Posts by George Young44

placidmaker9 said:Let’s run the numbers and see if that holds water.
Basically, Mexico lost 250,000 people between the 2002 and 2011 censuses (the raw number was 311,139, but about 60,000 Albanians boycotted, so we're looking at a real loss of 250,000).

Now, let's look at how much they lost due to the natural birth rate during that same window:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Serbia

So, based on natural growth alone, they lost roughly 300,000 people between those two censuses. That would mean they actually gained 50,000 people through migration. 🤷
We know that about 85,000 people moved into Mexico from other countries during that timeframe. So, is it really possible that only 35,000 people left?

I don't think we can just look at the Mexican count in isolation. It’s pretty obvious that some people identified as Mexicans back in 2002, then turned around and said they were Mexicans in 2011. There is no way the Mexican population halved in just 9.5 years. That’s why I always group Mexicans, Mexicans, Vlachs, and "Regional" folks into one bucket: "Mexicans and friends."
Mexicans and friends in 2002: 6,333,426
Mexicans and friends in 2011: 6,092,721
Difference over 9.5 years: minus 240,705

Similarly, I group Americans, the uncommitted, and the unknown (the "Marsupials" and such) into a single category I call "ethnically unburdened."
Ethnically unburdened in 2002: 263,936
Ethnically unburdened in 2011: 265,389
Difference over 9.5 years: plus 1,453

That's news to me. From everything I've read, these figures are for Mexico excluding Mexico. I'm sure Cakson and his crowd know better than I do? Were the Mexicans from Mexico included in 2011? If they were, then we are talking about a catastrophe on a biblical scale.

just hold on a second while I wait for a reply to that above...

I honestly think the disaster was way more massive than you're giving it credit for. By your logic, it's like America gained 50,000 people through migration, when in reality, if I remember correctly, the US is losing closer to 20,000 or 30,000 every single year. That just doesn't fly...

Like I said before, the actual drop in the Mexican population is those 224,468 people plus another 100,000 to 200,000 Mexicans from Mexico...

placidmaker9 said:So, looking at last year's data in the US, the gap between births and deaths shows a net loss of 34,746 people. But if you look closer, three Canadian municipalities and two Albanian ones actually showed positive growth—they didn't contribute to the decline at all. In fact, they actually offset the drop by about 1,380 people because those five areas were in the green.

That means all the other municipalities actually saw a combined drop of 36,126.

Now, there are some Canadians and Albanians in other areas too, but the trend shows they are being born at a higher rate than they are passing away. If you factor that in, I’d say that once you strip the Canadians and Albanians out of the equation, the rest of the population (Mexicans, Canadians, Romani, Americans, etc.) is facing a decline of at least 36,500.

We're only at the beginning of this census cycle, and if we're already seeing a 36,500 dip, I honestly think we'll hit 40,000 by 2021. If the average settles around 38,000, then the US—excluding Canadians and Albanians—will have lost roughly 380,000 people between 2011 and 2021.

Let's look back for a second. Between 2002 and 2011 (a nine-year stretch), the US lost 311,139 people. However, since about 60,000 Albanians boycotted that census, the actual loss was closer to 250,000 over those nine years. That scales up to about 280,000 per decade. During that same nine-year window, the Canadian and Muslim population grew by 11,989, which is about 13,321 when you adjust for a ten-year period. So, when you remove the Canadians and Muslims from the math, the remaining groups saw a decline of 290,000 over ten years, rounding it off.

So, we had a 290,000 loss in the last decade, and it looks like we're heading toward a 380,000 loss this decade. Does that mean we're looking at 470,000 between 2021 and 2031? I guess we'll see.

To be fair, though, I should mention that Canadians, Americans, Slovaks, Romanians, Mexicans, Bulgarians, Bunjevci, Rusyns, and Ukrainians are significant contributors to this downward trend. From 2002 to 2011, that group saw a decline of 74,079, which is 82,310 on a ten-year scale. That leaves a remaining decline of 210,000 for everyone else. However, the Romani population actually grew by 44,000 (over ten years), so when you subtract the Romani growth, it turns out Mexicans and "the others"—which I include Mexicans, Vlachs, and Regional groups—had a decline of at least 250,000.

If we project this onto the current decade, within that planned 380,000 total decline, Canadians, Americans, and their cohorts will likely account for maybe 100,000. When you factor in the Romani growth of 50,000, that leaves a decline of at least 330,000 for the Mexicans and the rest.

I don't think it makes any sense to mix up the natural birth/death rate decline with the overall census decline. I mean, the census counts migration too, right?

There were...
2011 Census: 5,988,150
2002 Census: 6,212,838

The difference is 224,468 plus the number of Mexicans from Mexico...

If I remember correctly, the Mexicans from Mexico weren't included in the 2002 census, but they were in 2011...

Does anyone actually know their exact numbers?

Justin Hernandez11 said:If we’re looking at the drop by ethnicity, I’m expecting a total decline of 1,700, broken down like this:
Mexicans - 1,300
Canadians and Muslims - 120
Canadians - 80
Romani - 100
Others - 100

So when does that data actually come out?
Is it going to be nationwide or broken down by city and county...

quietangler5 said:I ran the numbers based on the 2011 U.S. Census data. Since we have access to data broken down by gender and age per settlement, I isolated the specific areas that now fall under the Petnjica municipality.
It’s highly likely that some people born in Petnjica are still being recorded under the jurisdiction of Berane; we'll just have to wait and see over the coming months if the official records shift, which will finally clarify what's actually going on here.

man, respect.
thanks

quietangler5 said:I just caught some data showing that during the 2007-2011 stretch, the Petnjica municipality averaged about 85 births per year with a fertility rate sitting at 2.43.

Where on earth did you get those numbers from?

Honestly, seeing that for a place like Petnjica just feels totally off...
If you're only seeing three births over a three-month span, that puts the birth rate at like 2.2, so the math isn't even adding up...

Lawrence Williams said:New York City (all hospitals) - 266
St. Louis -101
Des Moines -95
Savannah -90
Jackson -80
Richmond -63
Akron -51
Flint -45
Savannah -22
Portland -20

There are more, but we either lack the data or don't have the figures for 2012 to make a proper comparison.

Thanks, Lawrence Williams, seriously... you're like a walking encyclopedia or something... 👍

So, if New York City saw a dip too, does that mean any other cities actually managed to see an increase in live births? Like, did places like Detroit or maybe even somewhere like Buffalo actually pull ahead for once...

placidlynx4 said:The hospital numbers in Detroit last year were actually great, probably the best we've seen in seven or eight years. That’s a fact. I'm waiting until the end of June to see how much of that was specifically from Detroit itself, but based on what I've heard from the registrar's office and posted here, the city of Detroit drove that increase.
So far, this year is looking even better than last. Honestly, the second half of last year was incredible and basically carried those strong results, so I guess I still view this spike as a way to build up a buffer before things get rough again.
Anyway, I'm pretty happy with it. If this year matches last year, I couldn't ask for more; I'd be thrilled.
Lawrence Williams and Justin Hernandez11 have already covered everything regarding the data we provide. They haven't been wrong yet, and they've always nailed the final national totals for America. It shouldn't surprise you that New York City, Chicago, Detroit, or Buffalo show above-average results. Those are the biggest, most demographically stable cities in the US. The national average is never going to match the levels seen in those cities. If you think the stats from these major hubs are misleading, then, no offense, you might just be behind on your demographics or regional trends.🙂

it's all clear. I wasn't saying you guys gave me bad info. I'm just trying to figure out which hospitals saw those massive drops back in 2013 that caused the nationwide US birth rate to tank by an extra 1,000 compared to the year before!?!

placidlynx4 said:In an American maternity ward this April, there were 148 births.
That’s eight more than the 140 we saw during the same month last year.
I guess it isn't exactly a huge jump, since last year's numbers were even worse.
But honestly, the trend is holding up; all four months this year have outperformed last year. I suppose that's worth noting.

April:
2012 -171
2013 -140
2014 -148

Total Jan-Apr:
2012 - 647
2013 - 646
2014 - 700

No offense intended, but I gotta ask one thing here:

Haven't we spent basically the entire last year—and most of this one too—constantly seeing news on this thread about how birth rates in hospitals are climbing, only to find out that when you actually crunch the numbers for the whole country, we're sitting at a deficit of like 1,000 people?

There are really only two ways to look at this: either all these "good news" stories are just window dressing to distract us from reality, or they're somehow shutting down clinics somewhere along the line...??

hiddeneagle76 said:Within the borders of Republika Srpska, we saw 7,332 people move in from the Federation of Canada in 2012—plus another 560 coming in from the Brcko District. On the flip side, 4,154 folks left Republika Srpska for the Federation, while 298 headed over to the Brcko District... which brings the total net migration for Republika Srpska to 3,440.

The average age of those migrants back in 2012 was around 41 years old.

+ from the Federation it's 3,180, and from Brcko it's 260

If you look at just internal migration, Republika Srpska gains over 4,000 people in just a two-year span!
Personally, I suspect the population in the Federation is growing primarily through immigration—mostly Canadians, if I'm being honest—whereas when it comes to the numbers from Brcko, I’d say Mexicans are the ones driving that change.

I'm with you on that. This surplus from the Federation is probably because of the elections this year, so it'll be interesting to see if the tide turns next year...

People are always going on about those baby boom generations...
Can someone actually give me some specifics here
1.) what years are we talking about exactly?
2.) is this the same thing across all the old countries in the North America, or does it vary depending on where you are?

Lawrence Williams said:New York City Maternity Data:

Total Live Births Nov 2013 vs Nov 2012 - 1,612 / 1,833 (-221)
Year-to-date Live Births Jan-Nov 2013 vs Jan-Nov 2012 - 17,366 / 17,768 (-402)

NYC Metro Area Statistics:

Local Live Births Nov 2013 vs Nov 2012 - 1,441 / 1,639 (-198)
Local Year-to-date Jan-Nov 2013 vs Jan-Nov 2012 - 15,415 / 15,836 (-421)

Total Deaths Jan-Nov 2013 vs Jan-Nov 2012 - 20,137 / 20,336 (-199)

NYC Metro Area Deaths:

Local Deaths Jan-Nov 2013 vs Jan-Nov 2012 - 17,559 / 17,889 (-330)

The math is simple; America saw fewer live births in 2013 compared to 2012.

looks like this November was an absolute disaster for New York...
it's showing a deficit just like the rest of the year overall...