That’s the one Danny Williams announced during the 2007 campaign with the infamous quote “we can’t be a dying race”, but that’s another story.

Basically, there’s a cash bounty of $1,000 for every live birth or adoption in the province. Aside from the fact these sorts of programs don’t usually work, this one isn’t likely the cause for the spike in births since it doesn’t really change what the provincial government’s own statistics agency identified as long term trends affecting the population:

The number of births has been trending downward for four decades because of declining fertility rates and, more recently, a decline in the number of women of child-bearing age.

A grand for successful copulation doesn’t really get at the core problem fewer people at the right age to have children wanting fewer children than previous generations.

Most likely, the two year increase in live birth rates came from the increase in migration that started in 2007.  All those young people who moved home to escape the recession may well have decided to carry on with their lives and have babies.  Since out-migration seems to have picked up again, it would only make sense that the birth rate is down, as the Telegram’s statistics suggest.

The real stunning figures from the Telegram article though – and in some respects the real story – are in the print edition but not in the online version.  In print, the Telly gave registered births in selected communities in 2009 and from January to September 2010.  Labrador City, with about 8,000 people there and in neighbouring Wabush saw only 88 births registered in 2009.  Bonavista had none in 2009 and has had two so far in 2010. Corner Brook (2006 population = 20,083) saw 650 births in 2009. meanwhile, St. John’s and its 100,000 or so residents registered 2629 births in 2009.  For those keeping track that was 53% of the total number of live births in the province that year.

Outside the St. John’s census metropolitan region, large swaths of Newfoundland and Labrador are basically devoid of people under 50 years of age.  Once bustling communities are collections of retirement homes. And in places like Grand falls-Windsor or Deer Lake, the local construction “boom” is pretty well all from retirees returning to the province from outside or people from smaller communities along the coast heading into the major centres.

What the demographic trends mean for the province is way more interesting than a minor – and temporary – shift in the birth rate.  It’s also a subject the local crop of politicians, from the Old Man on down, quite clearly don’t have a sweet clue what to do about.

- srbp -

NL population drops in Q2 #cdnpoli

Newfoundland and Labrador was the only province to experience a population loss in the second quarter of 2010, according to figures released Wednesday by Statistics Canada. The cause is primarily net interprovincial outflows, in other words outmigration. That’s also the first drop since 2008.

While the provincial government issued a news released last quarter trumpeting the gain of a mere 96 people, you are unlikely to see a release like it this month talking about a drop three times the size.

Here’s what the past five years looks like, by quarter.

Now it could be nothing at all but a blip.  Then again, it could be a sign of things to come.  Note that for the last three quarters the rate of growth has dropped dramatically.  That suggests the steam was going out of things and that the Q1 results were the peak of the curve.

You can see that more clearly if you look at this chart:

In less than a year, the province went from gaining 130 people in a quarter to losing 300.

And actually, this could also mean that the North American economy is on solid footing.  The change in migration patterns for Newfoundland and Labrador in Q3 2007 actually heralded the onset of the recession.  A long-term analysis of provincial population suggests that the population grows shortly before major recession.  Those are all people working elsewhere with relatively weak ties to the community who opt to come back to the province to weather the economic storm.  When things pick up, they head off again.

And as much as the province’s finance minister may like to believe otherwise, odds are that is what’s going on again.

Great news, wot?

Well, not really. The longer term demographic problems that come with that aren’t ones the current administration and its unsound financial and economic management are not ready to cope with.   Not by a long shot.

Don’t forget that in this pre-election and pre-leadership period, you can bet the government won’t be willing or able to do much to start adjusting to cope with the harsh reality of the economy and demographics.  In fact, the next 18 months are basically a write-off for serious government decisions to deal with the problem. 

On top of that you can forget the period between the election and whenever the new Premier arrives to replace the Old Man. And if that doesn’t wind up happening happen until a couple of years before the 2015 election you can almost write off dramatic policy shifts until that election is history as well.

Wow.

Not to worry sez you.  There’s oil.

Sure there is.

Unfortunately, production and royalties won’t be able to cope with the demand for added revenue.  There’s not much else going on to take up the slack and for good measure, the current administration plans to use oil money to fuel increases for education and health care and use exactly the same money to build the $14 billion Lower Churchill project.

Here’s lookin’ at you, kid…

…as you leave the province again.

At least we’ll always have Ottawa.

- srbp -