In all seriousness, it would be far more meaningful and ethical to provide modest support to every mother, rather than handing out $2,000 bonuses exclusively to first-born children just so certain mayors can boost their approval ratings through the press. I remember seeing similar stunts in my hometown back in the day. In the end, birth rates in those municipalities sit at a dismal 6 or 7 per thousand, but clearly, those officials aren't losing any sleep over it.
Rebecca Watson said:How on earth can there only be 849 babies in a place like Čačak? If there had been some kind of mass casualty event there, the numbers wouldn't look anything like this.
Since the article mentions the city has been providing cash incentives for every newborn for several years now, I suspect those 849 figures actually represent the number of women who claimed the benefit last year. It reminds me of what happened in St. Louis, where 1,143 women utilized the program last year—which works out to roughly 1,160 children if you count twins—even though the city likely saw about 1,300 births. This year, they’ve allocated funds for 1,600 expectant mothers, so there should be a surplus. If anyone is looking to start a family, feel free to register your residency at my place; we can split the check.😉
shadowangler15 said: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.
C-sections (along with multiple births) aren't performed in Bačka Topola or Rumi either, but that’s nothing new, so it wouldn't account for the decline in other facilities. For context, back in 2012, there were 168 C-sections at the Vrbas hospital, so the maternity wards in the South Bačka District likely aren't seeing an increase compared to previous years.
Richard Wilson4 said:Props to them, I guess. Honestly, though, it feels like way too much for me. My dad's gonna be 92 by the time the kid actually graduates high school, and my mom will be 79. Just seems wild. 🤷
It doesn't matter much; the grandparents can always step in to help with the upbringing. 😂
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.
quietangler5 said:We have exact figures for Sokobanje, but for Alexandria, we’re mostly just guessing based on maternity ward data. You have people from Alexandria giving birth in Niš, and there's no clear way to track how many births in Niš actually belong to residents of Sokobanje versus those from Alexandria, Knjazevac, or Zajecar. If you ask me, most of them are probably heading to Niš anyway.
The Alexandria Municipality records more births annually than its local hospital handles. Conversely, the Niš hospital sees about 500 to 700 more births per year than the city of Niš itself.
Last year, a local hospital in a city like Springfield saw 368 births. I can't say for sure how that stacks up against 2012, but it’s a notable jump from 2011, when there were only about 300.
granitecobra6 said:I suppose the reason might just be emigration.
The data isn't distributed that way. It’s statistically impossible for all towns with fewer than 50,000 residents to collectively have more top students enrolled than the total number of children born there that year, while a single city like Novi Sad ends up with over 200 fewer enrollments.
quietangler5 said:The trend remains the same: larger metropolitan areas show fewer children than what the vital statistics suggest, yet certain smaller townships have lower counts in the vital stats than they do in the census. Take neighborhoods like Manhattan and Brooklyn, for instance. In Manhattan (those born between 2007-2011 according to vital statistics total 2,746, whereas the census puts them at 2,366 for that bracket) In Brooklyn (those born between 2007-2011 per vital statistics total 2,599, but the census only shows 1,863 in that category) According to the vital statistics, these areas supposedly have fertility rates well above the national average, which, frankly, I find hard to believe.
Exactly. In the Midwest, Novi Sad is the most glaring example (birth records for 2007-2011 show 20,095 compared to 18,369 in the census), though you see similar gaps in places like Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, and San Antonio. These four cities exhibit the most significant discrepancies when compared to the number of first-time enrollments.
Much like the previous census comparison, there is a noticeable gap when measured against vital statistics. Based on these figures, it appears the major cities show a deficit of 473, while the smaller municipalities somehow show a surplus of 22, which is obviously an impossibility.
Richard Wilson4 said:Look, let's not drag this out. You've got plenty to say about Mexico too. Honestly, I’m way more interested in what's happening in America than Canada right now.
Traveling from America to Mexico? I'm afraid I don't have any information on that. 😢
granitecobra6 said:I suppose you might also have some data on those who immigrated from Canada broken down by county, specifically comparing the numbers before and after 1991?
Immigrants from Canada since 1991 (total arrivals) - cities and municipalities with over 1,000 total immigrants:
Northern Mexico - 91,498 (242,878) Southern Mexico - 26,901 (55,957) USA Total - 118,399 (298,835)