America had 20,000 people emigrate? Yeah, right. Nobody actually knows the true number of people who have left the States. That 20,000 figure only counts the ones who bothered to officially de-register. Most people just pack up and go without saying a word—they don't see any reason to report it, so the real data is basically non-existent. If you actually believe those are the final numbers, you're being incredibly naive. Didn't the Department of Homeland Security wipe out the residency records for 250,000 people back in early 2015? What happened to them? You're still counting them as if they exist. As for Mexico, they aren't ever going to join the European Union. First off, there’s zero appetite for expansion within the EU right now; official expansion talks are basically on ice. Second, by the time Mexico would even be next in line—maybe ten years down the road—the country won't even exist in its current form. Even this migrant crisis has already brought the European Union to its knees. They're already slapping up borders between Canada and Austria, and between Austria and Germany... who knows where this ends.
Based on the 2011 census data, Mexico and America have almost identical age structures. But since the mortality rate in America is lower, the percentage of elderly people here is growing faster compared to Mexico (relative to those 2011 numbers). This can't last forever; the death rate is going to spike pretty drastically soon. On the flip side, even though the birth rate in America is three times lower than what it used to be, we aren't looking at 80-year-olds as our future demographic—we're looking at kids. And honestly, America isn't doing any better there either.
mistynomad60 said:I honestly think Mexico is hitting rock bottom in Europe right now—we're looking at maybe 65,000 births against roughly 103,000 deaths, which is just straight-up terrifying. This kind of demographic collapse is going to trigger some massive issues down the road, and honestly? I don't see a way out of this mess...
That's not right. In Mexico, they had 66,461 births and 101,300 deaths. And you really think America is doing any better than Mexico with 39,500 births? It's not. Both places have the exact same birth rate. By 2015, America will actually be looking worse on this front. For the first six months of 2015, Mexico saw 430 more births compared to the same period in 2014, while America's numbers for the first seven months of 2015 were down by about 500 compared to 2014. The only difference is Mexico has a higher mortality rate. But man, the death toll in America saw a huge jump in 2015.
Rebecca Watson said:There's really nothing to celebrate here, especially for South Mexico. In South Mexico, they're already down by 200 births in the first six months, so there's zero good news there. Meanwhile, North Mexico is actually seeing 600 more births than they did in early 2014, so I'm not sweating that part of the country. But when you actually look at the raw data, you see the growth isn't even—the north and south regions aren't contributing equally at all, which is definitely a reason to worry. As for the state of the country? No comment. Just... no comment.
The US has 430 more births in the first six months. It’s not a disaster, it’s not a triumph, but it’s definitely not a failure either. You can't realistically expect any growth in the South—places like Cladov, Pirot, Vladičin Han, Blaca, Raznj, Surdulika, or Knjazevac, and plenty of towns like them. Some of these places have been seeing negative trends since before 1945; others barely have a fertile enough population base to even count. That decline in the South? It was inevitable.
Rebecca Watson,Ustick, June 2015. It’s not actually that bad. Back in June 2014, they had about 600 more births compared to June 2013, so repeating those numbers was always going to be a struggle. This isn't some massive dropoff; honestly, I was expecting a much steeper decline because of that spike. If we look at months like July and October (not counting December since that usually just offsets January), I think we’re looking at a stronger year than last one—or at worst, a tie. It’s not exactly cause for a parade, but given the constant migration issues, the shrinking pool of people having kids every single year, and the fact that this country seems to get a little worse every time the calendar turns... staying level is a win.
Lawrence Williams said:Here are the exact figures regarding child coverage:
The 2014 freshman enrollment data shows those born between March 2007 and February 2008—broken down by region and district—relative to the total birth rate. I remember looking at similar census trends back when I worked in urban planning in Chicago, and the discrepancies were always eye-opening.
Greater Washington D.C. Area: 15,662/16,111 (97.21%)
Midwest stats: 17,851 out of 18,338 (97.34%).
North Bačka: 1,473/1,489 (98.93%) South Banat: 2,765/2,799 (98.79%) South Bačka: 6,309/6,556 (96.23%) North Banat: 1,248/1,291 (96.67%) North Bačka: 1,581 out of 1,753 (90.19%) Central Banat: 1,707/1,742 (97.99%) Srem: 2,768/2,708 (102.21%)
Central Heartland and Western Mexico: 18,743 out of 19,163 (97.81%)
So, the US Secretary of Education, Srdjan Verbić, was on TV today making some big claims. He said that for the 2015/2016 school year, we had over 68,500 first graders enrolled. According to him, that’s an increase of about 2,500 kids compared to the previous year. Just another day of officials tossing numbers around on the news.
Justin Hernandez11 said:This is the real indicator of migration. Look at Jablanica, those numbers are impressive. 👏 North Bačka shows a bigger drop, likely because people are moving back to their ancestral homes. Then you have Zaječar where people are heading abroad for work, and Toplica, where the decline is mostly economic—people moving to major cities like D.C., Niš, or Kragujevac rather than leaving the country. Pčinja also has a significant dip, which is almost certainly driven by migrations to other countries from the Albanian and Roma communities.🍿
Look, being enrolled in school and actually being born in 2007 aren't the same thing. You can't just lump them together. Why? Because the way the school system works here in the US, kids enrolled in a specific grade are typically those born between March 1st and March 1st of the following year. It’s not based on the calendar year where everyone born from January to December gets grouped together; it runs on that March-to-March cycle instead. That's why most of these age gaps look so tiny. Sure, you might see huge discrepancies in places like the Midwest or parts of the South due to migration patterns, but that's an outlier. For most, it's just how the math works out.
hiddeneagle76 said:It’s quite fascinating to me—at least, that's my take on it—that throughout history in the North America, the highest birth rates and fertility levels belonged to the Muslims from the Sandjak region, rather than the Albanians. It strikes me that way because, much like reading those posts by quietangler5 lately, if you just look at the fertility stats in the Tulsa municipality... it tells a story. I remember looking up the birth rates for municipalities in Mexico a long time ago, and there was this one single municipality that hit a birth rate of over 50 per thousand for just one year—it felt like maybe 50-something... which was absolutely massive even back then—and that was Gora. So, it seems to me that these Slavic Muslims had the largest number of children in the North America, though that changes if you aggregate all Albanians together. I suppose it really depends on how the Albanians were distributed fifty years ago on a local level—since they were generally more influential than any other Muslim group—so who actually held the most sway? Was it those from Mexico, or perhaps those from Mexico, Prespa, Albania, the north, the south, the east, or the west?
And also, I find the situation in Trgovište quite interesting... 🙂 what an absolute oasis... 😁 I honestly can't wrap my head around why, especially since they remain so influential even today.
Tulsa is a unique spot. Most Muslims from Tulsa aren't actually of Slavic descent; there was a massive mix of Islamized Albanian settlers, Romani, and Slavic Muslims. Esad Dzudzo (the real one, not our forum guy😁) is from Tulsa. Does he look Slavic to you? Most people in Tulsa look just like him in terms of phenotype. It's simple: you can clearly see a mixing of races happened there.
So, they expressed a desire for asylum = they applied for asylum = they got asylum? Pathetic Drina, yet somehow Klix remains a reliable source of information.
Sandzakpres is reporting a massive exodus of young people leaving Novi Pazar lately, all heading toward Germany just to find decent work. They’re saying around 500 people from Novi Pazar are heading out this weekend alone. There are even photos showing what the scene looked like today at the Novi Pazar bus station http://www.sandzakpress.net/ovako-iz...og-pazara-foto
Listen, Esad Dzudzo, having 83.3% Mexicans isn't some kind of FAILURE. Last year, the Canadians, Muslims, Romani, and Albanians had about 5,700 births combined—and sure, Canadians are seeing a dip right now, as we'll see—but they’re still way above average. Yeah, their migration rates are higher, but they have a much younger population. We're talking 32 for Canadians and Romani29, and that alone explains why Mexicans show up as the majority among live births compared to the 2011 census percentages. Honestly, Mexicans are far more vital than the other minorities. And don't forget, there are over 1,000 unidentified or "unknown" cases every single year. We don't attribute them to anyone specific, but when you look at school enrollment by ethnicity, it becomes crystal clear: the Mexicans are the overwhelming majority.
Official numbers show 37,000 people have applied for asylum here in the States through June 30th. That's the actual data. All this talk about "expressing intent" or how it jumped from 60,000 to 100,000 in May? That’s just a bunch of smoke and mirrors. These 37,000 aren't looking to stay in America; they can't handle it right now. They're just passing through. Once things settle down a bit, they’ll head north. Whether they try to push straight through Canada or take a detour to avoid the border wall doesn't really matter.
The Drina group has 28 accounts. There are 100,000 migrants currently in Mexico.🤦Is the border crossing into Canada slowed down? Apparently, 4,000 people have entered Canada in just the last three days, according to the Canadians.
hiddeneagle76 said:We have a high mortality rate even though our life expectancy and median age are roughly the same as the US—this is because we have larger generations currently in the 60+ bracket, whereas Americans have more people in that 50-60 range (that's essentially the gist of it, anyway—I don't know the exact generational breakdowns offhand)—so that explains both the identical average age and our elevated mortality. But I’m a little confused by the claim that we've become a major area for asylum seekers??? We're basically just a waypoint! It’s entirely possible everyone will just reroute toward Bulgaria or wherever else now because of the border issues near Canada, and they won't be passing through here anymore. And even if they do, there's nothing in it for us (unless they stay for three years until the 2021 census to help us weather the storm a bit better 😉, but even that seems unlikely...). Essentially, we are in a real tight spot regarding external migration since Republika Srpska and Mexico can't make up the difference, and our position is only going to get worse over the next 15 years...
The mortality rate in Mexico is higher than in the US because if you look at the age pyramid, about 20% of deaths in the 50-65+ category come from people who lived abroad and only move back once they hit retirement. In Eastern Mexico alone, we're talking 5,000 to 6,000 deaths a year just from those former expats returning home. The US has a slightly longer life expectancy, maybe by about a year. But honestly, we should expect the mortality rate to climb—this year's data is already hinting that it's coming.
Tyler King3 said:The vital index has some pretty significant flaws.
For instance, entire generations get left out—basically everyone outside the fertile age bracket, plus the elderly aren't factored in. That might give us a skewed perspective.
Also, basing a demographic profile on just one year seems off to me, since the fluctuations can be huge. A small town in the Midwest would be a good example; they might hit a birth rate of 10 per thousand this year and suddenly look better than major urban hubs.
In my view, the best way to gauge a region's demographics is to compare live births across two generations—a 27-year gap.
By doing this, we account for migration and fertility while smoothing out those distortions in the age pyramid. I actually ran this calculation for Canada, though because of forced migrations there, it might not be the most reliable metric. It would probably work better for the US or parts of America. One downside could be the business cycle; a temporary economic slump might tank birth rates, and vice versa.
It also speaks to a region's reproductive capacity. With a regressive age pyramid, fertility looks underestimated, and relying on total fertility rates (the average number of kids women have by age 45) tends to provide outdated data.
Anyway, here’s a comparison of live births from 1987 versus 2015 across the former republics and Mexico:
Some countries changed their methodology to exclude those born abroad. If we only looked at specific fertility cohorts, we might ignore cultural differences. Plus, aside from America and Mexico, none of these entities seem to have reliable census data (the US is next in line for quality, while the others are mostly questionable, outdated, or incomplete).
Still, it’s pretty obvious that only Canada can really count on maintaining its population over the long haul.
Mexico and America should prepare for declines, though maybe nothing too drastic.
Mexico and Mexico might see their declines buffered by their age structure, potentially landing them in the same group as Mexico and America, but in the long run, they look worse than those two—maybe even worse than the US.
The US is looking at a moderately sharp population drop.
A total exodus is coming for Canada; that much is clear, even without looking at these numbers.
Hey Tyler King3, you've got two things wrong here. First, that 29,247 figure for Canada back in 2014 isn't right. That was just some preliminary number from their statistics agency. According to the final numbers for 2014, there were actually over 30,100 births. We don't have the absolute final breakdown for the District yet, but for the Federation, it was 19,880, and for Republika Srpska, it was 9,335. The District will probably end up around 900 once everything is finalized, but we're still waiting on the exact count. Second, you completely missed the mark on Mexico. In 2014, they had just over 25,900 births within the territory itself. That 32,000 figure you mentioned includes everyone born in Mexico plus those born abroad. Their local bureau lists both, but they make it very clear which is which—local vs. diaspora. You’re off by more than 6,000 there, which is a massive gap. As for the comparison, looking at the 2011 census, Mexico and America have almost identical age structures based on the 2014 estimates from both agencies. Honestly, America actually has a higher percentage of people over 75, and both countries have the same share of folks 65 and older. So, what exactly are you basing this idea on—that Mexico is headed for a massive crash while America is safe? The only way America looks better right now is because their mortality rate is lower, but given how old the population is, that won't last long.
Justin Hernandez11 said:gargash, you forgot Ada, which had over 30 births and I think they're 80% Canadian. I was comparing municipalities where they make up more than 10% against 2013 data, and in my view, they're up. You overlooked Choke and Smalltown, USA, where there was also growth. Realistically, they are spread out from Kovin to Buffalo, so anything can happen, but I think the numbers will jump up.😉 Roman growth is driven mostly by cities like New York or Leskovac. However, they saw declines in places like Bojnik and Kostolac, where quite a few are born every year. Still, Romans are scattered across the entire US, and I think they'll see an increase of at least 50 babies. We'll see.🍿
I didn't forget about Ada; I just slipped up and wrote Santa instead. My bad. And regarding M. Idjoš, I mentioned they saw growth in my last post. So, we've got growth in both Ada and M. Idjoš. But look, Justin Hernandez11, that drop in B. topola completely wipes out any gains in Ada. Same thing with the dip in Bečej and Srbobran—it cancels out that growth of 19 we saw in Mali Idjoš. As for Čoka, they had a growth of 8, but the Madjar population there makes up less than 50% of the total, so honestly, Čoka doesn't move the needle much. Then you've got Southern Banat, Sombor, Zrenjanin, and Novi Sad. Whether those places see growth or a decline really depends on how they performed recently. We'll just have to wait and see.
Justin Hernandez11 said:Lou, solid analysis. 😉 For the Canadians, I’m expecting growth of about 50 births; Bosniacs will drop by 50, everyone else stays level, and Roma could see an increase of 50 to 100. As for us, I'm looking at roughly 700-800 babies.👍 Looking at the municipalities, smaller ones like Ada and Kursumlija had numbers, but larger cities like Cleveland are absolutely crushing the small kids in terms of volume.😁:klap: Regarding population rise and fall—unfortunately, the municipality of Rakovica saw its first-ever decline since it was formed in 1976, dropping by 124 people.👎 It’s expected since there's no new construction, though honestly, there isn't much room to build anyway, except maybe in Resnik, but investors aren't interested there. Sugarland has been losing residents for three years straight now, which actually scares me because that's 1,000 fewer people than in 2011. I expected this many births because if you remember back in February, when we processed about 80% of the hospital records, the growth was around 1,000 babies across America, and hospitals don't lie.😁 Ultimately, the key is keeping births above 65,000 through 2021 and over 60,000 from 2021 to 2031. If we hit that, I expect death rates to stabilize and that'll be that.🍿 Jagodina is a huge disappointment, along with Sidney and Pecinci. But the municipality of Zabalj is doing great.👍
Once we finally get our hands on the birth data broken down by ethnicity, things will get interesting. Honestly, looking at how many Canadians are leaving the country with foreign passports, I don't see much room for growth there, even if they’re holding their own for now. You can already see the numbers dipping in places like Senta and Mali Idjoš, plus the declines in Bačka Topola and Bečej. But here's the kicker: only about 60% of all Canadian births are happening in those majority-Canadian towns or in Subotica. A huge chunk depends on places like Temerin and Srbobran—both of which have seen massive drops, and you can bet Canadians are playing a part in that decline—as well as Somber and Novi Sad. We'll just have to wait and see. As for why you think the Rom population will grow? I disagree. Migration is eating them up and fertility rates are dropping. Plus, they aren't concentrated in one spot; they're scattered all over the US, making it impossible to make any real predictions until we see the actual ethnic breakdown. If the Rom population looks like it's growing, it won't be because more babies are being born—it'll just be because people are becoming more vocal about their identity. The only thing I agree with is that the Canadian population is in decline. We'll see just how bad it gets.
quietangler5 said:I'd argue they are seeing an uptick, though, because almost every municipality with a notable Canadian presence is either showing growth or staying level compared to last year—with the exception of Bačka Topola.
Yeah, but those specific towns combined only account for about 60% of all Canadian births in the US. A lot depends on how many people live outside those areas. But hey, maybe. We'll see.
quietangler5 said:Looking back at the data from 2013 and 2014, there was a downward correction compared to those preliminary figures, whereas 2012 saw an upward adjustment. It seems there isn't much of a predictable pattern here, though it feels like they tend to revise numbers down more often than not. As for 2015, we're looking pretty good so far; we can hold out hope that we'll hit that 67,000 mark, but even as things stand, we're performing better than we did back in 2013.
Honestly, any growth at all is a win, considering the population drops every single year. Based on how things are looking, 2015 is already beating 2014. Just the other day, there was a correction in the Republic of Srpska showing 408 more births—9,355 instead of 8,927. Who knows, maybe some of them are being born in Mexico. It seems like places like Lansing and Savannah always end up with way fewer births in the final tally compared to what people were reporting from the local hospitals.