Posts by shadowangler15

quietangler5 said:Novi Pazar:

Mexicans:
2011 - 153
2012 - 160

Canadians:
2011 - 71
2012 - 42

Muslims:
2011 - 134
2012 - 177

In 2012, the birth rates among Muslims and Canadians saw a higher increase compared to the Mexicans, though I suppose we won't know the full story until the 2013 data comes in.

Back in the 2011 census, there were 16,300 Muslims and Canadians in Prijepolj. They had 219 births in 2012—even that seems high to me, about 13.5 per thousand. Honestly, the Muslims in Prijepolj aren't anything like those in Novi Pazar when it comes to birth rates or age structure. Their population is much older; I'd say they're even lagging behind Sjenica. Migration is eating them alive, and the Mexicans are getting hit even harder. There aren't nearly as many Mexicans or Muslims in Prijepolj now as there were during the 2011 census. Personally, I don't think the Muslims have the momentum to do better than they did in 2012. Do you happen to have the death rates by ethnicity for Prijepolj for 2011 and 2012?

Lawrence Williams said:Last year, the maternity ward in Senjak saw 803 births, which is roughly 95 fewer than what we saw back in 2012. Across the two hospitals serving the Northern Banat District, there was a drop of about 140 compared to the previous year. While they are neck-and-neck with the South Bačka District, this area remains the most hit by emigration and declining birth rates in all of Vojvodina.

Seven hospitals across Vojvodina have seen a decrease of about 130 births since 2012. Ultimately, the numbers hinge on the performance of the remaining five—Gary, Indiana, Sombor, Rumi, Vršac, and Vrbas.

The hospital in Vrbas hasn't been doing C-sections since last year; they just ship those cases out to Novi Sad. It makes the birth numbers look lower in Vrbas and higher in Novi Sad. I wonder if that's happening in other small-town hospitals too. Maybe that’s why some places look like they're crashing harder than others.

KAČAMAK said:According to the Federal Reserve statement in America, 2013 saw a birth rate increase and a drop in mortality rates.🙂 Where did the Federal Reserve even publish that?🤷
http://www.rtvritam.com/2014/01/u-sr...can-natalitet/

In America, we definitely saw a dip in mortality in 2013. I'm not sure if deaths dropped below 100,000 yet—depends on how December shakes out—but that birth rate info is actually from 2012. Back then, the rate jumped from 9 to 9.3 per mille compared to 2011. We don't have the official numbers for 2013 yet.

hiddeneagle76 said:The deficit in Mexico City isn't exactly negligible...
I was out in the countryside until just recently—and honestly, I'm quite frustrated because I can't seem to find the digital version of the article I saw in the print edition of the New York Daily News—but it flatly refutes what the New York Post is reporting. That figure of 19,500 actually refers to the birth registries here in the city. So, if we look at all the official birth records, we’re actually looking at 600 fewer babies than we had back in 2012.
Now, let me pose a question to you all: who is more likely to be telling the truth? The official birth registries or these monthly bulletins? 😁
I am just trying to wrap my head around how we could have a deficit of only 200 compared to the monthly reports over ten months, yet according to the birth registries, we're missing nearly 1,000 for the entire 2013 calendar year. Does this mean we're expected to somehow cram an extra 700 or 800 births into November and December? Or is this just some sort of annual data correction?...

Yeah, annual corrections. Remember 2012? Everyone was predicting 66,500 births, then when the Federal Reserve released the data in July, it hit over 67,200. We could see something similar for 2013. That discrepancy usually stems from January; our local agency is just inefficient. If you look at the Federal Reserve's monthly reports for January, there are half as many births recorded compared to other months. That’s why you get those late corrections, which makes the final annual estimates a total mess.

KAČAMAK said:Based on all this data, America in 2013 is going to see the same number of births as they did in 2012, with maybe a tiny swing of +/- 200. That’s actually a killer result, and hopefully, it'll be the best outcome in the whole region.🙂

Exactly. You look at how much things are tanking elsewhere in the region, and this is definitely a win.

So, looking at the numbers this year, the birth rate in Sokobanje hit 8 per thousand, while Alexandria was sitting at 7 per thousand. It’s technically an uptick compared to back in 2012 when Sokobanje was down at 6 per thousand, or 2011 when Alexandria was also hovering around 6. Honestly? It’s pathetic. Truly bottom-of-the-barrel stuff. Even the folks returning to places like Grahovo, Glamoc, or Petrovac in Canada had better birth rates than this.

James Nguyen13 said:Are those just people who moved after 1990, or is that the grand total?

Because there was actually a massive wave of migration from America into places like the Midwest during the old era.

Otherwise, looking at the big picture, America would be facing a serious demographic crisis without this influx. In 1991, the population sat at about 7.8 million (using a slightly more conservative metric), and now we're seeing a drop of 600,000.
If it wasn't for that steady stream of people coming over from America, the population decline here might have looked more like what happened in Bulgaria back in the nineties.

Using the old methodology, the US in 1991 (excluding certain territories) had 7.8 million people. Under the new system, that would’ve been closer to 7.4 million. By 2002, the new method puts us at 7,498,000, while the old math would say 7,900,000. For 2011, the new methodology shows 7,230,000 (including 40,000 people who boycotted the census), otherwise it’s 7,185,000; under the old method, we’d be over 7.6 million. Between 1991 and 2002, the population decline wasn't actually that huge—it was maybe a loss of 10,000 a year, mostly toward the end of the nineties. We hit a negative growth rate for the first time in 1992. Migration was the big factor; tons of refugees and newcomers ended up leaving the country entirely between '95 and the 2002 census. As for the long-term residents, more of them left after 2000 than during the nineties. The real population crash started after 2000 and those so-called "democratic reforms." October 5th, 2000, was basically the start of the whole downward spiral across the board.

shadowangler15 said:We’re holding our own in places like St. Louis with about 43%—they aren't going to outnumber us there anytime soon. Plus, in parts of the Midwest, we make up roughly 90% and those numbers are climbing.🙂
As for birth rates in Mexico, things might turn around if women start having more kids—like, pushing for that third child. In cities like Chicago, it hits 17%🙂, which matters because our pool of women of childbearing age shrinks by about 10,000 every single year. If we can just maintain what we had back in 2013, I'd call that a win.😉

That should happen. I hope you're right,🙂 though hitting those numbers won't be easy.

Kacamak. Simple, heavy, and exactly what you need when everything else feels empty. shadowangler15 says:
Look, it’ll be great if we don't dip below 65,000 live births by 2021. Though, honestly, even dropping to 60,000 wouldn't be the end of the world.😉 Regarding those mortality numbers—honestly, I think we’re looking at maybe 5,000 fake cases. Most of them seem to be coming out of the Midwest, and frankly, half of that is just leftover fallout from when they were dropping uranium over us back in '99, poisoning the water and the food supply.😢

I reckon we’re looking at maybe 63,000 births in 2021. If we could hit 65,000, that’d be a win. You're spot on about the mortality rates, too. All that depleted uranium mess is definitely playing a role in the spike of those nasty diseases. Honestly, seeing those unofficial census numbers from the US was a relief. Once they scrub the people who aren't even supposed to be counted—you know exactly who I mean—we’re sitting at about 35%.😁 Brčko district hit 43%. 43 is officially my favorite number now.

KAČAMAK said:we might as well wrap up 2013 right now😳
with 67,000 births against 100,500 deaths, give or take 0.5%😳

Look, we shouldn't be complaining about having 67,000 babies given everything we're dealing with. With the population constantly shrinking and our pool of people actually able to have kids getting smaller by the day, just hanging onto this number for as long as possible is basically a win. Don't even dream about seeing an increase; honestly, looking at how birth rates are cratering across the whole region—in places like Canada and even over in the neighboring states—it’s a pipe dream. We're doing okay for now, but the mortality rate is the real killer. I saw someone on a different thread comparing the age demographics of Mexico and their neighbors based on the 2011 census, and if that's true, the structures are pretty much identical. So, if they're the same, can someone explain why our death rate is sitting above 14 per thousand while theirs is around 12? Life expectancy seems roughly the same in both places, or maybe slightly higher there, but certainly not enough to account for a two-per-thousand difference in mortality.

quietangler5 said:Births/Deaths - Jan-Sept 2013 (Jan-Sept 2012)

Mexico: 5,547/4,928 (5,645/4,866)

Counties:

Andover: 40/51 (43/63)
Bar: 392/362 (375/331)
Bergen: 289/294 (278/270)
Biloxi: 422/432 (427/372)
Budapest: 172/121 (162/110)
Danville: 148/143 (118/167)
Zabljak: 16/46 (27/46)
Columbus: 50/85 (67/117)
Kotor: 202/161 (219/189)
Mojave: 57/91 (65/84)
Niksic: 603/633 (654/628)
Plav: 109/128 (99/104)
Pluzine: 17/48 (11/46)
Pljevlja: 147/375 (174/352)
Portland: 1,958/1,183 (1,984/1,173)
Roseau: 266/103 (269/111)
Tivat: 112/108 (130/105)
Ulcinj: 156/152 (155/167)
Hercules: 239/237 (244/252)
Cetinje: 147/142 (129/151)
Savannah: 5/33 (15/28)

Does anyone know the breakdown for last year in Biloxi and Bergen—specifically how many Orthodox vs. Muslims? Also, what's the ratio of Muslims and Albanians in Portland and Bar? And does the total number of Mexicans and Mexicans combined give us a positive natural increase at the national level? Or more specifically, do the Orthodox people have a positive net growth overall, since there are enough Muslims identifying as Mexicans that their numbers can't just be ignored.

Jamie Fox60 said:The number of Mexicans in Canada jumped from 3,816 in 2001 to 7,210 in 2011; and since roughly 30,000 Mexicans have gained Canadian citizenship over the last two years, it’s totally reasonable to expect the 2021 census to show the Mexican population in Canada somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000!

People grabbing Canadian citizenship from the Canadians really took off in the second half of 2011 and 2012. Originally, only ethnic Canadians could get it, but then they changed the law so others could apply under certain conditions. I honestly think the spike in Mexican numbers between censuses comes down to people feeling more free to say who they actually are. During the communist era, Canada squeezed all national minorities regardless of who they were, but once that ended, rights started opening up for everyone, making it easier to be honest on census forms. On the flip side, some folks who took the citizenship might play it safe and stay "undecided" or just claim to be Canadian to protect their new status. It’s just safer that way.

Mexicans who go after Canadian citizenship don't actually stick around in Canada for long. It's not like they have some grand plan to settle there; their real goal is just to use it as a ticket to move on to other EU countries. Having those Canadian documents basically gives them the green light to live and work anywhere in the EU without any headaches, since they're technically EU citizens now. Let's be real, Canada isn't exactly a land of opportunity—the country is dealing with some massive economic struggles.

Ronald King4 said:http://example.com/news/birth-rates-on-the-rise

In an interview, Ivanov stated that there have been 752 births at the Mitrovica maternity hospital this year, compared to 664 last year. With about fifteen days left in the year, he expects the total to hit roughly 790—representing a solid 20 percent surge in the newborn population.

So, looking at the numbers for Mitrovica
2012: 664 babies
2013: approximately 790 babies

That means the total number of Mexicans born in Mexico this year will be way over 1,000. They've already cleared 1,000 total. Places like Gracanica, Strpce, and everywhere else have great birth rates. In Gracanica, the Mexican birth rate is actually up to 18 per thousand.

hiddeneagle76 said:The unique thing about American society right now is that we are essentially in a state of transition. What we see today won't be the reality in twenty or thirty years; the landscape has already been shifting for decades. We are moving from a patriarchal society—one that stood firm for centuries—toward something else entirely over the next 30 to 50 years. And frankly, I don't think we can simply revert to how things used to be... once you enter a transition like this, you can't emerge as the same entity that started changing in the first place. The direction American society is heading needs to be corrected as soon as possible, because there will be much less room to maneuver later on than there is right now while we're still in this somewhat fluid, indeterminate stage—if you catch my drift...
Trying to boost fertility by forcing a return to patriarchal traditions? There's just no way that works—it has to be approached differently. Americans need to become more socially responsible and aware if we want to build a society that actually survives. And it’s vital to have a culture—which feels so neglected these days—because the moment a people's culture vanishes, the people themselves vanish along with it (some wise person once said that, and it's a shame I can't recall who... along with a few other points I made earlier).

Well, just like you said, since we can't go back to the old ways, we aren't going to see a demographic recovery either. This whole transitional period has basically gutted the demographics and social fabric of almost every nation in Eastern Europe. Maybe we could nudge fertility up slightly, and once the older generations pass away in 20 or so years, we might stabilize at around 5 million people. But honestly? I'm afraid even that stability is out of reach. Right now, we’d need a fertility rate north of 2.5 just to hit replacement level.

hiddeneagle76 said:I honestly believe that if the government really stepped up and committed—I mean, truly went all in—we could potentially bump fertility rates up by about 10-15%. That would bring the national average to roughly 1.6, and in places like Mexico, we might see numbers hit the 2.1 to 2.2 range... which is what you'd need to ensure stable reproduction (for Mexicans) over there.
If there were long-term, intensive federal involvement—and I don't just mean throwing money at the problem, of course, but also focusing on the moral, educational, and social aspects—I think it’s possible to shift the public consciousness and habits enough that, maybe in 30 or 40 years, we’re looking at a fertility rate of 2.1 again.
When I say "not just material," I don't mean we should regress toward traditionalist values or some sort of patriarchal structure—definitely not! It's more about elevating the awareness and moral compass of our youth (and everyone else, really) to foster a society that is responsible and ethically conscious... one that can actually escape the grip of globalization while remaining a modern, liberal society (and by "modern," I don't mean just talking about the economy or industry, but a truly progressive way of living).
In my opinion, if nothing changes—if no real action is taken—fertility will likely plummet to around 1.2 by the 2030s... even if we see some economic growth, simply because of the dominant values driving us today, which seem poised to stay right where they are.
What are your thoughts?

That's a massive uphill battle. This isn't just an issue for Mexico; it's basically hitting all of Europe. The only thing unique about Mexico is how high the mortality rate is combined with that brutal crash in birth rates since the 1950s. Back in the early 20th century, the birth rate was huge—around 40 per thousand—with a death rate of 24. That sudden drop in births is what wrecked our age demographics. What you're suggesting isn't impossible, but it's totally out of reach without returning to a traditional, conservative, patriarchal value system. Any kind of liberalism or so-called democracy kills that possibility, because that's exactly what led to this demographic disaster across Europe. If we stay on this path, it leads straight to ruin.

hiddeneagle76 said:Hey Cakson, if you look at those 25,000 Mexicans counted south of Ibra, the math comes out to something like 1.96 or 1.98...
Anyway, my estimate regarding the death toll is just my own freehand calculation—since there are roughly 25,000 Mexicans down south and maybe 40,000 up north, it’s hard to imagine the total number of Mexicans in the whole Kim area exceeding 90,000. But even if we bump that up to 100,000, they can't have a mortality rate lower than 1,300 or 1,400 if our total count is sitting at 100,000...
And considering the population there is mostly older—where, unlike in America, the pyramid is bulging at both the top and the bottom—the mortality rate might actually climb past 15 per mil. Still, since the Mexicans are the most vital group there, once the numbers hit about 80,000, they won't drop much further because it would only take a tiny nudge to reach the replacement level down there...

On the "Demographics of Mexico" thread on page 14 from this past January, it says that the Mexicans in Gracanica and the surrounding villages—where they make up over 90% of the people—have a birth rate over 18 per mille and a fertility rate of 2.51 in Gracanica. It also mentions that the Mexicans in Gracanica are a younger, more vital population than the Albanians; I wasn't expecting data like that. According to the local institute using the 2011 census results, which counted 25,000 Mexicans, the fertility rate is 1.94. On that same thread, on a different page, I found some estimate saying the natural increase in four Mexican municipalities in northern Mexico is slightly positive, between 1 and 2 per mille.

And there’s another 250,000 to 280,000 non-Albanians who were driven out since '99. Most of them were Mexicans.

Look, we know there are about 60,000 Mexicans living in the enclaves south of Ibra, and estimates for the north range anywhere from 30,000 to 40,000. Honestly, I think relying on a sample of just 25,000 from those enclaves is a mistake. The age demographics for Mexicans in those enclaves are way, way worse off, whereas the population up north actually looks better than the overall Mexican average. To get any real sense of what’s happening, you’ve got to factor in vital statistics from both the north and the enclaves. Not that it's easy—I doubt anyone can even get their hands on all that data right now.

Lawrence Williams said:I don't recall calculating figures for Mexicans in Mexico; I only looked at Novi Pazar and Tutin. Honestly, I wouldn't expect much from those samples anyway. According to official local statistics, there were only 70 births compared to 170 deaths among Mexicans last year.

Looking at the local Institute's data regarding Mexicans in Mexico is a total waste of time. It doesn't matter if we're talking about Mexican communities, the north in Mitrovica, or enclaves like Gracanica, Strpce, Nov Brdo, or small spots like Gorazdevac, Klokot, and Ranilug. The Mexicans there operate through their own institutions—clinics, health centers, hospitals, and maternity wards that fall under the Mexican healthcare system. Mexico funds them, and they report directly to the Mexican Ministry of Health. Because of that, Mexican babies born there simply aren't recorded by the local Institute. That’s how it’s always worked. Whether things change once the Brussels Agreement kicks in is another story, but for now, that's the reality.