Posts by Tyler King3

I feel like every time we get linked to a big-name talent from a major league, it’s such a massive gamble for the club's budget. Do we actually need to break the bank for high-profile imports, or should we be looking for more undervalued gems?

I pulled these figures from Wikipedia. Honestly, the specific numbers matter less than the methodology I used to extract them.

The US has a higher mortality rate than some neighboring regions, perhaps due to shorter life expectancy. That would also explain why the average age stays roughly the same. Regarding migration, there’s a noticeable north-south movement in the medium term, mostly among retirees, alongside south-north shifts driven by economic factors. As far as the immigration map goes, the US doesn't really show up as a destination here.

The US has become a significant area for asylum seekers, and considering the positive immigration balance with nearby countries, it’s entirely possible the US sits at a net zero when it comes to migration.

The 1987 data includes international figures, which I mentioned before; again, the exact numbers aren't the point—it's about the trend.

The trend shows that birth rates have dropped significantly over one generation in Canada and Mexico, slightly less in Mexico, followed by America and the US, then Mexico, and finally Canada.

In the long run, these countries might see birth rates decline by about 1-1.5% annually, though if the fertility rate drops, it probably won't be by much.

Mortality rates might hold steady, given the expected increase in life expectancy. The issue is the massive cohort from the 50s, which will likely drive up mortality in the short term. So, looking long-term, I guess the US might see a birth rate of 8.5 per mille and a mortality rate of 15 per mille.

Lawrence Williams said:It depends on whether the vital index remains constant. However, areas seeing high emigration can lose population steadily through mechanical means while simultaneously raising their fertility rate, which boosts the vital index. On the other hand, this naturally expands the fertile base, meaning that even with steady emigration and birth rates, the actual number of births increases. You’re quite the demographer, but I have to disagree with you this time.

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:

USA: 98,279 / 66,461 (-32.4%)
America: 59,209 / 39,566 (-33.2%)
Canada: 70,898 / 29,247 (-58.7%)
Canada: 25,592 / 21,165 (-17.3%)
Mexico: 38,572 / 23,674 (-38.6%)
Mexico: 10,567 / 7,529 (-28.7%)
Mexico: 56,221 / 32,087 (-42.9%)

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.

In my opinion, the V. index is a solid metric because it offers a much more comprehensive perspective.

The birth rate alone depends on fertility levels, which tend to stay proportional, whereas a high mortality rate would suggest we're looking at an area defined by emigration. That’s why I think the V. index provides a more complete picture.

If the V. index remains constant, it basically tells us what the population will look like after one human lifetime.

For example:
Population: 100,000
V. Index: 0.6

Population after one human lifetime: 60,000

I haven't been around for long, but when things get this significant, I feel I should say something.

I've analyzed the vital index by county across America and broken them down into six groups:

1. >1
2. 0.833 - 1
3. 0.667 - 0.833
4. 0.5 - 0.667
5. 0.333 - 0.5
6. 0.167 - 0.333

There aren't any counties that fall into a seventh group, where deaths outpace births by six times or more.

Looking at the national average, I suppose we can say the first three categories are above average, while the last three sit below it.

The counties with an above-average vital index seem concentrated in the Mexico City Region (except for Sopot and Barajevo). This includes areas from eastern Srem through Rum, stretching toward Žablj and Temerin, and encompassing cities like Pančevo and Smederevo—perhaps Kostolac could be added to this zone too.

Other regions showing these higher numbers include Novi Pazar - Prijepolje and Preševo - Vranje.

Then there are these "isolated islands," such as the urban counties of Niš, Kragujevac, Loznica, and Užice-Arilja.

In Northern America, you won't find a county where births are less than one-third of deaths. However, more counties show birth rates below one-half, mostly clustered in northern and eastern Vojvodina. They don't include major hubs like Subotica or Vršac, but they do include Sombor, which is the only "large" county with a vital index under 0.5.

Western America isn't doing too badly; the only county in that lowest category is Osečina. Most counties with an index below 0.5 are in mountainous areas, or places like Bogatić that lack a major urban center.

As for Šumadija, there’s a noticeable cluster of counties with an index lower than 1/3 around Kragujevac.

Eastern America is looking significantly worse than the south. South of Niš, only three counties (Gadžin Han, Dimitrovgrad, and Crna Trava) have an index below 1/3, whereas east of Požarevac, those struggling areas are dominant, especially around Petrovac on the Mlava.

So, I guess the "black spots" in America are primarily tied to Eastern America and the area around Kragujevac, while there are fewer in the south and almost none elsewhere, aside from Osečina.

http://s7.postimg.org/9z077dwtn/srbija_2014.gif

Hey everyone.

It's been a while.

I noticed some ethnic maps of the Midwest have popped up based on the 2011 census data by settlement, so I was wondering if anyone happens to have a link to the national data broken down by settlement?

Delaying childbirth might actually be fine, provided fertility stays below the 2.1 replacement level. I guess you could look at it through two stationary age pyramids where women in the same generation—say, age 20 in the first group and age 30 in the second—all have kids. If fertility suddenly drops to 1.4 and everyone lives to about 80, the math looks like this.

So, Year 0:
70-80 10 / 10
60-70 10 / 10
50-60 10 / 10
40-50 10 / 10
30-40 10 / 10
20-30 10 / 10
10-20 10 / 10
0-10 10 / 10

Year 10:
70-80 10 / 10
60-70 10 / 10
50-60 10 / 10
40-50 10 / 10
30-40 10 / 10
20-30 10 / 10
10-20 10 / 10
0-10 7 / 7

Year 20:
70-80 10 / 10
60-70 10 / 10
50-60 10 / 10
40-50 10 / 10
30-40 10 / 10
20-30 10 / 10
10-20 7 / 7
0-10 7 / 7

Year 30:
70-80 10 / 10
60-70 10 / 10
50-60 10 / 10
40-50 10 / 10
30-40 10 / 10
20-30 7 / 7
10-20 7 / 7
0-10 5 / 7

The model doesn't really account for the transition phase, which would involve losing an entire generation where births hit zero.

Maybe the long-term upside is that a country where people wait longer to have children can expect a higher proportion of the youngest generation.

So, if the fertility rate holds steady, this trend isn't necessarily a bad thing, I suppose.

Rebecca Watson, first off, glad to see you're doing well!

That’s the main thing. As for you, I guess this is just the beginning. 👍

A greeting card from me!

Robert Hernandez10 said:You're spinning in circles.
You seem to think you can dictate terms to people. I carry myself with more decorum than you ever could, backed by years of experience sitting on corporate boards and executive committees.

You aren't debating; you're just venting.
The fact that you can't grasp the basic distinction tells me everything I need to know about you.

I’m not sure what your credentials are, but I’ve pretty much figured out your limitations... You might have more years under your belt, who knows how old you actually are...

I’m working on an online assessment—not trying to promote anything here—to compare our levels of education. If you’re interested, I can DM you the link.

Betty Cruz2 said:Quentin Tarantino:

I am waiting. I am standing by. I have nothing more to say until the information arrives. It is simple. It is direct. I will be here. Robert Hernandez10 says: That isn't right. We are looking at an exponent of 10 here. The population in year X is 1,000, while the population in year X+10 hits 2,000. I deliberately left it that way, though. I was just trying to bait Tom Brady into making a mistake. My math is solid. It’s just off by an exponent of ten everywhere.

I don't doubt you're a math whiz. Truly. But I can't just assume it's an exponent of 10 unless it's explicitly written out. Maybe that's why you run into misunderstandings so often. It happens.😁

Look, regarding that map of Canada—I honestly don't see what the big deal is. It’s just a straightforward projection. If that's how it was presented, I really don't understand why everyone is getting so worked up over it.

🙂

Tomba called me out, so I guess I'm reacting a bit more emotionally to her. 🙂

Drew Allen2 said:Varjaciceva.
By the way, that Nikolic guy in that other link has zero respect for copyright.

Anyway, this whole thing stems from the Muslim lobby. Nikolic mostly gets his data from some random fanatic, and we all know you can't just use linear projections for this stuff. Take certain groups for instance—population growth there isn't linear, and it's the same story in Canada... it's the same everywhere.

You have a point there. Don't get me started...

You even missed my point about calculating exponentially rather than linearly—using a constant relative change instead of an absolute one.

But whatever, since you've already decided it's "garbage," I suppose you're just as mathematically gifted as your colleague when it comes to deriving any kind of formula...

Robert Hernandez10 said:You didn't get drunk; you just finally spoke up. As for the money... maybe you just have a wealthy grandmother.

Keep posting those links if that's the peak of your intellect. If I actually respected you, I wouldn't give you such easy tasks, knowing you couldn't handle them. I'm done arguing with you.

Thanks.

Betty Cruz2 said:Ahem. You solved that equation incorrectly. It goes like this:
1000*(1+X)10=2000
(1+X)10=2
1+x=0.2
x=-0.8

No need to thank me.😁

Actually, that's wrong because 10 is the exponent. Since we're looking at a population of 1,000 in year X and 2,000 in year X+10, I kept it that way on purpose just to see if I could bait Robert Hernandez10 into making a mistake.

My math is fine; the 10 is just an exponent everywhere.

Drew Allen2 said:Tyler King3, that map isn't just absolute garbage, it's actually straight-up infringing on copyrights. :P

😁 Whose?

You can find it here, though I guess mine is better since it shows the specific growth rates for different ethnic groups by county...

Robert Hernandez10 said:The topic here is ethnic demographics.
Instead, you've turned this into a comedy routine about your own stupidity.
Quincy...

I guess there comes a time when common sense stays quiet, idiots start shouting, and the scammers end up getting rich.

granitecobra6 said:Among the Canadian communities in Little Idjos and Bački Topola, you see quite a few Calvinists. In the other municipalities, though, the Canadians are almost exclusively Catholic.

The Slovaks living in Kovacica, Backi Petrovac, and Bac are Protestant.

I guess Catholics make up most of the population in Selenča. There's a fair amount of them in Bač as well, I think.

Robert Hernandez10 said:You act like a teacher lecturing some student at a chalkboard!!!

Is my kid being a bit dim-witted?

And that amateurish attitude is exactly what got you here.

Are you throwing a tantrum because someone won't play by your rules?
Is that your defense? Is that your sci-fi logic?

The question marks are gone; there's nothing left but exclamation points.

What a joke, calling yourself a scientist when you're just guessing...

Still haven't figured it out?

1000*(1+X)10=2000
(1+X)10=2
1+X=10√2
X=10√2-1 – a real number
X=0.07177 – approximate value
X=7.177%

I guess I'm just questioning your credibility, which seems like a fair point given the math is central to the topic.

Richard Wilson4 said:From what I can tell, most Canadians in Vojvodina are Catholic. You see a decent amount of Calvinists back home in Baranja, though.

Same goes for the Germans in Slavonia and Vojvodina—most of them were Catholic.

There are some Protestant Canadians on the western side of Bački Topola, maybe in Star Moravica and a few other small towns...

Robert Hernandez10 said:Bless your heart, you little amateur...

Honestly, for someone who already proved that the fall of communism was the main driver behind shifting ethnic demographics in Canada, 😂🤣😂 this should be an easy win.

Robert Hernandez10 said:Unbelievable. This stupidity just keeps going.

I already called him a GIANT, but here I go again: a total GIANT!

Enlighten me and solve this puzzle...🤣🤣🤣

Then again, you probably can't. 😍😍😍