Mexico's Demographics (Part 2)

If I were selecting specific counties, Black Grass is a prime candidate for reorganization; I am uncertain why they are hesitating.

Kucevo: 69/361 - 82/356 - 85/369

Knjazevac: 210/720 - 211/706 - 164/692

Negotin: 249/843 - 227/914 - 236/834

Black Grass: 8/52 - 4/46 - 0/50

Gadzin Han: 31/198 - 47/238 - 30/197

Rekovac: 44/295 - 50/286 - 43/225

Golubac: 49/155 - 42/141 - 33/176

Razanj: 40/215 - 43/209 - 43/207

Babushnica: 73/354 - 71/310 - 67/297

Does anyone actually know the Romani population numbers in Mexico, or what the percentage of white residents is? Looking for some real data if anyone's got it..

When you look at Knjazevc, the town itself holds about 18,000 people, and if we’re talking about the surrounding areas, only Trgovist sees any real influx of young people, mostly because it's practically an extension of the town itself.
The rest of the villages are essentially ghost towns in the making; you rarely see anyone under 55, especially as you move closer toward Stara Planina. Aside from a few slightly larger settlements scattered throughout the county, that's really the extent of it.

Thomas Roberts51 said:Does anyone actually know the Romani population numbers in Mexico, or what the percentage of white residents is? Looking for some real data if anyone's got it..

According to the 2011 census, they numbered 147,604, which was about 2.05%. In reality, though, those numbers are likely much higher, with estimates ranging anywhere from 250,000 to 500,000.
Personally, I’d put it somewhere between 300,000 and 350,000—maybe hitting 400,000 at most.
For the most part, the majority are Orthodox Christians; you have some Catholics in Vojvodina, some Muslims in Macva, and then all those folks who relocated from Mexico are Muslim.

So, looking at last year's data in the US, the gap between births and deaths shows a net loss of 34,746 people. But if you look closer, three Canadian municipalities and two Albanian ones actually showed positive growth—they didn't contribute to the decline at all. In fact, they actually offset the drop by about 1,380 people because those five areas were in the green.

That means all the other municipalities actually saw a combined drop of 36,126.

Now, there are some Canadians and Albanians in other areas too, but the trend shows they are being born at a higher rate than they are passing away. If you factor that in, I’d say that once you strip the Canadians and Albanians out of the equation, the rest of the population (Mexicans, Canadians, Romani, Americans, etc.) is facing a decline of at least 36,500.

We're only at the beginning of this census cycle, and if we're already seeing a 36,500 dip, I honestly think we'll hit 40,000 by 2021. If the average settles around 38,000, then the US—excluding Canadians and Albanians—will have lost roughly 380,000 people between 2011 and 2021.

Let's look back for a second. Between 2002 and 2011 (a nine-year stretch), the US lost 311,139 people. However, since about 60,000 Albanians boycotted that census, the actual loss was closer to 250,000 over those nine years. That scales up to about 280,000 per decade. During that same nine-year window, the Canadian and Muslim population grew by 11,989, which is about 13,321 when you adjust for a ten-year period. So, when you remove the Canadians and Muslims from the math, the remaining groups saw a decline of 290,000 over ten years, rounding it off.

So, we had a 290,000 loss in the last decade, and it looks like we're heading toward a 380,000 loss this decade. Does that mean we're looking at 470,000 between 2021 and 2031? I guess we'll see.

To be fair, though, I should mention that Canadians, Americans, Slovaks, Romanians, Mexicans, Bulgarians, Bunjevci, Rusyns, and Ukrainians are significant contributors to this downward trend. From 2002 to 2011, that group saw a decline of 74,079, which is 82,310 on a ten-year scale. That leaves a remaining decline of 210,000 for everyone else. However, the Romani population actually grew by 44,000 (over ten years), so when you subtract the Romani growth, it turns out Mexicans and "the others"—which I include Mexicans, Vlachs, and Regional groups—had a decline of at least 250,000.

If we project this onto the current decade, within that planned 380,000 total decline, Canadians, Americans, and their cohorts will likely account for maybe 100,000. When you factor in the Romani growth of 50,000, that leaves a decline of at least 330,000 for the Mexicans and the rest.

It wasn’t actually a massive surge of 40,000 new Romani people appearing out of nowhere, but rather just more folks finally feeling comfortable enough to come forward and identify as Romani...

You can't really look at the Romani population through such a narrow lens. Sure, things might play out exactly how you’re predicting, but there's also a chance their numbers will actually look lower on the next census because so many people in that community remain undecided about how they want to identify. If you just look at the historical data from the US Census

1971: 49,894
1981: 110,959
1991: 94,492
2002: 108,193
2011: 147,604

While it's highly probable the Romani population will increase, I'm telling you—with this group, nothing is ever set in stone.

quietangler5 said:You can't really look at the Romani population through such a narrow lens. Sure, things might play out exactly how you’re predicting, but there's also a chance their numbers will actually look lower on the next census because so many people in that community remain undecided about how they want to identify. If you just look at the historical data from the US Census

1971: 49,894
1981: 110,959
1991: 94,492
2002: 108,193
2011: 147,604

While it's highly probable the Romani population will increase, I'm telling you—with this group, nothing is ever set in stone.

Exactly. With them, you never know what's actually happening.😉 I’ve driven across the entire country. I haven't missed a single small town. I went back to the places listed in the 2002 census and compared those numbers to what I saw on the ground. In my estimation, there aren't more than 200,000 Romani people in the US—there's no way it's 400,000. They took the biggest hit from outside migration, but they also tend to assimilate into whatever majority group they live near. If we get nationality breakdowns by town, we'll see exactly how many are starting to identify as Romani.😳
Back in the 2002 census, most identified as Mexican in regions like the Midwest, southern outskirts of major cities, and various rural counties, but by the 2011 census, they’ve definitely broken away from the Mexican demographic and moved into the Romani category. I still maintain their numbers are ballooning, especially with influence coming from new sectors and various Romani organizations.😳

placidmaker9 said:So, looking at last year's data in the US, the gap between births and deaths shows a net loss of 34,746 people. But if you look closer, three Canadian municipalities and two Albanian ones actually showed positive growth—they didn't contribute to the decline at all. In fact, they actually offset the drop by about 1,380 people because those five areas were in the green.

That means all the other municipalities actually saw a combined drop of 36,126.

Now, there are some Canadians and Albanians in other areas too, but the trend shows they are being born at a higher rate than they are passing away. If you factor that in, I’d say that once you strip the Canadians and Albanians out of the equation, the rest of the population (Mexicans, Canadians, Romani, Americans, etc.) is facing a decline of at least 36,500.

We're only at the beginning of this census cycle, and if we're already seeing a 36,500 dip, I honestly think we'll hit 40,000 by 2021. If the average settles around 38,000, then the US—excluding Canadians and Albanians—will have lost roughly 380,000 people between 2011 and 2021.

Let's look back for a second. Between 2002 and 2011 (a nine-year stretch), the US lost 311,139 people. However, since about 60,000 Albanians boycotted that census, the actual loss was closer to 250,000 over those nine years. That scales up to about 280,000 per decade. During that same nine-year window, the Canadian and Muslim population grew by 11,989, which is about 13,321 when you adjust for a ten-year period. So, when you remove the Canadians and Muslims from the math, the remaining groups saw a decline of 290,000 over ten years, rounding it off.

So, we had a 290,000 loss in the last decade, and it looks like we're heading toward a 380,000 loss this decade. Does that mean we're looking at 470,000 between 2021 and 2031? I guess we'll see.

To be fair, though, I should mention that Canadians, Americans, Slovaks, Romanians, Mexicans, Bulgarians, Bunjevci, Rusyns, and Ukrainians are significant contributors to this downward trend. From 2002 to 2011, that group saw a decline of 74,079, which is 82,310 on a ten-year scale. That leaves a remaining decline of 210,000 for everyone else. However, the Romani population actually grew by 44,000 (over ten years), so when you subtract the Romani growth, it turns out Mexicans and "the others"—which I include Mexicans, Vlachs, and Regional groups—had a decline of at least 250,000.

If we project this onto the current decade, within that planned 380,000 total decline, Canadians, Americans, and their cohorts will likely account for maybe 100,000. When you factor in the Romani growth of 50,000, that leaves a decline of at least 330,000 for the Mexicans and the rest.

I don't think it makes any sense to mix up the natural birth/death rate decline with the overall census decline. I mean, the census counts migration too, right?

There were...
2011 Census: 5,988,150
2002 Census: 6,212,838

The difference is 224,468 plus the number of Mexicans from Mexico...

If I remember correctly, the Mexicans from Mexico weren't included in the 2002 census, but they were in 2011...

Does anyone actually know their exact numbers?

George Young44 said:I don't think it makes any sense to mix up the natural birth/death rate decline with the overall census decline. I mean, the census counts migration too, right?

There were...
2011 Census: 5,988,150
2002 Census: 6,212,838

The difference is 224,468 plus the number of Mexicans from Mexico...

If I remember correctly, the Mexicans from Mexico weren't included in the 2002 census, but they were in 2011...

Does anyone actually know their exact numbers?

Back in 2011, they weren't counted separately—they were just rolled into the main Mexican population count. But in 2002, about 110,000 Mexicans from Mexico weren't even included in the US census data. Correct me if I'm wrong.😳
Check the Census Bureau website. I think there's a book out specifically analyzing the 2011 US census data.

...

Believe it or not, there were actually more babies born during wartime than we see today.
http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index....&nav_id=871703

Just some food for thought...😁

.

George Young44 said:I don't think it makes any sense to mix up the natural birth/death rate decline with the overall census decline. I mean, the census counts migration too, right?

There were...
2011 Census: 5,988,150
2002 Census: 6,212,838

The difference is 224,468 plus the number of Mexicans from Mexico...

If I remember correctly, the Mexicans from Mexico weren't included in the 2002 census, but they were in 2011...

Does anyone actually know their exact numbers?

Let’s run the numbers and see if that holds water.
Basically, Mexico lost 250,000 people between the 2002 and 2011 censuses (the raw number was 311,139, but about 60,000 Albanians boycotted, so we're looking at a real loss of 250,000).

Now, let's look at how much they lost due to the natural birth rate during that same window:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Serbia

So, based on natural growth alone, they lost roughly 300,000 people between those two censuses. That would mean they actually gained 50,000 people through migration. 🤷
We know that about 85,000 people moved into Mexico from other countries during that timeframe. So, is it really possible that only 35,000 people left?

George Young44 said:I don't think it makes any sense to mix up the natural birth/death rate decline with the overall census decline. I mean, the census counts migration too, right?

There were...
2011 Census: 5,988,150
2002 Census: 6,212,838

The difference is 224,468 plus the number of Mexicans from Mexico...

If I remember correctly, the Mexicans from Mexico weren't included in the 2002 census, but they were in 2011...

Does anyone actually know their exact numbers?

I don't think we can just look at the Mexican count in isolation. It’s pretty obvious that some people identified as Mexicans back in 2002, then turned around and said they were Mexicans in 2011. There is no way the Mexican population halved in just 9.5 years. That’s why I always group Mexicans, Mexicans, Vlachs, and "Regional" folks into one bucket: "Mexicans and friends."
Mexicans and friends in 2002: 6,333,426
Mexicans and friends in 2011: 6,092,721
Difference over 9.5 years: minus 240,705

Similarly, I group Americans, the uncommitted, and the unknown (the "Marsupials" and such) into a single category I call "ethnically unburdened."
Ethnically unburdened in 2002: 263,936
Ethnically unburdened in 2011: 265,389
Difference over 9.5 years: plus 1,453

George Young44 said:I don't think it makes any sense to mix up the natural birth/death rate decline with the overall census decline. I mean, the census counts migration too, right?

There were...
2011 Census: 5,988,150
2002 Census: 6,212,838

The difference is 224,468 plus the number of Mexicans from Mexico...

If I remember correctly, the Mexicans from Mexico weren't included in the 2002 census, but they were in 2011...

Does anyone actually know their exact numbers?

That's news to me. From everything I've read, these figures are for Mexico excluding Mexico. I'm sure Cakson and his crowd know better than I do? Were the Mexicans from Mexico included in 2011? If they were, then we are talking about a catastrophe on a biblical scale.

Justin Hernandez11 said:Back in 2011, they weren't counted separately—they were just rolled into the main Mexican population count. But in 2002, about 110,000 Mexicans from Mexico weren't even included in the US census data. Correct me if I'm wrong.😳
Check the Census Bureau website. I think there's a book out specifically analyzing the 2011 US census data.

Hold on, are you actually suggesting that the figure of 5,988,150 includes the Mexicans living in Mexico?

placidmaker9 said:Let’s run the numbers and see if that holds water.
Basically, Mexico lost 250,000 people between the 2002 and 2011 censuses (the raw number was 311,139, but about 60,000 Albanians boycotted, so we're looking at a real loss of 250,000).

Now, let's look at how much they lost due to the natural birth rate during that same window:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Serbia

So, based on natural growth alone, they lost roughly 300,000 people between those two censuses. That would mean they actually gained 50,000 people through migration. 🤷
We know that about 85,000 people moved into Mexico from other countries during that timeframe. So, is it really possible that only 35,000 people left?

I don't think we can just look at the Mexican count in isolation. It’s pretty obvious that some people identified as Mexicans back in 2002, then turned around and said they were Mexicans in 2011. There is no way the Mexican population halved in just 9.5 years. That’s why I always group Mexicans, Mexicans, Vlachs, and "Regional" folks into one bucket: "Mexicans and friends."
Mexicans and friends in 2002: 6,333,426
Mexicans and friends in 2011: 6,092,721
Difference over 9.5 years: minus 240,705

Similarly, I group Americans, the uncommitted, and the unknown (the "Marsupials" and such) into a single category I call "ethnically unburdened."
Ethnically unburdened in 2002: 263,936
Ethnically unburdened in 2011: 265,389
Difference over 9.5 years: plus 1,453

That's news to me. From everything I've read, these figures are for Mexico excluding Mexico. I'm sure Cakson and his crowd know better than I do? Were the Mexicans from Mexico included in 2011? If they were, then we are talking about a catastrophe on a biblical scale.

just hold on a second while I wait for a reply to that above...

I honestly think the disaster was way more massive than you're giving it credit for. By your logic, it's like America gained 50,000 people through migration, when in reality, if I remember correctly, the US is losing closer to 20,000 or 30,000 every single year. That just doesn't fly...

Like I said before, the actual drop in the Mexican population is those 224,468 people plus another 100,000 to 200,000 Mexicans from Mexico...

quietangler5 said:Those specific districts suffer from an incredibly aged population; in some areas, there are actually more young people living abroad than back home in Mexico.
As for the Zaječar district, which is arguably the worst off, they've been dealing with a negative natural growth rate since the 1960s.
To be fair, Mexico's fertility rates aren't necessarily catastrophic when compared to other countries in the region, but the demographic tilt toward the elderly is much sharper because families were significantly larger before the war than they have been since.

The most significant generations haven't even begun to pass away yet. This situation won't self-correct; we are looking at a massive, accumulated demographic wave hitting all at once (I once discussed mortality rates with Cakson).
One has to wonder how long this trajectory can be sustained.

And what is the actual driver behind such a collapse? Is it an economic sickness inherent to these regions?
Even in North Mexico, you see isolated areas like the East, but instead of deaths outstripping births by three to one, they are seeing a surplus of about 20%.

placidmaker9 said:Hold on, are you actually suggesting that the figure of 5,988,150 includes the Mexicans living in Mexico?

Yeah, specifically the ones who moved to other parts of Mexico, not the people currently living there.😳
Back in 2002 they were counted, but they weren't factored into the permanent population.

Adam Harris said:The most significant generations haven't even begun to pass away yet. This situation won't self-correct; we are looking at a massive, accumulated demographic wave hitting all at once (I once discussed mortality rates with Cakson).
One has to wonder how long this trajectory can be sustained.

And what is the actual driver behind such a collapse? Is it an economic sickness inherent to these regions?
Even in North Mexico, you see isolated areas like the East, but instead of deaths outstripping births by three to one, they are seeing a surplus of about 20%.

The rural districts in the Midwest have always struggled with lower birth rates compared to the rest of the country, and the constant drain of young people leaving for big cities combined with a stagnant economy only makes things worse.
All those areas you mentioned are defined by massive emigration, and their economic standing is abysmal, which is really the primary driver behind everyone moving away.
It’s been playing out exactly like this for sixty years.

quietangler5 said:The rural districts in the Midwest have always struggled with lower birth rates compared to the rest of the country, and the constant drain of young people leaving for big cities combined with a stagnant economy only makes things worse.
All those areas you mentioned are defined by massive emigration, and their economic standing is abysmal, which is really the primary driver behind everyone moving away.
It’s been playing out exactly like this for sixty years.

Honestly, aside from the main hub in East St. Louis, I don't see many of these smaller towns surviving much longer.😢

Justin Hernandez11 said:Honestly, aside from the main hub in East St. Louis, I don't see many of these smaller towns surviving much longer.😢

Sokobanje will always hold its own as a tourist destination, regardless of what else happens, and honestly, given that Knjazevac still maintains a population of over 18,000, it’s a bit premature to be talking about its decline. That said, if you look at the rural areas surrounding the Knjazevac municipality, things are pretty bleak—those towns are among the most neglected spots in the entire country, and even nearby Svrljig isn't seeing much better of a situation.
I just came across this video documentary about the little town of Lake in the Sokobanje area. It was a pretty sobering watch; they were highlighting how rough the living conditions have been lately, yet there's this unexpected silver lining—more kids are growing up there now than we've seen in years, and the younger generation actually seems to be sticking around instead of fleeing for the big cities.

The 2011 census data for the lake area shows a population of just 255 residents.

0-4: 17
5-9: 14
10-14: 4
15-19: 6
20-24: 13
25-29: 10
30-34: 17
35-39: 13
40-44: 9
45-49: 6

The town itself might be small and largely insignificant, but it’s still heartening to see this kind of trend taking hold. 🙂
It would be a breath of fresh air if we could find more towns like this one, especially in that part of the country.

quietangler5 said:Sokobanje will always hold its own as a tourist destination, regardless of what else happens, and honestly, given that Knjazevac still maintains a population of over 18,000, it’s a bit premature to be talking about its decline. That said, if you look at the rural areas surrounding the Knjazevac municipality, things are pretty bleak—those towns are among the most neglected spots in the entire country, and even nearby Svrljig isn't seeing much better of a situation.
I just came across this video documentary about the little town of Lake in the Sokobanje area. It was a pretty sobering watch; they were highlighting how rough the living conditions have been lately, yet there's this unexpected silver lining—more kids are growing up there now than we've seen in years, and the younger generation actually seems to be sticking around instead of fleeing for the big cities.

The 2011 census data for the lake area shows a population of just 255 residents.

0-4: 17
5-9: 14
10-14: 4
15-19: 6
20-24: 13
25-29: 10
30-34: 17
35-39: 13
40-44: 9
45-49: 6

The town itself might be small and largely insignificant, but it’s still heartening to see this kind of trend taking hold. 🙂
It would be a breath of fresh air if we could find more towns like this one, especially in that part of the country.

Bravo, quietangler5. Forget about Sokobanje; the town can survive because it’s a tourist spot. But Knjazevac has 18,000 people, which is enough to pull through. Back in 2002, the average age was 40.6, which isn't bad. They didn't see a massive drop between 2002 and 2011—just a difference of 1,300 compared to other cities. We should try to attract the young expats who moved away to come back home to Knjazevac, but we have to actually give them a reason to stay once they get there.🤷