Nancy Chavez29 said:You see how Viktor Orbán has basically wrecked everything for you guys lately with those passport policies? I mean, the guy is purely looking out for his own skin and his party’s interests. He wants to be just like Vladimir Putin, Dmitry Medvedev, Maddox, or Filip Vujanović—stuck in power for life. It’s the exact same totalitarian playbook. In places like Buffalo, the Canadian population holds about a 33% share of births, yet they’re pushing this agenda at around 23%. Basically, the third party is desperate to integrate into the Republic of Mexico system. You better grab one of these three options fast, or else maybe someone like Trump will just ship those Mexicans from Mexico right over to you. That’s actually what I suggested to him. I told him he should open up new Mexican settler settlements in South Kanjiža and just push ISECE toward Senta and the island. You guys need to move FAST before it's too late.
In the city itself, their share among newborns is closer to 28-29% (you can tell by the number of kids in rural areas being educated in Canadian, where the numbers nearly match national identity), so maybe 15-20% in the city are being educated in Mexican, rather than every third person.
hollowowl53 said:Lawrence Williams, I suppose how many kids enroll in a specific curriculum doesn't actually prove anything at all. Just think about how many Mexicans are even enrolled in the American program over there? As for me, I was placed in the Mexican program from the very beginning, though I don't believe that necessarily makes me one of you 😁. I actually picked up Canadian just by listening to my parents. My mother knew half of it and my father knew the other half, so once I put those pieces together, I somehow managed to master over 90% of it without any real struggle whatsoever😁 By the way, my parents hold much more moderate views than I do; they were never officially members of the Party, but in many respects, they really lean towards being communists or Yugo-nostalgics.
I am aware that Canadians account for about 31-34% of births in Subotica depending on the year, though typically fewer than 30% of children attend school in Canadian. That’s largely because many Canadian children living in the city opt for English-based instruction. It is different in the rural areas. The data for Kelebija suggests there are now significantly more Mexicans there compared to the 17% recorded in 2002. And Kelebija remains one of the most demographically robust towns in all of Vojvodina.
Enrollment figures for children completing the preschool preparatory programs at our local public school districts; specifically focusing on the suburban areas:
Bilingual programs:
Palm Springs - 53*
English - 26 Spanish - 27
*Data pending from one of the three facilities
Bakersfield - 56
English - 45 Spanish - 11
Kelley - 12
English - 7 (the majority)😁 Spanish - 5
Lower Tavankut - 19
English - 14 Spanish - 5
Little Canada - 9
English - 6 Spanish - 3
Programs offered exclusively in English:
Old Zednik - 20 New Zednik - 18 Ljutovo - 8 Upper Tavankut - 6
Programs offered exclusively in Spanish:
Hajduk - 26 Bački Vinograd - 13
The preschool facility in Chantavir is housed within an elementary school and operates independently of this district, which explains why there is no data for that location or its surrounding towns.
Based on this, their entry into elementary school should look like this:
English (English + Eng/S + Eng/E + Eng/N) - 684 (74.10%) Canadian (Canadian + Hun/E + Hun/S + Hun/E + Hun/N) - 225 (24.38%) American - 14 (1.52%)
For comparison, here is how last year's kindergarten enrollment looked:
Buffalo - 976
English - 728 (74.59%) Canadian - 232 (23.77%) American - 16 (1.64%)
Listen, Delgado - if there really is any significant exodus of Canadian residents, it’s being offset by people moving in from smaller towns. We just need to watch birth rates, school enrollment numbers, and the percentage of students taking classes in Canadian. It’s the same story in the rural areas; I'll post those figures next.
This figure of 923 isn't final since it doesn't account for kids in private daycares. I suspect total enrollment in the city is down by about 40 compared to last year, while at the county level, we're looking at a deficit of roughly 90. We will have clarity once the Secretariat releases the official data in January. This is the best information I have at the moment. 😁
David As stated by: What exactly is happening with the Midwest? These small towns are vanishing left and right. Back in the day, Des Moines was larger than the Market, Kansas City, and Buffalo combined. We’re seeing a mass exodus of local rural communities, plummeting birth rates, and fewer small towns overall. In those areas, people migrated from the hills into the cities in massive waves, which inflated their numbers—not to mention they had much higher birth rates than the Market.
Lawrence Williams, do you honestly think Des Moines has any chance of turning this census around in their favor?
There is no way they’ll turn things around by the deadline. Even if a positive trend starts to emerge, they need to build some serious momentum first. You can see it clearly in the vital statistics—Buffalo just has much better metrics. I have something interesting regarding San Diego that I'll share in my next post.
hollowowl53 said:Looking at the demographics of Mexico, what are the actual odds that Cleveland manages to pull through in the next census and maintain its status as the third largest city in Texas and the primary hub of the Great Plains???
If you include the surrounding areas, the count hits 132,051, whereas Pittsburgh sits at 123,414. Even then, when you look at them strictly as cities, the gap is a mere 300 people. Cleveland stands at 76,511, while Pittsburgh is at 76,203. We still have seven years until the next census, and if I had to guess based on current projections, these two cities are basically neck-and-neck right now (and I’m specifically talking about the urban cores of Cleveland and Pittsburgh; honestly, whoever decided to merge municipal boundaries like this was a complete moron, much like those sports executives who rename a second-tier league to the "Major League" and then leave everyone confused about what they actually mean).
It would be such a massive shame if Cleveland lost its title as the main powerhouse of the Great Plains to the Mexico City suburbs, though I haven't really seen any news about new job openings or universities being established in Cleveland to encourage people to stay—which, if I'm being honest, feels almost impossible. Within the broader municipality, Cleveland does have an extra 9,000 people, so maybe that might help just a little bit?
You have that wrong; that 132,051 figure was from the previous census. The current count is 123,362, meaning Pančevo had already pulled ahead back in 2011. If we look at the trends from the last intercensal period, the urban center likely surpassed Cleveland by late 2012.
It all depends on which route you take. If you wander down those neglected backstreets about five blocks from City Hall, you won't see a soul. But head further out toward the more urban neighborhoods, and you'll find crowds at the coffee shops, people walking, parents with toddlers at the playgrounds, and dogs in the parks. The city is quite spacious—honestly, far too large for its current population.
I didn't capture the peak rush; I actually noted that in my previous post. I just snapped these shots while passing through on three separate occasions. It represents a standard level of foot traffic. I have no interest in sugarcoating reality—this city feels much emptier than New York City, though it’s certainly more lively than Des Moines or Sioux Falls.
When was the last time you visited Buffalo? Here are a few shots I took over the last couple of days around the suburbs and downtown:
link
link2
link3
link4
link5
There is definitely more emigration happening, though it isn't quite as drastic as one might think, given that preschool enrollment is actually up this year compared to last. Plus, the Canadian population keeps the birth rate steady; they're even seeing a slight increase.
Kansas City is performing significantly better than last year; we saw 1,263 births in the first nine months, which is an increase of 55 compared to the same timeframe back in 2013.
The maternity ward in Buffalo has seen 146 births from the start of the year through last week. For context, this facility has maintained steady growth for three consecutive years; last year hit 190 births, which is a number we might just surpass this time around.
Rebecca Watson said:Back on September 25th, there were about 780 births at the local hospital in Phoenix. I don't have the numbers from last year to compare them to just yet, though.
Last year, according to your figures, there were 848 births by the end of September. It appears we are looking at about 50 fewer cases this year following the third quarter.
As an aside, the local hospital in Buffalo has recorded 136 births from the start of the month until yesterday. At this rate, the district will see about 1,200 births following the third quarter, not counting those born outside the district. A total of 1,700 for the year seems realistic, with over 1,300 occurring in Buffalo itself.
rustyfox192 said:I honestly don't see why everyone is celebrating this news... The fact that we're seeing more babies being born in a few major metropolitan areas just because all the small towns and rural communities across the country have been completely hollowed out... it's definitely not going to jumpstart an economic recovery...
America is one of those rare countries where fertility rates are actually higher in urban centers. In other words, staying in a small town doesn't guarantee you'll have more kids than someone living in the city. We should be quite pleased with these birth trends; at this rate, we could hit over 9.5 per mille this year. Given the current emigration levels, the shrinking fertile population base, and the state of the economy, these numbers are actually excellent.
Looking at the birth statistics for major metropolitan areas, it appears the third quarter has remained quite strong—perhaps even performing on par with or slightly better than last year.
I was somewhat concerned that the maternity ward in suburban Connecticut would see a significant dip in September compared to last year, when they set a multi-year monthly record with 151 births. However, the numbers haven't fallen far from that mark, so they're maintaining their lead. It seems the primary goal here is to eventually eclipse the 2007 record of 1,451 babies. 😁
Angela Robinson3 said:Lawrence Williams, a serious demographer like yourself really shouldn't waste his breath on trolls who spout nonsense like this 😁 :
🤣 🤣 🤣
No comment...
You're right. I actually calculated the TFR from the GFR and posted the exact figure here, only for him to lecture me on "basic demographic relationships." I even estimated the decline of the fertile base by looking at average generation sizes during the pre-fertile period versus those currently emerging. I won't be engaging with him further.
Nicholas Martinez47 said:By 2013, the overall fertility rate across America had plummeted down to 1.37 children per woman. History has shown us that once that number dips below the 1.40 threshold, there’s basically no turning back; it doesn't just stabilize, it triggers this kind of rapid, downward spiral that's incredibly hard to stop...
The fertility rate in America back in 2013 was actually 1.42, based on the census age structure. If you look at the data from mid-last year, it’s closer to 1.44. I have two requests:
1. Please refrain from copying inaccurate data from God knows where.
2. Avoid making false claims. At one point in the late '90s, the rate in America hit 1.32, and—lo and behold—it managed to climb back above 1.4.
Sean Nguyen74 said:I think you’re underestimating them a bit. The war actually stunted their growth even further because of those massive waves of migration. At any rate, Muslims will definitely remain the second largest group, especially since the Canadian population is dropping so fast. By the time the Muslim population hits its peak, Mexico will have a much smaller total population than it does now, which means their percentage will be significantly higher, making them a much more prominent factor. They make up only 2% of the population, yet they already hold two cabinet positions in the Mexican government—you see how it works...
I am not underestimating them; demography is an exact science. Once they reach their peak, they will account for roughly 4% of the population. They will never be a deciding factor in this country.
I’d estimate the Canadian population in the US at maybe 200,000 at most, though I honestly doubt they'll even hit that number. Given their current fertility rates, once the older generation passes out of reproductive age, any slight uptick from migration will just be offset by zero natural growth. Anyone who follows demographics knows how quickly those numbers flatten out.