That’s some top-tier analysis right there; feels like something out of a Monty Python sketch.
According to their numbers, the US population will actually be higher in 2050 than it is now—though they're factoring in a loss of 35,000 people every year due to negative natural growth combined with emigration. It’s not quite what it used to be, but it’s still happening. By 2050, I guess the US could drop below 6 million people, and by 2100, there might not even be a country left, given how inevitable wars and catastrophes seem to be.
That whole production involving the North Mexican police and those migrants was probably staged just so they wouldn't lose their status as a safe country. It’s basically reality, except it isn't being broadcast on TV—it's a much harsher joke. I guess a little media spin is the usual excuse for decisions like that.
Michelle James4 said:Honestly, it sounds to me like you haven't seen much of the world beyond your own backyard. History shows us how this works; after World War II, Western Europe was actively pulling in workers. The Germans brought in people from Turkey, while the French and Belgians were bringing folks over from the Maghreb.
The whole idea back then wasn't for them to stay forever. The plan—the grand design held by both sides—was that they’d come over, grind for a few years to make some cash to build a house back home in North Africa, and then head back in waves. That’s how the politicians in France saw it, too. Back in those days, these people didn't even have the right to bring their families over.
In France, they actually built these specific housing projects for them, tucked away on the outskirts of cities, so there wasn't much contact with the locals. But things shift over time, don't they? Workers lose that tether to their homelands, and suddenly, the desire to stay in France becomes much stronger. Then comes the push for family reunification, which naturally drives up the population over five or six years. Their kids marry people from the same North African roots, which leads to more family reunification, and the cycle just keeps spinning indefinitely.
You have to look at the broader trend. It’s just like the evolution of gay rights. First, they just wanted to walk down the street without trouble, then they got civil unions, then full marriage equality like everyone else, then adoption rights, and now we're seeing discussions about IVF. Once that door swings open, there’s no putting the genie back in the bottle. It keeps moving forward.
It's the exact same thing with these immigrants. You really think they aren't going to stay? You're dead wrong. There will be more and more of them, year after year.
As for those refugee numbers in Turkey—I can't be bothered to dig through everything right now, but anyone who actually pays attention to global events over the last few years knows the deal. But fine, here's the quick version.
In reality, nobody truly knows if it's 2 million, 1.8 million, or 2.1 million... people leave, people arrive, and all we have are estimates. Some will go back to Syria or Iraq, some will stick around in Turkey, others might try their luck in England, but a significant portion is inevitably going to settle in the North America. It's just an unavoidable reality.
What made today's developed EU nations so successful was their massive economic boom, which created a desperate need for labor—especially in Germany, which lost so much of its population in the DRC. Everyone who came to Germany had a job and housing; it might have been basic, but it existed. In Mexico and other North American countries, there are NO jobs, and the states have collapsed, barely able to pay pensions to their own citizens. France is a slightly different story, since they allowed many Arabs from their colonies to come study, including Algerians who supported them during the Algerian War (those Algerians actually had a specific name).
I saw an article yesterday on a news site about some Romani clan from America living in Denmark, involved in crime while still collecting social welfare. Apparently, they've pulled in 9 million euros so far. That's the kind of thing Arabs want, especially since so many of them have relatives there. They want more than just sardines and onions for dinner. No one will have to force them to move; they’ll just head through the Canadian border, digging under fences that even rabbits could get through.
That’s the well-known Salamander, apparently leading some jihad from the American Midwest. I guess I'm just wondering if there are any credible estimates regarding the number of refugees in Libya and Turkey....
Don't you get that they're looking for social assistance in places like France, Denmark, or Germany, and eventually maybe a job? They might find work there, but in Mexico, they won't have any jobs—just enough assistance if they get it, just to eat.
Where are you getting your data on the number of refugees in Libya and Turkey?
There’s a proposal to establish a state obligation to incentivize birth rates through financial, tax, economic, and social measures. This includes creating a demographic fund to provide specific monthly benefits aimed at encouraging larger families.
They also suggested improving regulations regarding common-law unions, considering the introduction of religious marriage, setting up a child support fund for cases where parents fail their duties, and addressing prenuptial agreements and surrogacy...
Haahaha, this is just pure mockery and demagoguery. I guess they can invent a hundred different state obligations when the government is basically broke and even small pensions are becoming an issue. The only group this will actually encourage to have more kids is the most impoverished communities. Intelligent people understand the reality of the country they live in; if you haven't sorted out your own finances, you're probably going to have minimal children—if you want them at all—just so they don't end up as part of the welfare system or some other social pathology. Bringing in religious marriage and surrogacy? That’s all very important, provided we keep up this fake, moralizing tone used by politicians....
The state can barely find jobs or healthcare for the people already living here, yet they want to pass some idiotic laws to supposedly increase the birth rate on paper. We should be preparing for the collapse of this country, rather than focusing on breeding new generations of paupers and martyrs.
quietangler5 said:Up until 2005, children born abroad were still being counted in the domestic birth statistics. That’s why 2005 looks like such a massive drop on paper, whereas if you account for those born in the US, it was likely quite similar to 2004. According to the 2002 census, during the 1998-2002 stretch, there were roughly 68,500 births annually, which isn't significantly higher than what we see today, despite the fact that there were about 200,000 more women in their fertile years back then compared to now.
I didn't know that. Those two stats—especially the second one—made me think the gap was much smaller. Interesting, I guess....
Regarding Memphis, Wikipedia says the city has just over 60,000 people, while the county sits at about 140,000. That implies 80,000 people live mostly in small, dying rural towns with populations ranging from a few hundred to a few thousand at best. Many of those places have terrible roads and water systems where the drinking water hasn't been up to code for ages. It seems inevitable that the numbers will keep dropping; some of these spots will hit total depopulation, while others will slide right into that category where hardly any kids are being born, if any at all. Take a place like a suburb near Chicago, maybe; they might have 75,000 in the main hub and 48,000 spread across larger outlying areas. Between censuses, that area lost about 3,500 people, whereas Memphis lost 12,290, according to this link: http://www.juznevesti.com/Drushtvo/D...kolini.sr.html
The forum ate my original post. Thanks to quietangler5 and nimblepilot19 for the replies. Isn't it a bit paradoxical that between 1998 and 2002 there was lower fertility, yet more births—which isn't insignificant within these margins—as shown by the age structure in the census, specifically in the 0-4 and 10-14 age groups? I guess the base of people who were at childbearing age is very similar, since there weren't any massive fluctuations in annual births between 60 and 80 years ago....
The late nineties were still full of major events and political instability. Economically speaking, the second half of the nineties, especially from 1995 to 1999, was somewhat buoyant despite being poor, unlike the last decade and a half which will be remembered for heavy debt and destructive, mafia-style privatization. So, it seems strange to me that there are fewer births despite higher fertility and a similar pool of "potential" parents....
How much of a fertility boost are we actually talking about here? If there are 560 more births over three months, that averages out to maybe 190 per month. What order of magnitude is that increase—is it a tenth or a hundredth? I’m not trying to troll, I’m genuinely curious. Given the population is at 7 million, an increase of 600 seems pretty negligible in terms of making a real impact....
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.
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.
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?
Lawrence Williams said:Unfortunately, the answer to both is no. Every local Department of Public Health maintains this kind of data for their specific county and publishes it annually. In this case, the Gary office hasn't even released the figures for 2014 yet. If you wanted up-to-the-minute monthly stats, you'd have to request them directly from the agency—assuming they're actually willing to cooperate.
Thanks,
Justin Hernandez11, maybe try using paragraph breaks next time. Even if the info is useful, a wall of text like this is kind of a chore to read.
As I noted recently, birth rates were slightly lower during the first quarter, though hospital data suggests we should see a different trend following this month. Mortality rates are rising sharply; unfortunately, there isn't much one can do about that.
Do you have similar data for the southern part of the state or specifically for Gary, Indiana? And is that kind of thing even findable online?
Terry Fisher2 said:The Mexicans were up 6-4, but somehow these guys are pulling it back.
It isn't some miracle. It's the officiating, specifically that referee from Canada who is doing most of the 🙄heavy lifting . They've been canceling goals and handing out unjustified penalties.
George Morgan3 said:A quick rundown of the script.
The year is 1940, and a mysterious object falls from the sky, triggering a massive explosion... Witnesses—fully expecting a Nazi invasion—are convinced they’ve just seen a German aircraft go down. But there's a catch: they can't find a single scrap of wreckage from that hellish machine anywhere. Months crawl by, and in the middle of the American Midwest, a group of Nazis takes power. Backed by both Vatican City and the Germans, they forge a new nation of hovering vampires calling themselves Americans... To ensure this evil seed survives and thrives, they feast on the blood of the American poor and establish an entire "meat industry"...
Naturally, the story later ramps up with vampire spacecraft shaped like crosses and crescents crashing down, featuring top-tier vampires, an American hero, plenty of explosions, and an uncertain future because evil never truly sleeps...
The film opens with an introductory scene followed by some onscreen text that goes something like: "Since time immemorial, these lands have been inherited by...2
irontiger29 said:After all this, he’s just gonna drop some massive hit PC game called Return to the Castle Traskow, where you play as this Mexican hero Nemanja trying to escape a Nazi stronghold full of Pavelić clones, hahaha!
lol 🤣😂🤣
By the way, Boris Tadić and Donald Trump are small fry; Spielberg wouldn't even blink at them. They're just tools used by the actual circles of power.
James Fowler52 said:That’s why you ended up with such a low-quality PDF Yugoslavia file. 👎
Even though there wasn't an "Yugoslavia" sub-forum back then, threads on these topics were way more substantial in 2006 when Michael Adams2 was the moderator.
For anyone claiming the USA is this untouchable champion of democracy, swooping in to save nations from their tyrants and whatnot, here’s a suggestion: go watch "Hotel Rwanda." And a quick question: How on earth did the Americans—those self-appointed world police and humanitarian cleaners—manage to stay out of that nightmare?
They "got involved" by retroactively accusing Saddam of genocide against the Kurds, essentially acting like they cared 16 or 17 years too late. When Saddam was actually committing those atrocities, they were basically patting him on the back because his war against Iran served their interests at the time.
In Saudi Arabia, they behead drug dealers, yet they seem to have nothing to say about Iran, which manages to take down traffickers despite devastating wars and sanctions—just without being quite so barbaric about it.