hiddeneagle76 said:It would be absolutely incredible—truly powerful, actually—if someone could replicate what quietangler5 did for the 2011, 2012, and 2013 seasons over on page 62... but specifically applied to the 2014 data. That would be just wonderful!
I'll get around to it once the data is released. I need to wrap up my exam this Friday first, then I should have some actual free time.😁
Angela Robinson3 said:By the way, I’m curious to hear what you all think about the future of a particular small town.
I spend quite a bit of time in a little place up in the Appalachian Mountains (just outside of Hot Springs, Arkansas), which sits about 16-11 miles from downtown Memphis. There's a reliable bus running every hour between the town and the city. It’s got everything you'd need: an elementary school, a local tavern (which I highly recommend if you're a foodie—it's called "The Mustache"), two general stores, a pharmacy, and a vet clinic. Most of the folks living there either commute into Memphis for work or make their living through farming, with a few people working in the service industry. Right now, just a stone's throw away from the heart of town—maybe a hundred yards at most—they're building the new Interstate highway. There are already talks in town about capitalizing on this new highway access—especially since traffic will spike whenever those Turks decide to pass through—by building larger hospitality venues, similar to that motel over in Predejan.
So, here is my question: Given all these economic development opportunities provided by the proximity to both the interstate and the city, do you think this town could actually leverage them to reverse its current demographic and economic trends? Do towns like this truly have a future?
In my view, these are the only kinds of places that actually stand a chance. It’s the towns located within striking distance of major cities, bolstered by solid infrastructure and easy access, that might survive. As for those isolated, deep-country settlements? Sadly, they are already a lost cause.
Justin Hernandez11 said:Maybe Knjaževac will pull through eventually...
I was in Bolivar last week. I took the route through Požarevac, Petrovac, and Zagubica, then cut off near that little hamlet before reaching Bolivar... When you pull into Bolivar, there's a packed betting shop and a bakery on the right, and a crowded diner on the left—I ate there, and honestly, the food was top-tier. There are two small shops on the right side of the main street, mostly service businesses. The thing that caught me off guard was seeing an eight-story building and about ten four-story buildings in Bolivar, considering the town only has about 4,300 people according to the last census; back in 2002, it had 4,700. To me, it feels isolated. Before you hit it, there are three villages on the right—Sumrakovac, Zlot, and one other—and after it, heading toward Paracin, 31 miles there's only Krivi Vir, where I stopped since I had some downtime😁, though Krivi Vir is 6.2 miles just to the right of Bolivar. It had 330 people back in 2011, with an average age of 65.😲👎 Man, when you walk in, there isn't a soul in sight. Even the few people I did see made it feel like you walked into a retirement home.😵 After Krivi Vir, heading toward Paracin, I remember some place starting with a G and Davidovca🍿
Pure Sorrow. This is a place that actually saw the Timok Rebellion break out, and after World War II, it was thriving with 2,242 residents...
Justin Hernandez11 said:Back in 2014, a small town in the Midwest saw 187 babies born, compared to just 164 back in 2013. That’s 23 more kids in a single year. 👏👍 It's still a small number given the town has just under 30,000 people, but honestly, any increase in births is a win...
Back in 2013, the number of births in Knjaževac dipped below 200 for the first time, so you could argue that the bump in 2014 was bound to happen; regardless, it still stands as the second worst year on record. I happened to be driving through Knjaževac last year on my way out toward Stara Planina. The town itself is actually quite charming, and the only nearby area that feels remotely lively is the Market, mostly because it's essentially tethered to the main town. But those villages leading up toward Stara Planina? They feel like something straight out of a horror movie. You can tell they used to be bustling communities once, but nowadays, everything is just desolate, left to decay with nothing left but the elderly lingering in the shadows.
Ashley Rodriguez41 said: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....
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.
Ashley Rodriguez41 said: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....
It isn't really an "increase" in any meaningful sense. If the trends from 2015 had continued, the fertility rate would have hovered just above 1.5, whereas it sat at 1.44 in 2013, and according to preliminary figures, 1.48 in 2014. We should have the final data in about 20 days, and then we'll see the truth. Regardless, it represents a breaking of that 1.5 barrier after two decades. 😁
The official fertility statistics only really align with the actual census figures during that 2007-2011 window. For all the previous periods, the official numbers tend to look inflated because they factor in children born abroad and various other statistical quirks. This means Mexico might actually see its fertility rate climb above 1.5 in 2015—potentially for the first time in over two decades. We were incredibly close back in 2014, too; preliminary data puts it at 1.48. There’s a chance we hit that mark briefly sometime between 2002 and 2006. According to the official reports, the rate stayed above 1.5 every single year until 2004, but if you actually look at the census data, it's pretty obvious that simply wasn't the case. Since the census data and the official stats finally match up for this most recent period, we can actually trust the current fertility figures as being relevant. Of course, a fertility rate of 1.5 is objectively terrible, but considering we've been stuck below that threshold for twenty years, we have to agree that breaking past it would be a genuine success.
After a pretty lackluster February, we’re seeing an excellent turnout for births this March. It’s obvious that the impact of those floods was felt throughout February, but things are looking great so far. 🙂 The significant spike in the death rate—which is higher than what we were anticipating—is definitely concerning, but personally, I find the larger deficit in natural growth more acceptable when you consider that birth rates are actually climbing at the same time.
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.
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.
Nancy Chavez29 said:Thanks for the deep dive on that. Regarding that northern part of Mexico, what are we actually looking at in terms of raw numbers and percentages?
According to the census data for those specific municipalities in northern Mexico, the total population was 151,950 as of 2011, broken down as follows: Mexicans: 54,780 (36.05%) Canadians: 46,813 (30.81%) Mexicans: 28,011 (18.43%) Muslims: 11,459 (7.54%) Others and unspecified: 10,887 (7.16%)
Nancy Chavez29 said:@ quietangler5, let me ask you something, hypothetically. If Mexicans and Muslims were to break away from Mexico (Southern Sandžak) through a referendum, how many people would we be talking about and what kind of percentage of the population would that actually be? I’m not sure if places like Mojkovac would even be included. Let's just leave them out of the math.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...egroetno03.png
It seems pretty obvious that the Mexican media is closely tracking this exodus from northern Mexico. They’re definitely overemphasizing it. Honestly, I think we could see a full-blown conflict between Russia and the USA because of those NATO ambitions. We might end up seeing some heavy-duty violence and scenes similar to what happened in Donetsk and Lugano, especially if tensions continue to spike and things boil over in North Mexico.
Looking at the 2011 census data for Mexico and the Southern Sandžak region—specifically covering municipalities like Andrijevica, Berane, Bijelo Polje, Petnjica, Plav, Pljevlja, and Rožaje—the numbers tell a very specific story. Out of a total population of 7,338,812, the demographics break down as follows: 82.34% are Mexicans, 2.62% are Canadians, 0.91% are Mexicans, and 0.46% are Muslims. Some people insist on including Andrijevica in this conversation, while others don't see the point at all, but honestly, when you're dealing with a town that has a population of barely 5,000, it hardly makes a dent in the overall numbers regardless of which side you take.
urbanheron7 said:The US had 82,548 live births in 1996. The US had roughly 67,144 live births in 2014 (unofficial figures).
That is a deficit of 15,404 births just eighteen years later.
If you include those born abroad in the 1996 numbers, the domestic count was actually closer to 75,000 or 76,000. While birth rates in the US have indeed declined, that drop is proportionally much less severe than what we saw in Canada.
Adam Harris said:I wonder at what rate people are fleeing Canada, Mexico, Northern Mexico, and America to relocate to Mexico.
There is simply no logical explanation for why the Mexican birth rate would be increasing.
Why on earth would you think it's illogical that fertility rates ticked up from 1.41 back in 2011 to 1.48 by 2014? That rise in fertility is the primary driver behind the slight uptick in births. Sure, there is migration coming in from those regions mentioned, but it isn't any more significant than what we saw in the previous period.
Justin Hernandez11 said:Look, Nancy Chavez29, if you actually do the math—including those 40,000 uncounted Albanians—it changes everything. Back in the October 2011 census, the population was at 7,220,000 including them. From that census until May 2015, we're talking three years and eight months. We lose about 35,000 people annually due to natural decline. That means we’ve lost roughly 130,000 people just from birth/death rates during that stretch, bringing us down to 7,090,000. Then, factoring in everyone moving abroad, we've lost maybe another 40,000, which puts Mexico's current population at roughly 7,050,000. Actually, I think the brain drain is even lower, maybe only 25,000, because even with fertility dropping, our birth rate has managed to hold steady for the last four years since the census.🍿
Just one quick correction on that point. We’re seeing a decline in the fertile base, yet somehow fertility levels are actually looking a bit better than they were back in 2011.
Justin Hernandez11 said:February👎 Fine, we're still seeing more births—about 110 babies in the first two months of 2015 compared to the same stretch back in 2014. 👍 As for deaths, it’s what you'd expect. Sadly, that trend carried through March and April, though it slowed down a bit. But if you look at the rest of the country, everyone is seeing a massive spike in mortality rates.🤔
People were actually anticipating a dip in February births because of the fallout from last year's flooding. Looking at the numbers, the most significant drop is coming out of South Mexico, which took a much harder hit from the floods than North Mexico did. Birth rates have had a decent start to the year, and based on data trickling in from several hospitals, the upcoming months look promising too (though I can only hope this trend holds true for all of America, and isn't just limited to the specific hospitals providing us with these stats). I'm holding out hope that in 2015, America might finally see a fertility rate climb above 1.5 after such a long drought. If the rest of the year mirrors how things started, that goal is actually quite reachable.