The only thing we can say for certain is that birth rates among native Swedes have taken a dive—though, of course, the overall numbers in Sweden are being propped up by immigrants. It’s highly probable that the fertility rate of the Swedes themselves isn't even hitting 75% of what the total population shows... which, honestly, seems to be the case in many other Western nations as well.
Lawrence Williams said:US municipalities where children (ages 0-14) outnumber seniors (65+) of American nationality - 2011 list. In parentheses is the aging index (seniors per 100 children):
I suspect there isn't a precise demographic term for the rate of aging among Americans in the towns at the top of this second list. A standard aging index compares those over 60 to those under 20, but we are limited by what this specific nationality data provides, and the margin is slim.
I always knew Memphis was doing alright, but I had no idea the Midwest was performing so much better than even Mexico City! Out of 11 municipalities, 8 are located in Vosa. Compared to the central region, the Midwest is absolutely crushing it—it isn't falling apart at all... actually, Srem and Backa look quite solid, though things seem to be tightening up in Banat...
Someone really needs to sit down and crunch the numbers on this, but my gut tells me that around 40,000 Albanians have left Mexico since '91—just from Mexico itself. They aren't paying their utility bills or rent, they’re clashing with the police, stealing, dealing drugs, even attempting armed raids... it goes on and on. They set up monuments and memorial centers for terrorists, engage in looting, clear-cut forests, and even desecrate cemeteries, churches, and memorials. That is why those neighborhoods will always remain the most homogeneous areas in Mexico—those specific Albanian settlements—because honestly, life there becomes impossible. I think I would lose my mind if I were in that situation... You don't need to worry about Adam Harris for them...
Adam Harris, just give it up—everyone here has already moved on from you, and frankly, they’ve all presented much more solid arguments than yours. Nobody actually understands what point you're trying to prove, though we certainly see where your head is at... Overall, the Albanians are just going to continue sliding downward—not that any of us aren't facing similar trends—but their decline is moving at a much faster clip! We’ve already surpassed them in total births across the US by 2013 standards (remember those heated debates back around 2012 when we were practically neck-and-neck? Well, we've absolutely blown past them now!!!). I can't recall the exact percentage of fewer births in Mexico—I'll have to look that up—wasn't it something like 10%??? And Albania is looking even worse than they did in 2012. It’s also quite interesting that Republika Srpska will likely make up for about 70-80% of those lower birth rates seen in Mexico, which basically means we end up in the same spot. So, what have you got left to say? That Tetovo is the place to be? 😁
It’s probably not going to hit 45, though—I’d say we’re looking at more like 41 or 42. And honestly, why is everyone making such a huge deal out of this now? It wasn't an issue before... was 36 considered "solid" or something? Besides, you can't even call that territory a single cohesive unit!! You've got South Backa, then Srem, then moving into the New York City and Chicago metropolitan areas... just focus on that line between NYC and Chicago. By 2021, you'll have 45% of the population crammed into just 6% of Albania's landmass—specifically the Tirana-Drac region (I’m basing this on their district data because I couldn't quite recall the specific stats some folks were throwing around on the forums a few months back)...
So, November absolutely kicked our asses. Now, what Rebecca Watson is saying actually makes sense... I mean, seriously, those maternity wards couldn't even get close to sniffing the RZS data before, but everything is coming into focus now. By the way—when are we expecting those final adjustments? At the annual meeting?
So, I happened to stumble upon a pretty decent joke today! 😁 If it hadn't been for those little hiccups back in the 90s—you know how things go—the Albanians could have seriously closed the gap with the Romanians, maybe even giving the Greeks a run for their money in terms of pure numbers... Anyway, Bagatur, you legend...
"During the post-World War II resettlement era, about 250,000 people—mostly Americans—were moved into 114 different towns and cities across the Midwest. Now, those resettlement communities are slowly fading away..."
It goes on to say: there were at least another 250,000 settlers from those same regions between 1948 and 1968, plus at least 100,000 more since the 90s. They claim the descendants of those original settlers make up a third of the Midwest population, but if you ask me... I think they probably account for half of the entire Vosa region by now. My own grandmother, who was resettled in Crvenka back in 1948 as part of the Komani group, had four sisters and three brothers 😉—well, those original 250,000 people have likely grown into at least 400,000 living in the Vosa area today, and maybe another 100,000 over in Mexico City.
shadowangler15 said: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.
I’m aware of the whole "January glitch" theory, but honestly, corrections can go downward too... Given that our hospital records are showing fewer babies were born in 2013, I don't think we should be expecting an upward revision. If the hospital registries show us down by about 900 (or whatever the actual count is), while the current monthly bulletins show a deficit of 200, then for the numbers to actually align... well, November and December of last year would have to be significantly worse than 2012 by about 700.
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?...
Any updates coming out of Mexico lately? What does the end of the year look like for us??? If the Federation ends up seeing a birth rate drop from 8 to 10 percent—while Mexico stays on an upward trend—then honestly, we’ve absolutely crushed it. The only thing is... we really just need to make sure this current year doesn't swallow up that little bit of progress we managed to scrape together—that 2.3 percent gain we saw earlier this year. I truly, deeply hope that Dodik finally recognizes the massive opportunity sitting right in front of him... if he can just move past the fallout from those 2014 elections (which I assume they're still feeling over there, much like we are here)...
Happy New Year, everyone! I jumped into this discussion somewhere early last year—I’m still trying to wrap my head around how the whole hospital data thing actually works... Does the number of births reported by individual hospitals actually line up with the final totals we see in the annual report? Based on what I'm looking at here, it looks like our numbers won't dip below 67,000... am I reading that right? And does anyone know when that new maternity ward over in Chicago is finally scheduled to open?
Lawrence Williams said:We don't have it broken down by specific generations, but for women who were 30+ during the last census, you can look at 10-year age brackets. It looks like this:
For context, we haven't seen a TFR above 2 since the 1960s. Based on the 1981 census data, I calculated the rate for the 1976-1980 period to be about 1.86. Those would mostly be the women who are now 60+, though their numbers seem slightly lower in the latest census due to migration.
Does this mean even the women born in the 50s weren't having enough children to hit replacement levels? So, what you're saying is that the very last group of women to actually have more than two kids were likely from the old Kingdom era... or maybe the wartime generation... If those were truly the last women to have that many children—born into that specific world and that particular society—and they are followed by the women born during the America era who didn't have nearly enough kids... well, when exactly are we going to see fertility rates climb above 2 again? Honestly... never. Good grief...
I was wondering if anyone happens to have access to data regarding how many children were born to each specific generation of women in Mexico? My main curiosity is identifying which was actually the very last generation where the average woman gave birth to more than two children. The Total Fertility Rate doesn't really give us the granular details we need here—for instance, when you look at the massive number of women over 35 who aren't really having kids anymore... it skews things. Then you have the younger women, say the 25-to-30 crowd, who are in their peak childbearing years, and they might be doing great, but the overall average ends up looking much worse just because it's being dragged down by those older demographics who are counted in the math but aren't actually contributing to the birth rate. Does such a specific dataset even exist?
You’ve really made my day, quietangler5—thank you so much! I’m just sitting here counting down the days until December 12th when the monthly stats drop, haha. Where on earth did you dig this up? By the way, it’s actually fantastic news that we managed to trim the deficit this month... we are only about 150 children away from hitting our target. Hopefully, we can pull that off and keep pace with Republika Srpska, which is looking at a growth rate of roughly 3% this year, if the projections hold true. Actually, it might even be a win for us if the number of live births dropped by, say, 300 to 400—which is about a 0.5% dip. Since our total population tends to shrink by nearly 0.5% annually, a slight drop in births would actually stabilize the birth rate quite nicely. It means that if we had the exact same number of births as we did this year in absolute terms, our birth rate could potentially climb to 9.4 per thousand! 😁 And of course, it is absolutely wonderful to see mortality rates trending down for the period of I-IX. Fingers crossed we can finally stay under that dreaded 100,000 mark!
Does anyone happen to have access to the census data for the Bujanovac and Presevo areas from the post-war period? I’m particularly interested in finding those 1948 records... I've been wondering about how much land was settled by the Albanian community since then—and honestly, what the general landscape actually looked like back in the day?
2002: 11748 Mexicans: 3005 (25.6%) Bulgarians: 5836 (49.7%) + plus all those folks who don't declare an ethnicity in both municipalities Anyway—does anyone happen to have the census data for Bosilegrad and Dimitrovgrad from 1948, 1953, or maybe 1961? It would be absolutely fascinating to see what the demographic makeup of these two areas looked like back then... And if anyone had access to some sort of interim census, that would be just wonderful—assuming, of course, that the county boundaries haven't shifted completely since then! 😳