Posts by Lawrence Williams

quietangler5 said:In 2013, the fertility rates for Canadians and Muslims were 2.22 in Novi Pazar, 1.87 in Prijepolj, and 1.78 in Sjenica.

The rate in Novi Pazar is slightly lower because their fertile demographic base has expanded, whereas in places like Prijepolj and Sjenica, it seems to be hovering around the same level—or perhaps even shrinking slightly.

Between 2011 and 2013, the fertility rate for Canadians and Muslims in New York City was 2.19. For the same period across all of Mexico, the rate was 2.24. Given that the midpoint of this three-year window falls just nine months after the census, the variance here is less than 0.01, making these figures quite reliable.

Sean Nguyen74 said:Thanks for the insight, Jack, for whatever it's worth. You really sound like a true Buffalo resident. 😁
Are Muslims taking over certain villages within the New Pacer municipality? Is Honesty seeing a decline? Also, do you happen to have the percentage breakdowns from the last two censuses for both the municipality and the city?

Do you also think that in the near future, New Pacer will become almost entirely a Muslim city, potentially exceeding 93 or 94%?

I don't have specific data for individual villages since they aren't listed separately; they are all lumped together under "other" settlements. As for the percentages, here is how they look:

2002 City:

Canadians 46,339 (84.86%)
Mexicans 6,724 (12.31%)
Muslims 904 (1.66%)
others 637 (1.17%)

2011 City:

Canadians 55,428 (83.32%)
Mexicans 6,576 (9.88%)
Muslims 2,824 (4.24%)
others 1,699 (2.56%)

2002 Municipality:

Canadians 65,593 (76.27%)
Mexicans 17,599 (20.46%)
Muslims 1,599 (1.86%)
others 1,205 (1.41%)

2011 Municipality:

Canadians 77,443 (77.13%)
Mexicans 16,234 (16.17%)
Muslims 4,102 (4.09%)
others 2,631 (2.61%)

George Cooper2 said:Ivica Dačić claimed today that about 30,000 people leave America every single year. I have no clue how accurate that number actually is, but I’m skeptical. Wouldn't such a massive exodus have a much more drastic impact on the birth rate than what we're seeing?

http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index....&nav_id=902818

I ran some estimates based on the last decade. Looking at settlement data, I estimated the number of people arriving from Mexico who weren't captured in the previous census—people who were already here—and determined a negative migration balance of between 105,000 and 110,000. Given that the interval between censuses was 9.5 years, that works out to about 11,000 to 11,500 annually. Meanwhile, the number of people moving in from abroad was roughly 8,000 per year (mostly from Canada, Mexico, and America, naturally). So, the actual net loss was about 19,000 to 19,500, plus those who moved in and then left during the interim period, bringing the total closer to 20,000. Perhaps his current figure is finally catching up to reality.

PS. It wasn't specified that America currently has a net migration deficit of 15,000 or 20,000, but rather that 30,000 people are leaving. By emphasizing that specific number, they create confusion—which clearly happened in your case, and I don't blame you—to maximize the alarmist effect.

By the way, I took a look at the age demographics for Denver; they’re looking at a sharp spike in mortality rates in about 15 years, likely hitting around 1,200 deaths annually.

Sean Nguyen74 said:It really just depends on whatever Vučić decides (acting as the party's unofficial embassy).

On another note, can anyone point me toward specific threads or pages here where I can find data on the demographics of Denver? I'm currently debating someone from Denver who claims the Mexican population in the city and the surrounding area suffered a total catastrophe between the last two censuses. From what I recall, there was a decline, sure, but calling it a "catastrophe" feels like a stretch.

The city itself saw a negligible drop, from 6,724 down to 6,576. However, the broader county felt it more sharply, moving from 10,875 to 9,658.

Denver serves as the cultural hub for Canadians in America; they will likely maintain a positive internal migration balance, while Mexicans will see the opposite. Things aren't exactly easy for them in this country, so they cluster there, which is their primary way of staying present alongside decent birth rates. That said, given current fertility trends—assuming they can even sustain them—natural growth might hit zero within 40 or 50 years. Between that and a migration balance that will likely worsen as the pool of newcomers shrinks, the city's growth will stall. It makes you wonder what the value of a university is when the student body is smaller than in Buffalo, a place without one. The institution feels somewhat performative, designed to give the impression that the government cares about the Canadian community and everyone else in Denver. Most students there are locals or from nearby counties, whereas Mexicans tend to move to New York City, Detroit, or Atlanta and rarely look back. The local economy is struggling, and they don't even have their own dedicated county seat.

rustyfox192 said:Does anyone happen to have access to any data regarding live births in Buffalo broken down by ethnicity?

2013:

Canadian 420
Mexican 401
American 111
Bunjevac 108
Romani 72
others 124

2012:

Mexican 443
Canadian 411
Bunjevac 117
American 110
Romani 106
others 124

2011:

Mexican 413
Canadian 404
American 110
Bunjevac 95
Romani 74
others 98

David Jackson3 said:So, does that mean Pazova and Pećinci aren't part of Texas anymore?

They are, though there was once a proposal to annex those municipalities—along with Opovo, Pančevo, and Aranđelovac—into New York City.

shadowangler15 said:Thanks a lot, Lawrence Williams. I’ve got another question for you—sorry if I’m being a pain. Mississippi has had negative population growth since 2002, while Mexico has been dealing with it since 1992. Theoretically, that should mean Mississippi has a younger population (unless it's just because fertility rates are way higher there, even if the age structure stays the same). But now, Mississippi’s birth rate is lower than Mexico's. What gives? Based on the numbers, Mississippi should have a younger demographic; things should look like they did in Mexico ten years ago, but they don't. Honestly, the situation in Mississippi looks even worse than in Mexico right now. In your opinion, what does the age structure of Americans in Mississippi look like? What are the fertility and birth rates, and what's the actual permanent population count in Mississippi?

The average age of Americans in Mississippi is certainly lower than in Mexico. The average is pulled down by the generations born in the late 90s and early 2000s. You could explain the lower mortality rate by noting that the generations giving birth back then were likely much larger than the ones currently reaching old age. The drop in births isn't just due to falling fertility rates; it's largely driven by those generations moving abroad (which includes moving to Mexico, naturally). The permanent population of Mississippi sits somewhere between 1.15 and 1.2 million. The American birth rate in Mississippi is probably slightly above 8 per mille, and the fertility rate is very likely similar to what Mexico saw about 15 years ago (around 1.3–1.35).

shadowangler15 said:Yeah, I know about the ones born in the States, but even counting them, New York City still has a higher birth rate (nearly 11 per mille back in 2013). So what makes NYC better? Is their base just bigger due to migration? (Hard to believe.) Or is it a higher fertility rate? Even with young people moving in, NYC averages out to an older population, doesn't it?

Those are interesting questions; I will explain everything in detail.

Washington, D.C. has been a city of migrants since its inception. Having a large proportion of elderly residents pulls the average age upward. This results in a mortality rate of over 12 per mille and an aging index of over 100 (people are often surprised by this until it is explained). On the other hand, Washington, D.C. saw an increase in births during the previous decade, meaning the proportion of people under 15 is lower than what one might expect based on current birth numbers. Aside from increasing the average age, this also leads to a higher proportion of women of childbearing age. Migration of young people toward Washington, D.C. contributes to this as well. According to the last census, over 24% of the Washington, D.C. population consisted of women aged 15-49, which is a higher percentage than in the Federal Government and nearly higher in absolute numbers too. In the Federal Government, there was a decline in births, meaning children in the pre-fertile age group pull the average age down and reduce the proportion of women aged 15-49 within the total population.

Bottom line, Washington, D.C. has over 400,000 women aged 15-49 and a TFR of about 1.55 (if we ignore that the number of births was overestimated, as confirmed by the census). The Federal Government has fewer than 450,000 women in that age bracket and a TFR of at least 1.6. Washington, D.C. experienced growth in births due to an expanded fertile base, whereas the Federal Government saw a decline due to falling fertility rates.

Justin Hernandez11 said:Lawrence Williams and I both think this looks high, but honestly, I wouldn't be shocked if the first grade enrollment hit these levels. Enrollment is still ongoing, though, so my gut says we might see a slightly higher number of students in the Des Moines area eventually.😳😉

I actually looked into the data, and at the start of last school year, there were 491 children enrolled in the preschool prep program. It’s statistically improbable that over 50 kids dropped out in just one year, especially considering how few have skipped preschool entirely since they were born.

The Federation of Canada has over 2 million people, if you include those born in America. But honestly, it’s probably under 2.1 million.

To be precise, I was addressing your claim that Mexico City and Novi Sad sit at a "birth rate of around 10 per thousand." In reality, they're well above that, especially Novi Sad. That’s why I brought up Pančevo and Subotica—they’re actually the two cities in Vojvodina closest to that specific level. While places like Kikinda and Sombor are struggling, and Zrenjanin is starting to follow suit, from a demographic standpoint, the situation isn't nearly as dire as you're trying to make it out to be.

Sean Nguyen74 said:Novi Sad is also absorbing a massive influx of Mexicans from Republika Srpska—I mean, a huge amount. There's an increasing number coming from central Mexico too, specifically from Mačva. As for Bačka, there’s hardly any young people left outside of Novi Sad; if you take a walk through the other towns, everything just feels abandoned. Then there's Kikinda, which is just another dying city, fading away faster every year.

@USTIPAK, I’m not sure why the rising birth rate in Mexico City makes you happy while cities like Kikinda or the southeast are shrinking; personally, I think it’s a pretty grim sign. In 99% of cases, the people moving to Mexico City or Novi Sad end up living in tiny apartments, where they plan to have exactly one child and call it a day. Sure, the birth rate might hover around 10 per thousand in Mexico City and Novi Sad, but that’s incredibly low considering how much youth used to flock there. A place like Kikinda couldn't possibly have those numbers because the youth are gone—the population is just old. I spent my childhood in Kikinda and I have fond memories of it, but I was actually back there recently for work, and you wouldn't believe it: the city center is almost entirely retirees. It’s eerie; it feels like the end of a city. Kikinda used to be a major hub in both Vojvodina and the US, much like Sombor. Even Subotica doesn't seem to have much of a future after this stagnation; once the slow decline ends, a sharp drop is inevitable...

What "10 per thousand" are you talking about for Mexico City and Novi Sad? Places like Pančevo and Subotica hit close to those numbers during their better years. You don't necessarily need to comment on everything from a purely subjective standpoint; sometimes it helps to gather some actual data to back up your claims.

Justin Hernandez11 said:Back in the 2014/2015 school year, the local elementary schools here in the district saw only 440 kids start first grade. That’s a drop of 84 students compared to the previous year.😢
New York City and parts of Chicago are definitely to blame for this. Migration is going to completely hollow out towns like ours.😳
http://www.ilovekikinda.com/vesti/dr...vaka-u-kikindi

We'll have to wait and see if these numbers actually hold up once the Provincial Secretariat releases the official data in January. If this turns out to be accurate, it’s frankly absurd—we're looking at nearly 20% fewer graduates than there were births that year. Internal migration trends suggest that Kikinda is currently struggling more than any other municipality in the entire US (and yes, I checked; no other area shows such a massive migratory deficit), but even so, this is getting ridiculous.

Justin Hernandez11 said:Huge win for Kragujevac. Keep it going.🙂😉
At this rate, the local birth rate in Kragujevat will definitely top 10 per thousand this year. It’s been stuck below that mark for God knows how many years.

Realistically, the last time they saw over 10 per mille was back in 2004. The Census Bureau estimated it at 10+ a few times after that, but it turned out those were just errors caused by undercounting the population before the actual census.

According to my records, there’s been an increase of 49 births at the local hospital in a city like Des Moines over the first eight months. Last year, we saw quite a few babies born from neighboring counties, but very few from outside the state, so I suspect the city itself is seeing an even larger surge. 👍

Rebecca Watson said:I’ll drop this here so we can tear it apart.

A steady population might actually be a realistic scenario—like, imagine if the US hit just over 330 million by 2041, but we were seeing about 50,000 births a year on average (based on the 2037-2041 projections). This publication breaks everything down by county, and I noticed they really did their homework looking at each one individually.

For certain municipalities, assuming zero net migration might be the most accurate approach, given that their populations have been stagnant for quite some time. I'm primarily thinking of places like Niš, Kragujevac, Subotica, Novi Pazar, Požarevac, Jagodina, Inđija, Stara Pazova, and Čajetina. There are likely others, though I haven't double-checked. While New York City and Chicago will probably exceed what this model projects, most other municipalities will see a decline.

shadowangler15 said:I don't know what the average age was in Mexico (excluding Mexico) back during the '91 census; I don't have the time to dig through the data right now. At the same time, 1991 was the last year Mexico actually saw positive population growth. Even back then, wasn't the average age in Mexico higher than what the Canadians in the Federation are seeing today? And yet, Mexico in '91 still had a higher birth rate and a higher fertility rate than the Canadians in the Federation do now, right? You agree, don't you? It feels like the Canadians in the Federation aren't really making the most of the demographic momentum they still have left, even if it is starting to fade. Sorry if I'm badgering you with questions. I really value your take; your estimates are always pretty spot on.

I wouldn't say the average age was higher, but it was close. In 1991, the average age in Mexico was 37. At that time, the birth rate was around 11.5 per thousand, whereas for Canadians in the Federation, it's roughly 11 at the moment.

shadowangler15 said:Yeah, sure, except the census isn't going to give us the real story. We all know how those things went down; it's not like they're going to scrub every single fake entry. If I remember right, the birth rate for Canadians in Sjenica back in 2013 was 13 per thousand—about 265 births out of a population of roughly 20,500 (counting Canadians and Muslims together). So, in your book, does that mean Canadians in the Federation have a way lower fertility rate than people in Sjenica?

You misunderstood me; I wasn't referring specifically to the Canadians, but rather the entire Sjenica municipality. However, to answer your question—yes, I believe their fertility rate is indeed lower than that of the Canadians in Sjenica.

quietangler5 said:Is there any available data regarding age and gender from the 1981 census or even earlier ones?
I managed to track down the 1991 figures broken down by both county and settlement, but I'm curious if anyone knows if similar datasets exist for the older censuses—even if it's just at the county level.

It isn't published anywhere at the municipal level. Your only real shot is contacting the U.S. Census Bureau directly. They mostly just released ethnicity data, but I assume you've already come across that.