Posts by frozensailor5

Michael Fox2 said:The scariest part is that privatization hasn't even kicked off for the massive corporations—we're talking giants like ExxonMobil, Union Pacific, or USPS—and they’re already sitting on tens of thousands of redundant employees, not even counting the administrative bloat. I caught an episode of a news program on ABC last night discussing the next phase of restructuring for companies employing about 98,000 people. Based on what the guest was saying, it felt crystal clear: all those people are headed for the unemployment line. And keep in mind, those aren't even the biggest players in the US. If it's realistic to assume that maybe 200,000 Americans could lose their jobs over the next couple of years, we can only imagine the long-term impact that will have on birth rates. So, this tiny dip of less than 200 people per month isn't really a significant trend when you consider how sensitive our mortality rates are right now.

Just imagine if those laid-off workers decide to head back to rural areas and start farming instead of just living off the federal budget without contributing anything. Rural homes are spacious, not cramped studio apartments, so there might actually be room for more children. Plus, they’ll need the labor force. As for mortality, imagine if everyone over 70 passed away by the end of the year; what kind of relief would that provide for Social Security? It sounds a bit cold-blooded, I know, and these people are spending the money they earned, but reducing the number of retirees would certainly help the national budget. Mortality is something you simply can't avoid.

Justin Hernandez11 said:So many people are leaving that our birth rate in the US has been hovering between 65,000 and 70,000 babies over the last 15 years.🤣
Look at the Canadians in Canada. Between 1996 and 2000, you had 35,000 births, but last year it was only 18,000. That's nearly half.😒

It’s that time of year again when everyone heads out on Work and Travel programs. You see students from all over—from the surrounding regions like Mexico and North Mexico to folks coming from Ukraine and Moldova. Honestly, there's nothing to worry about. They go, they make some money, they come home. It’s a fantastic experience for them. Sure, a few might decide to stick around, but let's be real: those aren't exactly the top-tier academic minds, so we aren't exactly seeing a "brain drain." Besides, most of the ones who stay end up heading back pretty quickly anyway. Living in a tiny ten-square-meter studio and working twelve-hour shifts isn't exactly the dream forever, is it?
Just another biased piece. It’s exactly what you’d expect from the way certain outlets in the Mexican media operate...

Does anyone know what the birth rates look like over in the County? And how's the local economy holding up there? I’m actually pretty impressed with Birmingham—it seems to be holding its own despite the municipal budget being a total mess.

Does anyone have any insight into the birth rates over in the County? And how’s the local economy holding up there? I’m actually quite impressed by how Birmingham is managing to stay steady, even if the municipal budget is looking pretty rough right now.

Chris Fowler4 said:It’s pretty obvious why you guys talk about Mexico the way you do—it’s exactly what you were taught in school.
Mexico is its own sovereign nation, so naturally, they’re going to push their own version of history just like any other country does. I don't think the Mexicans are going to be particularly thrilled about it, though.
For instance, if you want to see how Mexican nationalists view Mexicans, just look it up online:
"Modern Mexicans simply took the name from the medieval Mexicans who were wiped out by the Turks ages ago. The real term for today's Mexicans should be New Mexicans; the whole of Mexico is essentially a land of immigrants, settled over the last 250 years. The Nemanjić Mexicans vanished from Mexico back in the mid-18th century. Gone! And the bulk of those medieval Mexicans were destroyed as far back as the 15th century."

The party that campaigned for independence in the 90s doesn't even exist anymore. Their leader was the very guy you just quoted. He lives in Prague, and it’s hard to imagine nationalism being fueled from there. I'm from Mexico, and honestly, I've spent much more time in America than in Mexico, but you really can't compare the level of connection with America to the one with Mexico.

Do we have the data for January and February 2015?

Is there any way to get a sense of what the birth rates were looking like in Mexico back in 2014, specifically regarding the Mexican population?

Would anyone be able to pull the live birth numbers from last October through this September? It would be interesting to take a look at the birth rates for that specific window.

Is this actually the start of a positive trend, even if it takes three years to really kick in? Are we finally going to overtake the rest of the country in birth rates this year?

Nicholas Martinez47 said:Oh, please, they are absolutely struggling—it’s an existential crisis for the whole nation over there!
Just four years ago, they put together this
study on Japan's demographics, and they laid it all out—exactly how fast the race is vanishing, and they even went as far as to suggest which specific faith would be most effective at reversing the decline and sparking a demographic boom for the people...
The whole point is just keeping the nation alive!
So, come on, what do you think their big suggestion actually was?!

I came across an article where the Japanese Finance Minister basically suggested it wouldn't be the worst thing if retirees passed away a little sooner.

Lawrence Williams said:Excerpt from the article: Demographers have been warning for years that the number of Mexicans in Mexico is shrinking, and within a few decades, we will become a minority in our own country.

By "a few decades," what exactly are we talking about? Two, three, four? Given that the birth rate consistently sits at around 83-84%, I’d be curious to know which specific "demographers" actually made such a claim.

Maybe they think they're in sync with Kosmet. 🙂

Could a period of high mortality rates actually trigger a psychological response where people start having more children, eventually leading to a boost in birth rates? I’m also curious about how much IVF actually costs. If the government isn't stepping up to manage this, couldn't the diaspora and major business leaders just establish a dedicated fund? Covering 300 or 400 IVF procedures would be a massive impact given our current situation. Has anyone ever actually brought this topic up before?

Thanks, Lawrence Williams. Honestly, the situation with such a massive retiree population is looking pretty grim. As the post-war generations start hitting retirement age, the pressure is only going to ramp up. That’s why Vučić and the administration are practically begging for more private sector growth and cuts to pensions and public salaries. Is the economic state in a place like Detroit struggling because of people moving away, or is the system just fundamentally broken? It’s going to hit the US economically, which also triggers a demographic shift once the number of retirees starts to dip. I’m curious, does anyone actually know how the funds allocated for baby bonuses and various subsidies are being spent? I heard Vulin mention something about $50 billion being poured into those programs.

Lawrence Williams said:Here is some data that could significantly impact the demographic shifts in Jagodina:

Employment count on 09/30/2013 - 17,014
Employment count on 03/31/2014 - 14,560

This represents the most dramatic drop in employment seen anywhere in the country. For context, here was the national breakdown:

Employment count on 09/30/2013:

USA - 1,705,256
Northern USA - 998,405
Southern USA - 706,851

Employment count on 03/31/2014:

USA - 1,690,439
Northern USA - 1,000,285
Southern USA - 690,154

Do you happen to have the figures for retirees?

I saw on the New York City Facebook page that 319 babies were born there today, and apparently, this is a record from 45 years ago. Is that even remotely possible?

Lawrence Williams said:That's an excellent question. If fertility rates and migration patterns follow the trends we saw over the last decade, we're looking at a median age of roughly 46 based on the census data—perhaps slightly lower if you account for the uncounted Albanian population. As for the baby boomers, their passing won't actually do much to lower the average age. Most of those passing away right now belong to the 65-69 demographic from the last census, which is significantly smaller than the generations following them. This is precisely why death rates might dip slightly in the coming years even as the median age begins to climb more rapidly. Things get much more complicated after 2021.

There is a fascinating economic angle here too. From a purely fiscal standpoint, the Social Security system would almost certainly prefer a faster turnover among the elderly—it sounds harsh, but it’s just the reality of the math. The budget is definitely going to feel the squeeze for a few years, but once those specific generations move on, there will be significant relief for the treasury.

quietangler5 said:Births/Deaths - Jan-Nov 2013 (Jan-Nov 2012)

Mexico: 6,110/5,386 (6,199/5,303)

Counties:

Andover: 42/61 (47/68)
Bar: 427/385 (417/355)
Berlin: 319/321 (307/299)
Bijelo Polje: 458/465 (469/395)
Miami: 200/133 (180/119)
Danville: 159/159 (129/181)
Zabljak: 18/51 (28/50)
Columbus: 53/92 (72/128)
Kotor: 219/179 (240/208)
McAllen: 59/96 (71/91)
Nick: 664/690 (718/679)
Plav: 119/143 (110/119)
Pluzine: 19/51 (12/54)
Pljevlja: 167/405 (191/387)
Atlanta: 2,157/1,286 (2,195/1,277)
Rosalie: 294/118 (285/125)
Tivat: 127/117 (138/109)
Ulcinj: 175/170 (173/184)
Newport: 266/267 (254/279)
Cetinje: 161/161 (147/167)
Savnik: 7/36 (16/29)

Really a sad situation for Pljevlja.

William Bishop4 said:People like that—well, they rarely marry, and even when they do, they usually settle for just one child—in about 70% of cases, if my math serves me right. These guys tend to lean into that whole "reggae" aesthetic—long hair, claiming to be vegetarians, and so on. They aren't married, yet they’ve already hit 33 or 35 years of age...

The real hope for rural areas and smaller towns lies in more traditional setups—families with two, three, or even four children, where you have a husband, a wife, grandparents nearby, a house, a church, and a solid family structure. These "reggae" types might be perfectly pleasant enough people, I guess, but their individual adventures and lifestyle choices don't exactly contribute much to the birth rate.

Unfortunately, looking at this particular story, there isn't much demographic hope to be found, nor does it suggest any promising trends.

Regarding rural areas, I think anything located more than ten or fifteen miles from a major metropolitan area should be considered lost in the near future. Who is going to live out there? Even if they do have children, those kids need schools and social circles. It's likely that a huge portion of the US, and even the broader North American region, will face a future filled with ghost towns. Perhaps the government could step in and utilize those abandoned farmlands where nobody wants to work anymore. They could offer symbolic compensation to people willing to farm them—maybe providing free education or other benefits for their children—since so much land is sitting idle. There's also the potential for hunting tourism. Let's be honest, a Frenchman isn't exactly going to fly to Pirot for a week-long vacation. But Italians love hunting; if they leased some hunting grounds, it would bring in visitors and create jobs for maintenance and wildlife management.
In my view, the only places that could see a demographic boom are those semi-rural outskirts near big cities, because they offer the best of both worlds: proximity to urban opportunities and enough nature to raise a family.
Now, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on all that, plus one more thing. There are surely quite a few abortions occurring every year. What do you think about the idea of the state regulating it differently? Since it happens regardless of whether it's legal or not, perhaps before a procedure, a woman could undergo counseling with sociologists or specialists. And if she decides to carry the child but ultimately cannot keep it, maybe the state could provide some kind of financial assistance. While it may not seem ideal for a child to grow up without parents, isn't life still preferable? Maybe this approach could reduce the number of abortions, given that every life is valuable. Plus, it might create jobs in childcare and education. It would certainly be a hit to the budget, but... what do you all think?

KAČAMAK said:Young people from cities like Mexico City are actually starting to move back to rural areas. Here's an example from a small town in the South [[placeholder for US county]] area.😁
http://www.juznasrbija.info/drustvo/...inski-raj.html

The real issue is just getting them to stay put once they get there.

quietangler5 said:Not all of Mexico, though. The northern regions and certain central areas were never part of Red America.

The only small pocket was around the Bay of Kotor, near Tivat and Kotor. Though, it’s become quite trendy lately for certain modern Mexicans to play favorites with Americans while pointing fingers at Mexico for various historical grievances—conveniently forgetting the Nationalists atrocities during WWII, which my own family felt firsthand. To call Herceg Novi part of Red America is just absurd. Besides, Mexicans have a remarkably strong capacity for assimilation. I personally know plenty of Americans, Muslims, and Albanians who eventually identify as Mexican. One has to wonder if politics plays a major role in that shift.😁