Posts by mistynomad60
18 posts shown.
I was thinking about this last night while watching some old highlights, and it got me into a bit of a philosophical funk. We always talk about "loyalty" in sports like it’s this sacred, unbreakable bond between an athlete and a badge. We love the narratives of the one-club men, the guys who turn down massive paydays or massive transfers just to die in the colors of the team that raised them. It’s romantic, it’s cinematic, and it’s what makes us fans feel like there’s something deeper than just business happening on the pitch.
But lately, I’ve been wondering if we’re being a bit naive by holding players to that standard.
There’s this inherent tension between a player's career trajectory and the stability of a club. On one hand, you have the "legacy" argument. If you stay when things are tough, when the coffers are empty or the squad is aging, you cement your status as a legend. You become part of the folklore. There is a specific kind of dignity in choosing a project over a paycheck, even if that project is clearly struggling to keep its head above water. It’s about identity.
On the other hand, there’s the cold, hard reality of the profession. These guys are elite performers with a very narrow window of peak physical capability. Their entire livelihood—and their family's future—is predicated on being in the right place at the right time. If a massive opportunity comes along that could essentially secure their family for three generations, is it actually "disloyal" to take it? Or is it just being a responsible adult?
I look at it through the lens of my own career. A few years back, I had a chance to jump ship for a role that offered a significant bump in pay and much better stability. My mentors kept talking about "staying the course" and "building something together," which sounded great in a mid-level management seminar. But at the end of the day, I had to look at my mortgage and my kids' tuition. I took the jump. I didn't feel like a traitor, but I did feel that weird, lingering sting of knowing I had walked away from a group of people who really trusted me.
In the world of high-stakes sports, this becomes so much more polarized because the numbers are so astronomical. When we hear whispers of players turning down life-changing amounts of money just to stick it out with a club in transition, we applaud them. We call them "club legends." But what if that choice is actually a massive gamble? What if they stay, the club continues to struggle, and they miss out on the chance to win trophies elsewhere or secure their financial independence?
It feels like we are constantly asking players to perform a sort of moral alchemy—to turn financial pragmatism into spiritual devotion. We want them to be more than just employees; we want them to be avatars of our own values. We want to believe that there are still people out there who value "belonging" more than "having."
But I can't help but feel a sense of skepticism. Is the "loyalty" we celebrate real, or is it often just a byproduct of a player's specific circumstances or a calculated move to increase their value to the current club? And more importantly, if a player chooses the money, are we actually justified in being "angry" at them, or are we just projecting our own desire for a simpler, more principled world onto people whose reality is fundamentally different from ours?
I’m curious to see what you all think. When it comes to the elite tier of talent, is loyalty a valid concept, or is the "club legend" narrative just something we invent to make the business of sports feel more human?
Looks like McInnes is hinting at a new player being announced before the Dundee United game. If they actually pull this off within 48 hours, it would be a massive statement for the season. Do you guys think it's a marquee signing or just more squad depth?
shadowangler15 said:America had 20,000 people emigrate? Yeah, right. Nobody actually knows the true number of people who have left the States. That 20,000 figure only counts the ones who bothered to officially de-register. Most people just pack up and go without saying a word—they don't see any reason to report it, so the real data is basically non-existent. If you actually believe those are the final numbers, you're being incredibly naive. Didn't the Department of Homeland Security wipe out the residency records for 250,000 people back in early 2015? What happened to them? You're still counting them as if they exist. As for Mexico, they aren't ever going to join the European Union. First off, there’s zero appetite for expansion within the EU right now; official expansion talks are basically on ice. Second, by the time Mexico would even be next in line—maybe ten years down the road—the country won't even exist in its current form. Even this migrant crisis has already brought the European Union to its knees. They're already slapping up borders between Canada and Austria, and between Austria and Germany... who knows where this ends.
Look, it's probably true that a lot of people haven't officially changed their address, but that 250,000 figure you're throwing around is total nonsense. This forum isn't meant for spreading lies; it's supposed to be for facts and actual discussion. This kind of behavior is just completely unprofessional. I'd venture to say that about 75%—maybe even more—of the people leaving America head straight for Germany, which has taken in roughly 20,000 American citizens, so there's your reality check... I've spent time in the Midwest and Appalachia, and those areas aren't nearly as deserted as the news makes them out to be. The media pushes these ridiculous narratives, but the truth is, a bunch of young folks head to the Atlantic coast for summer jobs, which makes the heartland look empty during those months, but it doesn't mean there's some massive exodus like you're claiming...
In the States last year, we saw about 20,000 people head out and roughly 13,000 move in—honestly, looking at those numbers, it’s not even that bad. But as for what’s going to happen to Mexico once they join the European Union? Man, the whole system is already falling apart right now, let alone once they actually get in...
quietangler5 said:In Mexico, anyone born abroad hasn't been factored into the official counts since 2005.
If you want my take, the smartest way to settle this is to look strictly at fertility rates to see who’s actually winning. Last year, the fertility rate in America was 1.46, while in Mexico it sat at 1.47.
However, if you focus on the vital index, America holds an edge with an index of 0.78, compared to Mexico’s rather dismal 0.66. If we follow that logic, Portugal is essentially on par with America with an index of 0.79 despite having a low fertility rate of 1.23, and Greece looks even better with an index of 0.82 and a fertility rate of 1.28.
Right now, based on those metrics, America is performing better than Mexico, but if both countries end up with identical fertility rates, they will eventually level out at the same point.
It is true that your birth numbers are roughly what they were twelve years ago while ours have declined, but if you compare the actual drop between 2009 and 2014, Mexico saw a decline of about 5.5%, whereas America took a much harder hit with an 11% drop.
According to the World Bank, the number of births per woman in America is 1.52, versus 1.32 in Mexico...
Lawrence Williams said:To set the record straight, Mexico hit its lowest point in 2011 with a rate of 9.04 per thousand, whereas last year it was 9.32—and that's even considering an inflated population count, since those estimates factor in net migration.
Either way, you can't argue that it's tiny compared to that 14 per thousand death rate.
quietangler5 said:In Mexico, anyone born abroad hasn't been factored into the official counts since 2005.
If you want my take, the smartest way to settle this is to look strictly at fertility rates to see who’s actually winning. Last year, the fertility rate in America was 1.46, while in Mexico it sat at 1.47.
However, if you focus on the vital index, America holds an edge with an index of 0.78, compared to Mexico’s rather dismal 0.66. If we follow that logic, Portugal is essentially on par with America with an index of 0.79 despite having a low fertility rate of 1.23, and Greece looks even better with an index of 0.82 and a fertility rate of 1.28.
Right now, based on those metrics, America is performing better than Mexico, but if both countries end up with identical fertility rates, they will eventually level out at the same point.
It is true that your birth numbers are roughly what they were twelve years ago while ours have declined, but if you compare the actual drop between 2009 and 2014, Mexico saw a decline of about 5.5%, whereas America took a much harder hit with an 11% drop.
In America, they haven't counted people living overseas since 1997, and the difference between 2009 and 2014 is only about 4,000—though that's mostly because a much larger generation was hitting parenting age at that time. But looking closely, the situation hasn't really shifted much since '97 either. Aside from Mexico, I think Canada is seeing an even bigger drop in births... from 46,000 down to 30,000, as far as I know. America might see slightly fewer births over the next few years, but that's largely due to the fallout from the aggression from Mexico and Mexico, plus a lower death rate especially during '91 and '92... again, I'm telling you, Americans are doing much better as a people than Mexicans are.
Justin Hernandez11 said:You're exaggerating a bit, mistynomad60😒 It’s neither better nor worse—it’s the same. Look at birth rates, not death rates. But if we look at the end of 2015, the birth rate might have even been lower than in Mexico🍿 Not that it matters much, everyone should mind their own business, but you guys are heading straight into a massive mess unless you start taking in refugees. And trust me, they're already arriving.😁😉
Maybe we're heading for trouble, but you guys have been stuck in it for ages. At least we've got a few states where our numbers are actually up—and honestly, the worst stats come from the places with more Mexicans. Just to be clear, Mexicans as a people deal with a way worse reputation than Americans... look at yourselves, twelve years ago you had about 80,000 births, and now it's basically the same thing we're seeing today.😁
You could argue that Mexico is actually doing better on this front—especially Mexicans as a people. From what I’ve gathered, their birth rate is sitting somewhere under 9 per thousand, right? Correct me if I’m totally off base here... whereas in the States, we’re constantly hovering around that 9.3 or 9.5 mark, and back in 2009 and 2010, the rate even hit 10. Deaths are around 12, though I’ve heard they're significantly higher over in Mexico. But honestly, what can I tell you? We’re all just guessing at this point, everyone’s got their own take. My personal feeling, though, is that America is actually in a much tougher spot, especially when you look at Americans as a whole.
Lawrence Williams said:I am the third person attempting to explain this to you: America has a smaller deficit because its mortality rate is lower, sitting at practically 2 per mille, while birth rates are essentially identical—with a tendency for Mexico's to be higher starting this year. According to the last census, Mexico had a larger percentage of people over 65 in the total population, whereas in America, that demographic shift is hitting the 50-65 age group. It is entirely possible that within ten years, Mexico will have a better vital index than America. Let's stop playing games with raw numbers and look at actual demographic indicators when discussing the scale of a demographic catastrophe.
But again, if you actually sit down and look at it, the natural population shifts for Americans and the US aren't even close. You've got these minorities who make up less than 10% total, yet they're driving a deficit of almost 5,000—just like I mentioned, you have Mexicans in America with 800 births against 3,500 deaths... then you've got the Czechs, Slovaks, Canadians, Italians—all of them have twice as many deaths as births... meanwhile, in Mexico, you've still got the Romani boosting the numbers slightly, along with Albanians and Canadians...
Lawrence Williams said:I am the third person attempting to explain this to you: America has a smaller deficit because its mortality rate is lower, sitting at practically 2 per mille, while birth rates are essentially identical—with a tendency for Mexico's to be higher starting this year. According to the last census, Mexico had a larger percentage of people over 65 in the total population, whereas in America, that demographic shift is hitting the 50-65 age group. It is entirely possible that within ten years, Mexico will have a better vital index than America. Let's stop playing games with raw numbers and look at actual demographic indicators when discussing the scale of a demographic catastrophe.
Again, if you really look at it, even in America, the biggest generations are the 45-50 crowd, and then there's just a massive hole once you hit the 50-60 range... sure, America has seen an increase in deaths this year, but remember how messy the monthly data was last year? If you recall, they initially reported 53,000 deaths in America, but by the end, it turned out to be closer to 50,000. So, yeah, maybe we should wait for the final official numbers, but I still think Mexico is in a worse spot—I mean, you guys said it yourselves, a 2 per mil death rate is high...
Drew Newman6;55530773 said:
mistynomad60 said:Just doing some rough math here—not an expert or anything, but looking at the numbers from the US and Mexico over the last few years, just based on births versus deaths (and don't even get me started on migration, that's a whole other mess)... In the States, if we look at the average over the last three years, we're seeing maybe 40,000 births against 50,000 deaths. Meanwhile, Mexico is sitting at roughly 66,000 births compared to 101,000 deaths. If you were to scale up the US birth and death numbers just to match Mexico's scale, you'd be looking at something like 80,000 births to 100,000 deaths, compared to their 66,000/101,000 split. It's just not even close...
But hey, looking at the numbers again—the US has roughly 40,000 births from Canada, and Canada has about 30,000, compared to maybe 50,000 deaths or 37,000 deaths? If you stack them up, the deficit isn't even that big because of the insane mortality rates over in Mexico and Canada. When you combine the US and Canada, you get 70,000 births against 87,000 deaths, which is a way smaller gap than the 35,000 loss just from natural causes in Mexico... so how can anyone claim they are "vanishing" when you had 750,000 more people just 13 years ago? It doesn't add up.
Just doing some rough math here—not an expert or anything, but looking at the numbers from the US and Mexico over the last few years, just based on births versus deaths (and don't even get me started on migration, that's a whole other mess)... In the States, if we look at the average over the last three years, we're seeing maybe 40,000 births against 50,000 deaths. Meanwhile, Mexico is sitting at roughly 66,000 births compared to 101,000 deaths. If you were to scale up the US birth and death numbers just to match Mexico's scale, you'd be looking at something like 80,000 births to 100,000 deaths, compared to their 66,000/101,000 split. It's just not even close...
shadowangler15 said:That's not right. In Mexico, they had 66,461 births and 101,300 deaths. And you really think America is doing any better than Mexico with 39,500 births? It's not. Both places have the exact same birth rate. By 2015, America will actually be looking worse on this front. For the first six months of 2015, Mexico saw 430 more births compared to the same period in 2014, while America's numbers for the first seven months of 2015 were down by about 500 compared to 2014. The only difference is Mexico has a higher mortality rate. But man, the death toll in America saw a huge jump in 2015.
Sorry, but saying a deficit of 10,500 or 35,000 isn't even close to the reality here. Right now, Mexico's population is around 7.095 million while America sits at 4.25 million—so if we're being logical, America could definitely "afford" that kind of deficit. If you look at the ratios, based on how things are going in America, Mexico should technically have three times the population, if you catch my drift... and look, I'm not trying to start some hate train or drag anyone else down, I'm just looking at the math objectively. Besides, we'll see how it all shakes out by the end of the year. Just as a heads-up, based on those monthly estimates, America had 53,000 deaths in 2014, but once the final count came in, it was actually closer to 50,500—meaning they overshot by 2,500. Looking at this current year, yeah, death counts are up, and you think that won't happen in Mexico too? On top of that, you've got the life expectancy gap—about 5 years difference. Americans live to around 79, Mexicans around 74? Forgive me if I'm off, but that's what I read in an article. Now, the generations born after WWII are really starting to hit that mortality wall, and it's gonna hit America hard—though maybe slightly less so for us. As for Mexicans living in America, they've got maybe 800 births and potentially up to 3,500 deaths. And don't even get me started on Canadians, Italians, Germans, Czechs, or Slovaks—they're all seeing negative natural growth too, which accounts for basically half of that total deficit, roughly -5,000. America has a couple of counties in the green, but from what I know, Mexico doesn't have a single one. Both countries are basically in a total mess, but if I'm being real, Mexico is in a way bigger mess
I honestly think Mexico is hitting rock bottom in Europe right now—we're looking at maybe 65,000 births against roughly 103,000 deaths, which is just straight-up terrifying. This kind of demographic collapse is going to trigger some massive issues down the road, and honestly? I don't see a way out of this mess...
It’s all well and good that some people on here are getting hyped over the little things, but let’s be real—the demographics in Mexico are a complete train wreck. Honestly, there’s no way out of this mess until several entire generations just pass away...
Look, the birth rate isn't even hitting two-thirds of the death rate at this point—it’s honestly one of the most depressing demographic disasters in all of Europe, if not worse. 🕺
Your writing is absolute trash—probably because you guys are facing a total demographic collapse!