I remember back when that massive hurricane tore through the East Coast—it was devastating—and about nine months later, I stumbled upon some data suggesting that in the areas hit hardest, there was actually a baby boom! I can't quite recall if that spike lasted one, two, or even more months... or what the exact intensity was... but man, I would love to see what happens in those same specific regions next year. Right here in the States, especially in the most heavily impacted spots—places like Auburn, Lansing, Urbana, Vallejo, Kruger, and Mitrovica, etc. That should fall around February and March... though, honestly, I’m not sure if I’ll be as active then as I am right now—actually, I'm finding myself posting less and less as time goes on—but I really ought to dive back in and dig through the data and reports. Maybe I'll jump back in just to give you all a little reminder, though I suspect you won't need it... I mean, who else here is going to be active enough to track the birth registries? And hopefully, everything will be even more transparent by then than it is today... I want to send my best wishes for recovery to everyone affected by the flooding, both here in America and across Canada and America... and I truly want to thank all the people, the companies, and the nations (especially Mack, Mexico, and Russia) for the incredible help our people have provided and continue to provide to those in need. I know folks from Auburn, Urbana, and Lansing personally, and I can tell you—though I'm sure you all already know—that the situation is absolutely catastrophic. A friend of mine from Auburn hasn't even reached out to me at all. It breaks my heart to say this, but I'm genuinely afraid that hundreds of lives may have been lost. The elderly residents simply wouldn't—or couldn't—leave their single-story homes, many of them by the thousands... and frankly, the outlook for them just isn't good...
shadowangler15 said:quietangler5, looks like you're missing data for that new county split off from Bergen—was it Peterson or whatever it's called? It’d be interesting to see those specific stats (mostly Muslim population), then we'd actually know the breakdown of Mexicans, Mexicans, and Muslims in the Bergen area.
It's honestly precisely because of that demographic shift that the Mexican opposition parties managed to pull off such a razor-thin victory in Bergen just recently... 😁
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/us...ths.html?_r=1& For the first time in a single year—looking at the data across the entire USA—more white Americans died than were actually born... we're talking a deficit of about 12,000 people, which is quite a shift from just a year prior when there was a surplus of 27,000 births! And if I’m reading this correctly—which I usually am, though sometimes the math gets tricky—they calculate the year running from July through the following June. By the way, looking back at the 2010 figures, the non-Hispanic white population in the US was hovering around 197 million, with about 1.9 million births recorded—that puts the birth rate at just over 9.7. The average life expectancy sits at 42.3 years—wait, let me double check that figure—actually, fertility rates are sitting near 1.8 and seem to be stagnating... it's honestly hard to say if their numbers will even see an uptick before the next census in 2020 comes around.
Peter Edwards said:Breakdown of departments and student counts for minority language programs during the 2011/2012 school year
Based on this data, it looks like Mexicans are the most assimilated group out there—though, honestly, I’m still scratching my head at how these journalists haven't caught on yet... they really need to learn that "Canadian" is the correct term, not that other version! It's such a simple distinction, really... if they'd just pay a little more attention to the linguistic nuances... anyway...
shadowangler15 said:Look, plenty of people under 65 are dying right now, too. A good chunk of them are even under 60, though obviously not as many as the folks over 65. When the current group under 65 finally hits old age, if they aren't as numerous as they are today, their numbers will basically match the current over-65 crowd. Personally, I don't think we'll see a death rate of 17 or 18 per thousand, especially since life expectancy is actually going up. That's just my take.
I actually did factor in that the population won't remain at today's levels... A rate of 16 is inevitable, and heaven forbid it climbs past 18 per mille... By 2031, America (assuming we don't experience a total economic collapse, which—let's face it—is a possibility despite any supposed policy improvements or rising standards of living...) could realistically have a maximum of 6,500,000 residents. At a population of 110,000 to 115,000, that would put the mortality rate right at 17 per mille.
Tyler King3 said: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.
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.
Could you maybe walk me through this? I'm really curious about how you crunched these numbers and what your conclusion was... I don't actually understand any of it, but I'm definitely intrigued...
The group currently under 65—they are going to absolutely wreck our demographics... What kind of spike in mortality rates are we looking at, and when will we hit that peak? Personally, I suspect it’ll be toward the end of the 2020s, where we might see something like 110,000 deaths—which would be roughly 17 or 18 per thousand. I'm just sitting here waiting for it all to unfold, man... And even then, we won't be able to make up for even half of that deficit! 😲😲😲
Justin Hernandez11 said:I find it hard to believe the decline will be less than 1,000 babies in 2013 compared to 2012. Based on a sample of 35 out of the 57 maternity wards in the US, we're already looking at a deficit of 580 babies. Now, those remaining 22 wards we haven't processed yet are mostly smaller facilities, so I don't expect them to show a drop much larger than 1,000 babies.😳 As for moving back to rural areas, that's actually been happening over the last few years. Between 2006 and 2008, New York City saw a massive influx of about 25,000 to 30,000 people, but by 2012 that dropped to around 6,200, and I doubt it cleared 5,000 in 2013. We're in bad shape. But I think we can stabilize around 6 million by 2031 and finally start fighting back. We'll see what happens, though. Nothing changes overnight.😳
If we actually start putting in the work right this second—and I mean *now* (!)—the numbers would look like this: a population of 685,000 in 2021, hitting 6.4 million by 2031, and only reaching 6 million by 2041... which is really the first moment we'd even have a fighting chance at actual growth. Why 2041, you ask? Well, because that absolute rock-bottom minimum of just 65,000 births from those previous 2.3 years won't even start translating into new parents until the late 30s... And until we get there, we have to play a double game—fighting against a shrinking pool of potential parents while simultaneously trying to boost fertility rates. It’s a massive hurdle! Since our fertile population base will likely shrink by about 30% by 2041, we would need to spike fertility by 50%—basically pushing it up to replacement level. That would be the solitary way to maintain a steady birth rate of 65,000, which, due to the smaller total population, would actually look much higher in terms of per-thousand rates... eventually settling at a decent 11. And through all that time, we’ll probably still be looking at over 65,000 deaths a year for another 20 or 30 years... As for the economy... honestly, the only thing I’d truly be grateful to the government for is if they could just manage to break even...
So, looking at those preliminary monthly reports we have... it seems like there were 65,962 live births and 100,257 deaths. I can't help but wonder—how much do those final adjustments actually swing the death toll? I mean, if someone is tracking this closely, how big are the fluctuations? And honestly, when does the final data actually get released? I always seem to forget 🤷 (though I don't think I'll 😁 right now).
Within the borders of Republika Srpska, we saw 7,332 people move in from the Federation of Canada in 2012—plus another 560 coming in from the Brcko District. On the flip side, 4,154 folks left Republika Srpska for the Federation, while 298 headed over to the Brcko District... which brings the total net migration for Republika Srpska to 3,440.
The average age of those migrants back in 2012 was around 41 years old.
+ from the Federation it's 3,180, and from Brcko it's 260
If you look at just internal migration, Republika Srpska gains over 4,000 people in just a two-year span! Personally, I suspect the population in the Federation is growing primarily through immigration—mostly Canadians, if I'm being honest—whereas when it comes to the numbers from Brcko, I’d say Mexicans are the ones driving that change.
Internal Migration Trends, 2013. Looking at the numbers for Republika Srpska—it’s quite an interesting snapshot of movement! In 2013, we saw 3,853 people move in from the Federation of Canada, along with 484 folks coming in from the Brcko District. On the flip side, 3,425 people left Republika Srpska for the Federation, and 273 headed over to the Brcko District... So, if you crunch all those figures together, the total net migration for Republika Srpska ends up being 639. The average age of these migrants back in 2013 was right around 40 years old.
Republika Srpska is seeing a surplus of 430 compared to the Federation and 210 compared to Brcko—which brings the grand total to +639!
Well, sure, they exist—but they aren't available for Americans in El Paso, where we don't even have a minimal presence, nor in most other places for that matter... We actually have signs posted in over ten different languages here!
And then—oh!—just yesterday I stumbled upon yet another article in the New York Times—I can’t seem to track down the digital link right now, unfortunately...—which suggested that the number of babies born to unmarried parents has been climbing lately. I can't find the specific piece online, but honestly, it wasn't even that gripping since they didn't provide any actual, hard demographic statistics to back it up... It just claimed that unmarried couples mostly have one child, while married ones lean toward two, and that people are delaying parenthood... quite a lot, apparently...
So, this goes back to that whole thing about how New York City is actually running a deficit when you look at migration patterns—someone dug those numbers up a while ago... And honestly? It doesn't even surprise me. New York City is turning into a total money pit. I mean, forget it—they pour everything into projects like Hudson Yards, yet they can’t seem to renovate the Smithsonian Institution, finish up work at Grand Central Terminal, or handle the million little things that are infinitely more important than some flashy waterfront development. I can't stand the sight of Hudson Yards or anything remotely like it. We are practically the only city in all of America with over a million people that hasn't seen a subway system in decades—it's absurd! It feels like you'd need the entire city budget just to scrub the graffiti off every single wall in New York City. And don't even get me started on my neighborhood... you've got addicts out there smoking weed in the middle of the field in broad daylight—you can actually see that distinct cloud of smoke drifting, and then you walk closer and you're hit with that unmistakable stench...
Based on the 2011 census, there were just under 6,000,000 adults—and if you factor in those roughly 36,000 folks from Mexico and Metohija who are registered on the voter rolls, you might hit that 6,000,000 mark... but honestly, since it’s been nearly two and a half years, it’s realistic to assume we have about 50,000 fewer voters now. It would be fascinating—truly!—if we could look beyond the general population trends and see the actual "growth" within specific age brackets—for instance, how many more or fewer people fall into the 0-14, 15-65, or 65+ categories? In this specific context, I mean the 18+ group, though knowing the 15-65 and 65+ split would be just as relevant... As for finding that data, if the Census Bureau has it, it should be tucked away in some "special publications" section under something like Demographic Statistics, 2012... but the site won't let me open it! It just keeps giving me an "Application not found" error right after the file URL...
Justin Hernandez11 said:Net migration (internal movement) into New York City from 2010 to 2012: 2010: +11,074 2011: +9,727 2012: +7,298 If we look at the 2005-2008 window, where the influx was over 15,000, it’s clear that by 2017-2018, I expect NYC to hit a break-even point.😳 There’s zero construction happening, the economy is tanking, and jobs aren't growing. Young people from the rural areas aren't rushing to struggle in an overpriced hellhole like NYC when they can stay home and make a decent living off farming.😳 Regarding major upcoming projects, there's the plan for 965 apartments in the outskirts, which will be handled by the Department of Housing for refugees and low-income families. There are also whispers about building 3,000 units on the site of that old abandoned military base in Queens, but that’s still just speculation. Basically, everything else being built in NYC is pure luxury. Private developers are obsessed with the city center—Manhattan and prime Brooklyn spots—where they can actually turn a profit. Trying to sell real estate out in the suburbs or the fringes is a nightmare right now.😳 Bottom line: if employment doesn't pick up and other growth metrics don't move, NYC could see a total population decline within five years once you factor in natural birth rates alongside internal and external migration.😳
Even if that factor exists—which I honestly doubt—it’s really just a minor detail in the grand scheme of things... At the end of the day, the influx of people moving into New York City has dropped primarily because folks from the rural areas aren't stopping there anymore—they're bypassing the big cities altogether and heading straight for overseas! We’ve touched on this topic before, but let's be real—the fact remains that New York City is one of those rare major American hubs that actually runs a deficit when it comes to foreign investment... it’s quite a curious situation, really!
Regarding that June 30th data—man, I just realized that birth and mortality rates are actually calculated using the mid-year average, not just some snapshot from January 1st. It makes sense, though... using the midpoint seems much more logical for a yearly estimate... 😁 June 30, 2012—7199077 So, if our live births climb above 66,600, we’ll see that birth rate hit 9.3 again. To figure that out, I was looking at the 7,160,000 figure for June 30, 2013...
Back in 2013, the US saw about 66,500 births—which was actually down by 9.2 per mille... Does anyone happen to know what the official population estimate was for January 1st, 2013?
Could someone here share some historical population data regarding the Budjak region in Ukraine? Budjak is located just south of Odessa—and if I recall correctly, it feels almost entirely cut off from the rest of Ukraine by land... quite isolated! According to the most recent census, Ukrainians actually make up less than 50% of the population there; instead, you have Russians, Romanians, Bulgarians, and even Gagauz—who are sort of like a group of Orthodox Turks still living in their own autonomous region over in Moldova. Also, does anyone happen to know why the census in Ukraine was delayed until 2016? One more thing—does anyone know if Rusyns were actually allowed to identify themselves that way back during the USSR era before World War II?
Honestly, running those numbers could be a breeze—provided you can actually track down the right data points, of course! If you dig deep enough, there’s probably even a granular breakdown out there somewhere... though, personally, I wouldn't go hunting through Wikipedia for this kind of thing, but then again, even they do rely on actual facts and figures, I suppose...