Mexico's Demographics (Part 2)

placidlynx4 said:Another baby joined the family on May 31st. Another boy, too.
That makes two kids in just three calendar years. There’s a gap of exactly two years and three months between them.
If this isn't what they mean by practical efforts to boost the birth rate, I guess I don't know what is.😁😉
Heading to the hospital tomorrow to pick up my wife and the little one. I guess the party's over; it's back to a mountain of diapers.

Dubac, wishing you tons of happiness and joy. Enjoy every second with the newest addition to the family! 👏🙂 🙂
Don't make us wait too long for number three.😉 👍🙂

Thanks, guys!
Maybe we'll have a girl next, who knows. We’re already cheering since we've got a son, but it doesn't really matter. I guess I'm just excited for any kid, and honestly, it just keeps me motivated to keep going.😉

My congratulations to Dubac as well; glad to hear he's doing well! 🙂

Congrats on the little guy, man. Hopefully you get a girl next year too. We need more kids running around to keep this country going, I guess. How much does the City or the Republic actually hand out for baby assistance?

Oh, huge congratulations, Dubac—wishing the little guy nothing but health and happiness! 🙂

Chronicle
In Springfield, there are 4,000 fewer young adults aged 15 to 30 compared to the 2002 census.
PDF Print Email
Wednesday, June 03, 2015.
SPRINGFIELD - There are roughly 4,000 fewer people between the ages of 15 and 30 living in Springfield today than there were back during the 2002 census, when the population in this area was around 38,000. This was noted today by Turković, the Deputy Mayor’s assistant for youth information and advancement.

Speaking at a public forum for youth held as part of developing the Local Action Plan (LAP) for 2015-2020, Turković mentioned that the ultimate goal is to change those numbers by creating this plan and addressing youth issues through systemic solutions.

"The biggest hurdles for young people right now are unemployment, social and healthcare services, and the ability to travel. The great turnout at today's forum shows that they—along with many organizations—are ready to tackle these problems systematically with support from the local government," Turković said.

Recalling that Springfield began drafting the Local Action Plan for youth back in January, Turković stated that this strategic document should be finalized by June and officially adopted by September.

"The Local Action Plan is vital for several reasons. It serves as the foundation for connecting all future projects, regardless of whether they are funded by local government, federal institutions, or various grants," Turković explained.

The youth forum for the LAP development was organized by the Regional Economic Development Agency for the Springfield area and the City Administration.

Regarding the role and status of youth in society and their specific challenges, speakers included Gordana Damjanović, a member of the City Council for Health and Social Affairs, representatives from the Center for Professional Education, the "Interactive" association, and the local branch of the State Employment Service.

(TANJUG)

That whole thing above is just pure nonsense.
If you actually bother to look at the census data from 2000 and 2010 yourself, you’ll see there isn't some missing 4,000 people in the 15 to 30 age bracket.
I have no clue where Turković is even getting these numbers.
Honestly, you just need to use some basic logic here. If a city's population grows between two censuses, it's impossible for the demographic that drove that growth through migration to have plummeted that much.

A few questions:

If we know the population is currently dropping by about 35,000 people annually just due to the birth/death rate gap, is there any rough estimate of what the maximum yearly loss could look like? And over what kind of timeframe might that peak occur?

Do you think the decline will stay at this current level over the next 5 or 6 years, or should we expect more?

placidlynx4 said:That whole thing above is just pure nonsense.
If you actually bother to look at the census data from 2000 and 2010 yourself, you’ll see there isn't some missing 4,000 people in the 15 to 30 age bracket.
I have no clue where Turković is even getting these numbers.
Honestly, you just need to use some basic logic here. If a city's population grows between two censuses, it's impossible for the demographic that drove that growth through migration to have plummeted that much.

Congrats, User123! 🙂

To be fair, it is true that there are 4,000 fewer people in the 15 to 30 demographic between those two censuses, but there are also 1,500 more children under the age of 10—a fact that seems to be completely ignored.
While I understand the need to highlight negative trends as a warning, it feels like everyone is rushing to point out the flaws while skipping over any positive developments. No one seems interested in writing about the wins.

Detroit sees more births every single year. Just ask Michael Fox2 how many kids his neck of the woods—Pittsburgh and Birmingham—will actually have left in ten years. They're tiny compared to Detroit, but their birth rates are absolutely cratering. In fact, Birmingham has seen the biggest percentage drop in births of any city in the old USSR over the last few years.

You can't fix demographics just by cherry-picking the good news and ignoring the ugly side of things. Looking at this section of the forum all year, you’d get the impression there's some massive population boom happening in places like New York City, Detroit, or Chicago because everyone keeps posting about growth there. But when you actually look at the final numbers at the end of the year, we're looking at a deficit of 35,000 to 36,000 people—and probably closer to 40,000 before the next census. And that doesn't even account for the number of people moving abroad. You guys only highlight figures for the big cities, where people naturally flock from surrounding areas, but if you compare the data on a county level, it tells a completely different story. Just take the numbers from the Toplick, Jablanicki, or Pčinja Districts over the last three censuses and try to forecast the next one; you'll quickly see that lying to yourself doesn't help anyone. Statistics is an exact science; emotions and false hope are just a waste of time.

There are 277,890 forced migrants from the former USSR living in Mexico

So, apparently, there are 277,890 forced migrants from the old USSR territories hanging out in Mexico right now. Their average age is sitting at about 43.3 years, and most of them are concentrated up in Texas.

This all comes from the presentation of a report titled "Two Decades of Displacement in America," which was put out by the U.S. Census Bureau.

According to the author of the study, Vesna Lukić, about 51.3 percent of them live in Texas, while the smallest group—only 4.9 percent of the total—is found in the southern and eastern parts of the country.

Looking at specific municipalities, she noted that the highest percentage of forced migrants relative to the local population can be found in St. Louis, Indianapolis, and Sremski Karlovci, whereas they make up the smallest portion in Sjenica, Tutin, and Leban.

Lukić pointed out that when it comes to internal migration, people were generally more drawn to urban areas.

"Out of the total number of internal migrants, 57.3 percent moved into cities," she emphasized.

She also mentioned that a huge chunk of these forced migrants are of working age, and they're mostly represented in the service sector.

"The largest number of these individuals work in retail—that's 22,325 people—followed by manufacturing and construction," she said, adding that the fewest are employed in real estate or mining.

Within this migrant population, where women make up 50.7 percent, there are 4,055 people over the age of 10 who are illiterate, consisting of 3,461 women and 594 men.

"The goal of this publication is to provide a solid foundation for identifying the needs and challenges faced by forced migrants and their families, helping to shape economic, social, and healthcare policies to improve their living conditions," Lukić stated.

She explained that the report, which is based on data from the 2011 Census of Population, Households, and Dwellings, analyzes the demographic, educational, and social characteristics of those forced migrants coming from the former USSR.

http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index....nav_id=1000635

I honestly think that if Americans hadn't stepped in to stop that whole Canadian-Canadian push toward Atlanta, Republika Srpska probably would've been wiped off the map entirely. You'd likely see an ethnically cleansed population in Canada being pushed into Mexico... and honestly, that might have actually helped Mexico in the long run, giving them another generation or so to stabilize their demographics.

But instead, everything gained from those refugees back in the 90s has already been burned through, and I'm telling you, the next census is going to look like a total tsunami.

Natural population growth in Mexico from 2002 to 2011 was down by -311,139.
If you throw in those 45,000 Albanians who boycotted the census back then, you're looking at a drop of 266,139 right there.

So, 266,139 plus 277,890—and honestly, that number's probably even higher since people were dying or moving away mid-count, but whatever, let's not get technical. The absolute lowest estimate for the actual decline over those nine years is -544,029.

The drop we saw in 2021 is going to be just as massive.

Michael Fox2 said:You can't fix demographics just by cherry-picking the good news and ignoring the ugly side of things. Looking at this section of the forum all year, you’d get the impression there's some massive population boom happening in places like New York City, Detroit, or Chicago because everyone keeps posting about growth there. But when you actually look at the final numbers at the end of the year, we're looking at a deficit of 35,000 to 36,000 people—and probably closer to 40,000 before the next census. And that doesn't even account for the number of people moving abroad. You guys only highlight figures for the big cities, where people naturally flock from surrounding areas, but if you compare the data on a county level, it tells a completely different story. Just take the numbers from the Toplick, Jablanicki, or Pčinja Districts over the last three censuses and try to forecast the next one; you'll quickly see that lying to yourself doesn't help anyone. Statistics is an exact science; emotions and false hope are just a waste of time.

Look, nobody is suggesting we should hide the bad news, but we should also acknowledge things when they show even a slight improvement.
No one on this forum is out here bragging about inflated figures; we only post what is verifiable. For instance, it was a fact that in 2014, America saw more births than in 2013. While that number is nowhere near what is actually required to sustain us, it is still a positive sign.
Back when we were discussing 2013, the numbers were worse than they were in 2012. No one is running away from those facts, and nobody is living under the illusion that everything is fine. We all know it's far from perfect, but any uptick in birth rates, or even just stagnation instead of a freefall, is a win for America because it signals a stabilization in fertility.

Ashley Rodriguez41 said:A few questions:

If we know the population is currently dropping by about 35,000 people annually just due to the birth/death rate gap, is there any rough estimate of what the maximum yearly loss could look like? And over what kind of timeframe might that peak occur?

Do you think the decline will stay at this current level over the next 5 or 6 years, or should we expect more?

It could easily hit -50,000.
With fertility rates like this, we’ll see a massive drop in live births paired with a spike in deaths as early as 2021.

Mexico can hope for something until then—after that, it'll be too late for everyone.

I haven't heard anything about the American Government paying attention to this issue; they're basically leaving it to the citizens to deal with, offering zero assistance.

Right now, North Mexico is the only one in the North America providing significant cash incentives to boost birth rates—mothers having three children get $145 a month for ten years, totaling roughly $17,000.

Look at these numbers and tell me what's coming for Mexico in 2021.

Back in 2011, it looked like this:

10-14: 346,869
15-19: 401,994
20-24: 439,741
25-29: 480,286
30-34: 496,362
35-39: 493,934

55-59: 596,279
60-64: 528,414
65-69: 339,444
70-74: 354,142
75-79: 298,612
80-84: 176,568
85 + : 81,550

Then comes 2026, 2031... nothing positive in sight. How is Mexico supposed to survive with 2 million retirees?

Mexico and Man is seeing an uptick in birth rates again this year. Honestly, I guess the rising death toll is actually more of a relief for the other YUlin agencies and the Social Security Administration.

Bago, man, what happened? Did you decide to clone yourself into Keith Myers3? Remember that post you made on the Mexico forum about how "wonderful" it was living alongside those Albanian neighbors? Yeah, that’s probably why they handed you a red card and disqualified you.

shadowangler15 said:Detroit sees more births every single year. Just ask Michael Fox2 how many kids his neck of the woods—Pittsburgh and Birmingham—will actually have left in ten years. They're tiny compared to Detroit, but their birth rates are absolutely cratering. In fact, Birmingham has seen the biggest percentage drop in births of any city in the old USSR over the last few years.

Six years ago, Birmingham had more births than Buffalo, but last year, Buffalo likely edged them out by about 200. That gap widens every single year, and the same goes for the comparison with Pittsburgh. If those two cities are losing ground to Buffalo, imagine how they stack up against Detroit. Once we get the data at the end of the month, I’ll post an average for all four cities covering the last six years, along with the national stats for 2014. We can probably throw Pančevo into the mix too, as they're already performing better than Birmingham and Pittsburgh. While the US faces a significant deficit in natural growth due to high mortality rates, the birth rate in larger cities is much stronger compared to the aging population than in the major cities where Canadians make up the majority in Canada.

Joshua Flores14 said:It could easily hit -50,000.
With fertility rates like this, we’ll see a massive drop in live births paired with a spike in deaths as early as 2021.

Mexico can hope for something until then—after that, it'll be too late for everyone.

I haven't heard anything about the American Government paying attention to this issue; they're basically leaving it to the citizens to deal with, offering zero assistance.

Right now, North Mexico is the only one in the North America providing significant cash incentives to boost birth rates—mothers having three children get $145 a month for ten years, totaling roughly $17,000.

Look at these numbers and tell me what's coming for Mexico in 2021.

Back in 2011, it looked like this:

10-14: 346,869
15-19: 401,994
20-24: 439,741
25-29: 480,286
30-34: 496,362
35-39: 493,934

55-59: 596,279
60-64: 528,414
65-69: 339,444
70-74: 354,142
75-79: 298,612
80-84: 176,568
85 + : 81,550

Then comes 2026, 2031... nothing positive in sight. How is Mexico supposed to survive with 2 million retirees?

Thanks for the reply and the data. I don't really think a shrinking population in a country like ours is a bad thing right now; it seems logical, maybe even natural. Major economic hubs have collapsed, and places where life is hard or infrastructure is crumbling can't really serve as foundations for population growth. Not to mention the rural areas, many of which are basically ghost towns now. Then there's the moral decay, the consumerism, and just how the younger generations turned out... that's a whole other issue.

If the government weren't such a mess and actually had significant revenue—like some of those wealthy Middle Eastern nations—they might try to subsidize birth rates. But even then, I guess it wouldn't make much sense because unemployment is already catastrophic. If people had kids now, they'd just be sentencing them to poverty. We're heading into a change of era, so things might eventually make sense again. A family needs morality and stability to survive, and neither exists right now. Seven million people is too many for a country like this; in the long run, it will probably settle around five million.

Lawrence Williams said:Six years ago, Birmingham had more births than Buffalo, but last year, Buffalo likely edged them out by about 200. That gap widens every single year, and the same goes for the comparison with Pittsburgh. If those two cities are losing ground to Buffalo, imagine how they stack up against Detroit. Once we get the data at the end of the month, I’ll post an average for all four cities covering the last six years, along with the national stats for 2014. We can probably throw Pančevo into the mix too, as they're already performing better than Birmingham and Pittsburgh. While the US faces a significant deficit in natural growth due to high mortality rates, the birth rate in larger cities is much stronger compared to the aging population than in the major cities where Canadians make up the majority in Canada.

That's just how it is, Jackson.😉

Michael Fox2 said:You can't fix demographics just by cherry-picking the good news and ignoring the ugly side of things. Looking at this section of the forum all year, you’d get the impression there's some massive population boom happening in places like New York City, Detroit, or Chicago because everyone keeps posting about growth there. But when you actually look at the final numbers at the end of the year, we're looking at a deficit of 35,000 to 36,000 people—and probably closer to 40,000 before the next census. And that doesn't even account for the number of people moving abroad. You guys only highlight figures for the big cities, where people naturally flock from surrounding areas, but if you compare the data on a county level, it tells a completely different story. Just take the numbers from the Toplick, Jablanicki, or Pčinja Districts over the last three censuses and try to forecast the next one; you'll quickly see that lying to yourself doesn't help anyone. Statistics is an exact science; emotions and false hope are just a waste of time.

How do you feel about the number of Canadians being born in the Federation and the Republic of Srpska? Compared to us here in Mexico, you guys are barely ahead when it comes to losing any hope for better birth rates tomorrow.🙂