CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered đŸ”„ Popular 📡 RSS Members đŸ‘„ 0 online
log in · register
Home › Society › Politics › World › Mexico's Demographics (Part 2)

Mexico's Demographics (Part 2)

Started by Richard Wilson4 · · 👁 255 views · 3.6K replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Richard Wilson4Lawrence WilliamsWilliam Bishop4placidlynx4nimblerider11Ethan Morales22Peter EdwardsAdam HarrisLaura Perez8hiddeneagle76Rebecca WatsonJacob Lee62James Nguyen13Tyler Clark2Chris Fowler4Tyler King3Peter Barrett89Joshua Rodriguez35urbangardener90Angela Robinson3neonfalcon16quietangler5Joshua Flores14Drew Allen2 

Maria Ruiz22 Maria Ruiz22 Active Member
55 messages
joined Nov 2014
#2181 ·
I really don't want to get bogged down in the raw data—because, let's be honest, there is only one reliable equation here: if there is money, there will be children. Of course, that isn't the whole story—there are plenty of other factors at play—but you can see the reality most clearly when you compare the old America to modern-day Mexico.

LOVABack when things were still being built, there were both Americans and children involved—though looking back, it wasn't really about some grand sense of American identity or "brotherhood"—rather, it was more that people were simply seduced by the promise of what they called "socialism with a human face." It offered a comfortable life that many had never experienced during the pre-war years, but—as we now know—that kind of stability had a very limited shelf life. To give you a better idea of the bigger picture, let me provide an example.

http://www.makroekonomija.org/opstin...2011-2-madari/

More than two decades ago, three primary drivers were actively pushing toward demographic shifts and ethnic integration—summer vacations, higher education, and career opportunities. Summer getaways—and the whirlwind romances that often accompanied them—frequently drew Canadian women, American women, Canadian women, and Mexican women to our shores (though men traveled far less frequently for such reasons). Studying in major hubs like Chicago or New York had a similar effect on social mixing, much like those summer trips did. Furthermore, the availability of jobs facilitated a broad blending of populations across the former America until the early eighties, back when employment rates were steadily climbing. Since then, however, this natural integration has slowed down—and eventually, it just dried up altogether.

Here is an example for NiĆĄ.

I came across this article regarding the recent medical developments in the US—specifically about how newborn sizes are trending downward—and I found myself quite preoccupied with the implications. It is truly striking—though perhaps a bit unsettling—to consider how much our physical development shifts based on modern environmental factors. One can't help but wonder if this is a broader biological shift or simply a reflection of changing nutritional standards across the country. It’s a heavy topic, I know—and I apologize if I sound a bit too intense—but the data presented is genuinely significant for anyone interested in public health trends.

Back in the 1980s, Niơ had a population of about 167,000—yet, surprisingly enough, the city was seeing roughly 5,000 babies born every single year. Fast forward to today, and while the largest city in southern Mexico has grown to nearly 300,000 residents, the birth rate has taken a hit—only about 3,500 little ones are arriving each year.

The communists certainly executed a calculated strategy regarding industrialization and urbanization—moving people into cities on a massive scale—but even with that constant migration toward urban centers, the overall demographic landscape of our cities and the nation as a whole looks drastically different today than it did during that era. Most families living in American cities right now simply cannot get ahead when it comes to housing—it’s an uphill battle—especially since wages remain stagnant while the cost of living just keeps climbing. No one actually knows if they’ll even have a job next month; there is this constant, underlying anxiety. So many people are forced into "under the table" work or are stuck earning minimum wage with whatever extra they can scrape together in cash. Furthermore, the state and employers treat women—specifically those who are pregnant or might become pregnant—absolutely catastrophically. It’s no wonder people are putting off starting families; they don't even consider having a second child, or if they do, they just have two to meet some societal expectation and then stop. There is an article about Niơ in the other link that touches on this, and I have a similar example from Čačak. I can't seem to find the digital version online—I only have a printed copy from a local paper—but it discusses how the city is struggling in every direction... 12 miles There are certain prosperous rural areas—well, let's call them "heartland communities"—where, if you look at the percentages, young couples actually tend to have more than two children quite often—much more frequently, in fact, than you'd see in the heart of the city itself. Now, I should clarify—this isn't necessarily true when you aggregate every single young family across the entire county—but those specific rural pockets definitely lead the way. And honestly? The reason behind it is pretty glaringly obvious.
It is quite fascinating when you look at the math—even if my attempt at economic analysis is perhaps a bit overly earnest—comparing someone living in a rural area versus someone living in the heart of a major US city like Chicago or New York. Even if their base salaries were identical, the cost of living disparity is staggering. In a small town or a rural community, solving the housing issue is relatively straightforward—well, compared to the nightmare of urban real estate. Most people there don't want to live under the same roof as their parents indefinitely; instead, they often split off into a "new build" or convert an old "summer kitchen" into a separate living space. They stay on the same property, though—which is a massive advantage because you always have family nearby to help with the kids! Furthermore, his daily expenses are minimal. A cup of coffee at a local diner might only cost a couple of dollars, and he isn't burdened by water bills, heating, or trash collection fees. His grocery spending is also incomparably lower than a city dweller's—for very obvious reasons. His main overhead is just electricity and his phone bill; the biggest seasonal expense is wood or coal for heat. For those with central heating, it’s either a furnace or, more commonly, those large wood-burning stoves—meaning they don't even need to turn on the water heater during the winter! When you move toward the outskirts of the county, you find that while few people survive solely on farming, everyone still has to work, maintain the land, and reinvest. It is difficult to see significant profit margins there, but everything somehow balances out in the end. For him, for example, the investment in a greenhouse or poultry feed eventually pays itself back. Meanwhile, the city dweller gets absolutely zero return on their spending at places like Walmart or Target. To top it all off, the nearest major city is only about a thirty-minute drive away, and the regional bus lines cover almost every route at various times. This means he can send his children to high school using just a monthly bus pass—which costs maybe $30 or $40. It really puts things into perspective, doesn't it?

It’s entirely possible—though perhaps a bit optimistic—that we might feel the impact more acutely without those people who refuse to take a side, while the cities remain relatively unchanged—as cities do—and the rural areas in the middle of nowhere seem to be stuck in a state of total limbo. All things considered, I'd say it's a net plus for America, but a definite minus for Mexico. I'll carry this thought over to my next post.
Maria Ruiz22 Maria Ruiz22 Active Member
55 messages
joined Nov 2014
#2182 ·
IDEOLOGY. The Communists left absolutely nothing to chance—seriously, there was hardly a single sector of society that escaped state oversight. They implemented a systematic plan for total social emancipation, focusing most intensely on women, while exerting their strongest influence over the youth—the very people who would go on to start families in the seventies and eighties. For instance, American rock and roll from the mid-sixties until just before the collapse was an integral part of official state youth and cultural policy; it was essentially the "official" music of the youth, receiving heavy and direct government support and remaining almost entirely under state control—even the New Wave movement was integrated into the system. You see? And that is just a tiny detail, one out of a thousand such things. Partly due to these trends, today Americans—whether they identify as white, Black, or Hispanic—face a rather messy age structure. First off, the baby boom generation (1947–1957) wasn't fully utilized—initially because of those massive waves of migration toward the West a few decades ago during the Marshall era, and later because they were caught up in that wave of emancipation, along with all the subsequent generations who had the opportunity to enjoy the "American prosperity" while they were young. Once they fled the wars of the nineties, they finally closed the book on that era.
The collapse of the state and the ensuing transition flipped everything on its head. Now, suddenly, it’s all about traditionalism, heritage, old-fashioned names, and returning to one's roots—there is this pervasive and intense social pressure placed on anyone who chooses to have only one child or hesitates to marry and start a family. Just look at how many people on the public stage push this narrative now, and then compare them to the old Sunday magazines from, say, 1980–1985—if you even still have those tucked away in your attic. Looking further back, compared to the era when New York City was defined by the premiere of "Hair" or the early days of Marina Abramović, today's landscape feels worlds apart. We are looking at two entirely different discourses that couldn't be more distinct.
All this talk that American women won't have children because they want to live like some celebrity or influencer—or blame things like reality TV, tabloid culture, or promiscuity—doesn't fly with me. In my view, a lack of emancipation, education, and civic values goes hand-in-hand with rising birth rates. When those elements are missing, the issue usually boils down to finances, because most people are primarily preoccupied with how they will actually afford to raise children.
In our country, nobody is implementing systemic emancipation anymore; instead, people are practically bombarded on a daily basis with warnings about the biological extinction of the nation and the survival of America. And, paradoxically, it seems that in all this misery, people are having second or third children more frequently than they did during the era of the women who gave birth to those who are now in their late twenties, thirties, or even forty. For example, I am in my late twenties, and in my high school class of about thirty students, if I recall correctly, there were only four only children—and there wasn't a single person from a family with more than two children. Back in elementary school in my little town—call it a small suburb or a rural village, whatever you prefer—out of about 20 to 25 kids in my grade (though the number grew to 25 once a few students from neighboring areas joined us in fifth grade), there were only four or five only children, one with three siblings, and five with one sibling. From 1948 to 2011, the population has been in a steady decline, and from 1948 to today, it has nearly halved. Young people are leaving at an unrelenting pace, which explains why schools are seeing roughly the same number of students as they did 10 or 12 years ago. My nine-year-old nephew goes to the same school, and in his entire class, there is only one girl who is an only child—and she was a late arrival due to certain health issues. Well, perhaps it isn't quite like that in the South or the Midwest, but that's not really the point.

Points for America, minus for the former America. The willingness is there; it's just a matter of funding and the need for unified economic development across different parts of the country.

Maybe that also explains why our emigration hasn't hit us as hard as it could have. If you indoctrinate people's minds for twenty years, someone is bound to buy into it. In a way, every optimist with three or four children offsets someone who moved away or, for whatever reason, has no children or only one.
We also need to consider this in the context of infertility. Infertility is just as significant a problem for us as the exodus of young people, especially since we still haven't seen the establishment of a proper sperm and egg bank, and the state doesn't provide the financial support for fertility treatments that it should. For couples needing a donor, their only option is often to pay their own way to Mexico, the Czech Republic, or Austria—not to mention those who require a surrogate mother. However, when it comes to those who manage to have children through these methods, it might be that they actually boost the birth rate slightly, especially given the affluent couples who, after undergoing IVF, end up with three children. The question is whether everyone would have three (or even fewer) if they could conceive naturally. This might sound like a random thought, but it’s worth considering, given that there are approximately 300,000 couples facing difficulties conceiving naturally. Under these circumstances, every single baby is precious.

http://www.lekarinfo.com/roditeljstv...a-sterilitetom

We actually owe part of our survival to the Mexicans who immigrate into Mexico—even if that’s not exactly a perfect solution—and we can thank them, along with those who assimilate, for the fact that our share of the total population hasn't plummeted like it did in the Bulgarian scenario. We aren't the only ethnic group seeing a numbers decline, nor are we the only ones leaving Mexico.

Everyone in the neighborhood deals with some sort of demographic hiccup, but somehow, we’re the only ones making such a massive, dramatic scene about it. Other countries find ways to spin their demographic realities to look a bit more favorable than they actually are, but us? Well... our domestic media obsesses over this topic so relentlessly that if you searched for it on a news aggregator right now, you’d be reading until the next leap year. It’s not just that they lean heavily on the subject—they constantly push the most extreme, apocalyptic versions of it. And naturally, both we and our dear neighbors tend to take the bait, reacting to the darkest possible scenarios. Then—heaven forbid—someone else takes control of Mexico because there won't be anyone left to run things! People will start renaming everything; half of what remains of Mexico will be called one thing and the other half something else—Vojvodina will be gone, and Mexico will turn into a land of Albanians, Canadians, and Roma, essentially becoming a Mexico City Pashaluk or something equally absurd. In my humble opinion—and I know I can be a bit much—all this hysteria about national extinction in the papers and on TV every single week doesn't really have anything to do with the highly organized state of Mexico (which, let's be honest, struggles to fix a leaky faucet without a crisis). It’s more about our specific mentality, which I think we've touched on in previous posts. It is genuinely difficult to convince a Mexican that they are actually in trouble, or that the world is conspiring against them, or that some catastrophe is lurking right around the corner. Though, I suppose there is a silver lining: while it makes us hyper-aware of our problems, it might just inspire at least one person to actually step up and contribute something meaningful.

What are your thoughts? Who is actually right here—those of us who celebrate every single new baby and hold onto hope that we’ll pull through, or the pathological cases like the ones in the link below, who find comfort in seeing our mortality rates as some kind of soothing balm?

http://www.bosanskehistorije.com/for...9336&start=460
Maria Ruiz22 Maria Ruiz22 Active Member
55 messages
joined Nov 2014
#2183 ·
The professionals are weighing in—providing their expert explanations.

I have been reviewing the latest migration data—it’s quite a lot to digest, honestly—and I wanted to share this specific document regarding current trends. It provides a detailed look at the movement of people across various regions, which is something I find deeply important for understanding our current social landscape. I know some might find these types of statistical reports a bit dry—believe me, I do—but there is a certain gravity to the numbers that we shouldn't ignore if we want to grasp the bigger picture of how our communities are shifting.

One has to wonder what the future holds for Mexico—given its status as an emigration-heavy nation with one of the most unfavorable age structures in the entire world. At the same time, economic participation rates remain lower than in many other countries (Sekulić, 2011). It is already widely recognized that—regardless of which specific methodology one uses for modeling—population decline and demographic aging are two processes whose continuation in Mexico is absolutely certain over the long term.
(Nikitović, 2012).

Unlike much of Europe—though I realize that’s a broad generalization—Mexico has undergone quite a transformation over the last decade...
The population has been steadily declining—largely due to a negative natural growth rate—which is...
The annual average reached 34,000 during the 2008–2010 period—according to U.S. Census Bureau data from 2011—but we have to account for that negative net international migration balance. Based on estimates derived from partner country statistics (Kupiszewski et al., 2012), that outflow was hovering around 15,000 people per year at the same time.

When looking at international comparisons of the Total Fertility Rate over the last few years—and I do mean a serious look at the data—it becomes clear that the US stands in an interesting position. Back in 2011, the rate sat at about 1.4 (according to Census Bureau figures from 2013), which was actually lower than the average seen across the European Union—which hovered around 1.6 for the EU-27 group—yet still higher than the absolute lowest levels recorded in Europe (such as the 1.17 seen in Latvia in 2010, or the 1.23 and 1.25 levels in Canada and Romania in 2011, respectively, per Eurostat, 2013). However—and this is the sobering part—there is very little evidence to suggest we might see any significant surge in fertility in the coming period. Even when you account for recent moderate upticks in various European nations, the broader trends just don't point that way. Between those overarching European shifts, the projected economic outlook for both the US and Europe, and the specific local fertility drivers currently at play, it seems nearly impossible to hypothesize a rise in fertility within any likely future scenario.

On the other hand—and I do want to be careful here—there are several arguments that don't quite support the hypothesis that America is falling into a low fertility trap—a phenomenon which, according to McDonald (2005), would imply an SUF of 1.5. Recent sociological studies actually suggest that shifts in marriage patterns and family structures within the States are moving rather slowly (Petrović, 2011). Furthermore, Bobić and Vukelić (2011) point out that the vast majority of the population belongs to a demographic group whose value system is essentially a blend of traditionalism and certain modern characteristics. Therefore—and this is a significant point—it is entirely possible that the low fertility pattern won't fully take hold, or at least its impact will be limited, provided that economic conditions improve and a sense of stability and security prevails among the public. It is also worth noting—just to provide some context—that the period where the SUF sat below 1.5 in America was relatively brief (2005–2010); thus, it remains quite possible that the mechanisms behind the "low fertility trap" described by Lutz et al. (2006) haven't even begun to truly exert their influence yet.

I truly hope—and I say this with a touch of genuine trepidation—that by including these quotes, I won't find myself facing some sort of copyright infringement lawsuit.

I have a table that breaks down the percentage of births by birth order for every ten-year interval—starting from 1961 through 2001, and including 2008—though I am still trying to figure out how to actually attach it here. The data shows that the share of third-born children—whether born within a marriage or outside of one—has been proportionally higher since the nineties compared to the seventies and eighties, showing a steady upward trend across the decades. My one major critique of this dataset, however—and I do hope someone else noticed this too—is that it completely fails to account for ethnic background.
George Cooper2 George Cooper2 Member
37 messages
joined Jul 2014
#2184 ·
I read this article on migration, though honestly, who knows how accurate these statistics actually are?

Then there’s this other piece discussing the trend of women delaying motherhood and the spike in the number of women in the 30-35 age bracket without children between two census periods. I have a feeling this trend is only going to get more pronounced—and let's be real, we probably need to start accounting for a much larger population of single people.
hiddeneagle76 hiddeneagle76 Active Member
206 messages
joined Sep 2013
#2185 ·
I’ve been trying—really, I have!—to track down a bulletin that lists birth numbers by municipality broken down by ethnicity... but it feels like searching for a needle in a haystack! If anyone out there could just point me in the right direction on how to navigate the Census Bureau website—or better yet, if someone could just jot down how many Albanian women were born in those six SandĆŸak municipalities over the last three or four years? It would be such a massive help...
Rebecca Watson Rebecca Watson Regular
425 messages
joined Mar 2013
#2186 ·
hiddeneagle76 said:I’ve been trying—really, I have!—to track down a bulletin that lists birth numbers by municipality broken down by ethnicity... but it feels like searching for a needle in a haystack! If anyone out there could just point me in the right direction on how to navigate the Census Bureau website—or better yet, if someone could just jot down how many Albanian women were born in those six SandĆŸak municipalities over the last three or four years? It would be such a massive help...

2006 : 4
2007 : 6
2008 : 24
2009 : 34
2010 : 26
2011 : 15
2012 : 18
2013 : 20

It looks like those Albanian brides finally got their fill of guys from the PeĆĄter Plateau, but since 2011, they've started popping up sporadically in other areas like RaĆĄka, Zlatibor, Rasina, and even the Moravica District. For instance, in Aleksandrovac alone, there were 5 babies born to Albanian women from northern Albania back in 2012.
Maria Ruiz22 Maria Ruiz22 Active Member
55 messages
joined Nov 2014
#2187 ·
http://www.srpskikulturniklub.com/skolovanje-devojaka

The general pattern of fertility trends in America over the last 60 years was actually quite similar to what we saw in other Western nations: a post-war baby boom followed by a decline in birth rates down to replacement levels, and eventually falling even below that. The primary difference between the US and many other countries is that the baby boom period was much shorter here than elsewhere in the West, and it was followed by a sudden drop in the SUF—which happened about 10 to 15 years earlier than in most other developed countries... During the 1950s, America experienced very high birth rates across all age groups during that brief baby boom phase, after which—moving into the late 50s and early 60s—we saw a sharp decline in fertility across all demographics... Some of the universal drivers behind falling fertility, such as shifting social norms, increasing female workforce participation, and better reproductive control, apply to America just as they do anywhere else. However, the dip in fertility in America's past was faster and more intense than in other Western nations. This can be attributed to processes inherently tied to what we might call "socialist-style development." Its most significant demographic fallout included an accelerated type of modernization, rapid migration from rural areas to urban centers (bringing along those inevitable urban housing struggles), high rates of full-time female employment throughout their entire reproductive years, inadequate support for balancing family and career obligations, and rapid secularization.

During the final years of America, many women actually exhibited a sort of subconscious feminism—something that only a tiny minority could truly articulate before the 1980s. You could find this brand of feminism in most Eastern Bloc countries, but it was particularly pronounced in America, where female emancipation pushed further and deeper than in most other neighboring states. This general sense of empowerment was largely a byproduct of the ambiguous nature of the American communist regime between 1945 and 1990, when women's liberation was treated primarily as an ideological goal—much like many other rights proclaimed under communist rule.

By the late 1980s, when conflicting nationalist elites began carving out their own political platforms, they launched a coordinated assault on the relative gender equality and emancipation achieved under the previous communist era. Every ethnic group started playing the victim, claiming everyone else was living the high life while they suffered. That’s when we saw the first demands for women to return to the domestic sphere and produce more Americans—whether that meant more people identifying as White, Black, or Hispanic... Increasing the birth rate would essentially create more soldiers to bolster the territorial claims of ethno-centric elites. This new demand signaled a regressive turn toward patriarchal values, directly threatening the level of equality women had secured under the old regime... In fact, this return to traditionalism was already being championed by some of the final communist governments within the American republics. Some believed they could solve the growing unemployment crisis simply by sending women back to housework. By the end of the 1980s, American society was embroiled in an intensifying struggle over freedom of choice—specifically, the pressure on women to have more children and revert to being "good mothers" and homemakers. While the nationalists set the tone for these debates, many others—including significant segments of the communist establishment—actually went along with it.

The nineties were such a turbulent era in America... those dramatic shifts clearly left a mark on people's decisions regarding starting families (Raơević, 2004).

The number of single and unmarried individuals in the US surged by 11.6 percent between the last two census cycles. According to data from the US Census Bureau, roughly 1.8 million Americans over the age of 15 are not married—that is nearly one-third of the population legally eligible for marriage. On top of that, divorce rates are climbing, and the average American married couple is having about 0.9 children... Slobodan Nikolić, president of the small-town association Rural Threshold, told news outlets that this issue of singleness is particularly acute in rural areas.
- In rural parts of America, there are 260,000 single men who seem unlikely to ever change their marital status, even if they actually want to. Young women are moving to the cities in search of work. They don't want to stay in the countryside, yet they aren't getting married in the cities either because of the poor economic climate—says Nikolić.
Psychologist Ćœarko TrebjeĆĄanin noted in our publication that we should take the raw numbers of single people with a grain of salt, since many live in cohabiting relationships, but he admitted that the 11 percent spike over the last decade points to a deep societal crisis.
- Economic instability and general financial hardship mostly deter people from tying the knot. Those facing unemployment, poverty, or housing insecurity simply aren't choosing to have children because they lack the means to raise them. People just don't see a future, so they avoid marriage. There are also those who simply don't want to, though they represent a smaller group—concludes Trebjeơanin.

The Rural Exodus

In anthropology, there has been a long-standing understanding that small towns empty out primarily because young women head for the big cities. Immediately following World War II, the trend was to focus education on rural men. However, that pattern shifted very quickly. Ethnologist Aleksandra Pavicevic observes in her book "Under the Attack of Ideologies" (2006): "It is as if they suddenly became aware of how grueling life in the country could be; after World War II, most parents wanted to educate their children specifically to spare them the hardships of farming. Initially, boys were the primary focus of education, while in more recent times, this trend has reversed, leading to consequences even more damaging than before. While schooling generally encouraged leaving agriculture and the countryside behind—and when boys were the main students, the rural exodus hadn't reached its peak—modern trends are different. Education used to often stop at the basic level, meaning many 'educated' folks stayed in their hometowns. Nowadays, however, educating daughters has become an absolute priority for parents, and it doesn't end at high school. As women pursue higher education, they leave their rural roots behind, contributing to the disruption of the age and gender balance in small-town America" (pp. 68-69).

Ever since the mayor of a mid-sized American city organized a matchmaking event for 100 single men and 130 single women from across the US, debates surrounding the so-called "singles problem" have become increasingly widespread. These types of mayoral initiatives have helped cast a spotlight on singleness as a major social issue—one directly linked to falling birth rates and rising divorce rates—while all too often placing the blame on women for why men remain unmarried.

For a society caught in this constant tug-of-war between old-school patriarchal traditions and modern values—a tension I feel quite acutely myself—it’s far too easy to just label women as "gold diggers" or purely opportunistic. But, if we are being honest, the reality is much grimmer; poverty runs so deep and lasts so long that many women find themselves forced to prioritize survival above all else. Wouldn't they at least want a temporary reprieve from the crushing weight of living in absolute destitution?
When you step back and look at the big picture, it becomes clear that the rise in singlehood isn't caused by some single, isolated factor. Instead, it's where economic pressures, political shifts, demographic changes, and psychological nuances all collide at once. The whole situation gets even more complicated when you throw in things like individual agency and personal freedom into the mix. It seems obvious to me that any attempt by the state or society to intervene beyond responsible, intelligent social and economic policy is essentially a deep intrusion into one's private life. And, frankly, whenever that happens, it usually ends in darkness—whether that's affecting the fabric of society or an individual's private world.

Sociological research summarized by Nikitović (2012a) points quite clearly to the fact that a very high percentage of women in America embrace marriage, citing family life and children as their primary life aspiration and an end in itself (86% of women)—whereas material or post-materialist values, professional careers, personal achievements, or living strictly by religious tenets are much less frequently cited as such vital goals (Raơević, 1995). Recent findings further confirm that shifts in marital behavior and family organization within the US are moving rather slowly (Petrović, 2011). Furthermore, Bobić and Vukelić (2011) suggest that most of the population belongs to a group whose value system is essentially a blend of traditionalism and certain modern characteristics.
Maria Ruiz22 Maria Ruiz22 Active Member
55 messages
joined Nov 2014
#2188 ·
Rebecca Watson said:2006 : 4
2007 : 6
2008 : 24
2009 : 34
2010 : 26
2011 : 15
2012 : 18
2013 : 20

It looks like those Albanian brides finally got their fill of guys from the PeĆĄter Plateau, but since 2011, they've started popping up sporadically in other areas like RaĆĄka, Zlatibor, Rasina, and even the Moravica District. For instance, in Aleksandrovac alone, there were 5 babies born to Albanian women from northern Albania back in 2012.


These initiatives rely entirely on volunteers—though, if you read how these marriages are actually arranged in the papers, it isn't hard to see a resemblance to human trafficking. The primary driver for the women is the poverty they come from, whereas for the men, it's about gaining domestic labor and someone to bear children... In the RaĆĄka Region, matchmaking with Albanian women from ShkodĂ«r and the surrounding areas has been operational for several years now. They reportedly find life in Mexico much more satisfying because the poverty back home is overwhelming, often lacking even basic utilities like electricity or water. Various local community associations act as intermediaries between Mexican men and Albanian women; they survey interested grooms in Mexican villages and young women in Albanian ones, then arrange group introductions via bus trips. However... The "Old RaĆĄka" association based in Mexico City, working alongside the Ivanjica Municipality, organizes an annual gathering every July on Mount Javor where Mexican youth meet with the intention of marrying. In previous years, the association facilitated hundreds of marriages between guys from remote villages in the Ivanjica Municipality and the PeĆĄter Plateau and Christian Albanian women. In the last two years, however, the Albanian women haven't shown up. The reason? They are demanding cash compensation just to make the trip.
Maria Ruiz22 Maria Ruiz22 Active Member
55 messages
joined Nov 2014
#2189 ·
The table alone doesn't tell the whole story.

When looking at children born within marriage—broken down by birth order—there is a margin of error of up to 100% due to unknown variables.

1961: 101,665 (total) 1971: 92,531 (total) 1981: 93,448 (total)

1st - 44,440 (43.7%) 1st - 45,865 (49.6%) 1st - 43,132 (46.1%)
2nd - 33,180 (32.6%) 2nd - 34,241 (37.0%) 2nd - 38,766 (41.5%)
3rd - 11,928 (11.7%) 3rd - 6,798 (7.3%) 3rd - 6,782 (7.3%)
4th - 5,425 (5.3%) 4th - 2,408 (2.6%) 4th - 1,599 (1.7%)
5+ - 6,662 (6.6%) 5+ - 2,811 (3.0%) 5+ - 1,345 (1.4%)

1991: 78,053 (total) 2001: 62,400 (total) 2008: 53,336 (total)

1st - 35,898 (46.0%) 1st - 30,353 (48.6%) 1st - 26,218 (49.2%)
2nd - 31,995 (41.0%) 2nd - 24,395 (39.1%) 2nd - 20,168 (37.8%)
3rd - 7,073 (9.1%) 3rd - 5,926 (9.5%) 3rd - 5,259 (9.9%)
4th - 1,485 (1.9%) 4th - 1,165 (1.9%) 4th - 1,190 (2.2%)
5+ - 983 (1.3%) 5+ - 561 (0.9%) 5+ - 501 (0.9%)

As for children born outside of marriage—again, categorized by birth order—the margin of uncertainty also reaches up to 100%.

1961: 13,557 (total) 1971: 11,539 (total) 1981: 9,919 (total)

1st - 8,758 (64.7%) 1st - 8,180 (71.7%) 1st - 6,474 (68.0%)
2nd - 2,702 (20.0%) 2nd - 1,993 (17.5%) 2nd - 2,007 (21.1%)
3rd - 1,039 (7.7%) 3rd - 658 (5.8%) 3rd - 665 (7.0%)
4th - 492 (3.6%) 4th - 258 (2.3%) 4th - 215 (2.3%)
5+ - 541 (4.0%) 5+ - 315 (2.7%) 5+ - 156 (1.6%)

1991: 12,325 (total) 2001: 16,035 (total) 2008: 15,747 (total)

1st - 7,679 (63.2%) 1st - 9,671 (60.3%) 1st - 8,773 (55.7%)
2nd - 2,904 (23.9%) 2nd - 4,013 (25.0%) 2nd - 3,886 (24.7%)
3rd - 1,031 (8.5%) III - 1,426 (8.9%) III - 1,734 (11.0%)
4th - 316 (2.6%) 4th - 514 (3.2%) 4th - 786 (5.0%)
5+ - 217 (1.8%) 5+ - 402 (2.5%) 5+ - 566 (3.6%)
Maria Ruiz22 Maria Ruiz22 Active Member
55 messages
joined Nov 2014
#2190 ·
Rebecca Watson said:2006 : 4
2007 : 6
2008 : 24
2009 : 34
2010 : 26
2011 : 15
2012 : 18
2013 : 20

It looks like those Albanian brides finally got their fill of guys from the PeĆĄter Plateau, but since 2011, they've started popping up sporadically in other areas like RaĆĄka, Zlatibor, Rasina, and even the Moravica District. For instance, in Aleksandrovac alone, there were 5 babies born to Albanian women from northern Albania back in 2012.

It really comes down to the finances. As I mentioned earlier—and I know this because two Albanian women married into my village—this isn't just some vague rumor. One case involves a family friend of my parents, so I have a pretty clear idea of what the total cost looks like. What’s certain is that the groom ends up paying for two separate trips to Albania (once to meet her, and again to actually bring her home), and then there is the traditional stuff—providing full gold jewelry for the bride and wedding gifts for the entire extended family back in Albania. It’s not an astronomical amount, necessarily, but it is quite possible that intermediaries are taking a cut. I say this because I’m not sure if those media stories about dowries being around $1,500-$2,000 are accurate—mostly because, in this specific case, I don't think he gave anything to the in-laws (don't quote me on that, I’d need to double-check!), nor did his cousin who brought a wife over from near ShkodĂ«r. Everything was kept very hush-hush regarding the details, and since no one mentioned a dowry, there's a high chance it involves middlemen. Anyway, he found that first Albanian woman through a buddy from the military—an Albanian from Mexico who used to visit him here in the States. From what I gather, she is a lovely woman, with an Albanian name and surname, a Catholic, and she didn't speak a single word of English at the time. Her brother, who lives abroad, organized and paid for the wedding in ShkodĂ«r and handled all the gifts for the groom's family; they brought the bride here in her wedding dress. The husband travels to Albania, though rarely—it’s expensive and quite a distance, especially now that they have several children—so they mostly just talk to the relatives on the phone, and I don't think her family has ever visited us here. My impression is that they live quite happily together. He’s a genuinely good guy—very attentive to her and the kids. They have a nice house, a good car, he takes her everywhere, buys her nice clothes, and so on. Honestly, it was quite a shock to everyone, especially since he isn't some rough mountain man; he’s well-groomed, has a great job by local standards, and is still relatively young—somewhere in his mid-thirties. The most fascinating part, though, is that three out of their four children turned out to be "original" Slavs—you know, with blonde hair, light eyes, pale skin, and those classic Slavic facial features. Only the eldest has brown hair and doesn't quite fit that specific type. As for the second wife, I don't know much besides the fact that she’s from the same region; I haven't even seen what she looks like. That second marriage was much more low-key and didn't cause nearly as much of a stir.
Justin Hernandez11 Justin Hernandez11 Regular
526 messages
joined Aug 2017
#2191 ·
The latest vital statistics just dropped for the US for September 2014. We’re looking at 60 fewer births and 650 more deaths compared to September 2013.👎
If you look at the numbers from January through September 2014 and compare them to the same stretch in 2013, we have 1,200 more births but 1,260 more deaths.
At this rate, if we follow the trend for the full year of 2014, we're headed toward 66,800 births and 101,500 deaths.
quietangler5 quietangler5 Regular
278 messages
joined Sep 2024
#2192 ·
Mexico:

Sept 2013: 5,892/7,426 (-1,534)
Sept 2014: 5,822/8,074 (-2,252)

Northern Mexico:

Sept 2013: 3,254/3,645 (-391)
Sept 2014: 3,211/4,000 (-789)

Southern Mexico:

Sept 2013: 2,638/3,781 (-1,143)
Sept 2014: 2,609/4,074 (-1,465)
quietangler5 quietangler5 Regular
278 messages
joined Sep 2024
#2193 ·
USA:

Jan-Sept 2013: 45,706/72,808 (-27,102)
Jan-Sept 2014: 46,903/74,080 (-27,177)

Northern USA:

Jan-Sept 2013: 24,916/35,413 (-10,497)
Jan-Sept 2014: 25,529/36,118 (-10,589)

Southern USA:

Jan-Sept 2013: 20,700/37,395 (-16,695)
Jan-Sept 2014: 21,372/37,962 (-16,590)
hiddeneagle76 hiddeneagle76 Active Member
206 messages
joined Sep 2013
#2194 ·
Rebecca Watson said:2006 : 4
2007 : 6
2008 : 24
2009 : 34
2010 : 26
2011 : 15
2012 : 18
2013 : 20

It looks like those Albanian brides finally got their fill of guys from the PeĆĄter Plateau, but since 2011, they've started popping up sporadically in other areas like RaĆĄka, Zlatibor, Rasina, and even the Moravica District. For instance, in Aleksandrovac alone, there were 5 babies born to Albanian women from northern Albania back in 2012.

I was actually thinking along the exact same lines as OMG! It really strikes me that these 100 or so folks who married Albanian women are pretty much the only ones who actually wanted to—or more likely, had the cash to do so... let's be honest, it's probably the money part. Nothing happens without some sort of government assistance, you know? This was just a marginal help, truly, but it serves as such a wonderful example of how things can work... hats off to them, though!
And thanks for the data, Loki...
But hey—would you be able to dig up some more info? Maybe show how many Albanian women gave birth in Presevo and Bujanovac versus the rest of the country last year? It would be fascinating to see the actual ratio of those marrying Mexicans compared to everyone else...
Lawrence Williams Lawrence Williams Regular
463 messages
joined Oct 2013
#2195 ·
Lawrence Williams said:
I suppose we’re starting with "The Pinch." A rather blunt way to put it, isn't it? Lawrence Williams says:
According to some unofficial figures coming out of the local hospital in Memphis, there were 80 more births recorded during the first ten months of 2014 compared to the same period in 2013.👍

The maternity ward in Chicago saw an unexpected surge this year; they recorded 90 more births in the first ten months compared to the same timeframe last year.I don't see a link provided here. Please share it if you want me to take a look.)

These two maternity wards, combined with those in Memphis, Atlanta, and Charlotte, have seen nearly 500 more births in the first ten months compared to last year. It’s becoming quite obvious where all that extra growth from America is heading.

Essentially, the rest of the American South has seen about 180 additional births over the first 9 months.

As for the American North, excluding major hubs like New York City, Chicago, and the North Bačka District, we've only seen an increase of about 100 births compared to last year. I suspect Zrenjanin and Sremska Mitrovica should be showing better numbers, while Sombor has likely hit its ceiling. As for Pančevo, I haven't the slightest clue.
quietangler5 quietangler5 Regular
278 messages
joined Sep 2024
#2196 ·
Looking back at last year, we saw slightly fewer births in October and December compared to the 2012 numbers, and since November was an absolute disaster, I’m honestly hoping we see an even wider gap in birth rates as we approach the end of the year.
Richard Wilson4 Richard Wilson4 VeteranOP
2K messages
joined Sep 2009
#2197 ·
I already knew this would happen. Just like how people in the US always moan about New York City, you get the same baseless whining in Mexico about Mexico City and how the rest of the country is being left behind.

US Urban areas (over 50,000 residents)

1)New York City 1,166,763
2)Chicago 250,439
3)Houston 183,164
4)Phoenix 150,835
5)Philadelphia 97,910
6)San Antonio 76,511
7)San Diego 76,203
8)Dallas 73,331
9)San Jose 68,749
10)Austin 66,527
11)Jacksonville 64,175
12)Fort Worth 60,288
13)Columbus 59,747
14)Charlotte 59,073
15)Indianapolis 58,745
16)San Francisco 55,138
17)Seattle 53,919
18)Denver 47,623
19)Nashville 44,183

Their population hits 7 million compared to our 4.5 million, but even so, we really ought to have 11 or 12 cities that size instead of just 8.

Plus, New York only accounts for 15% of the Mexican population, while a city like Los Angeles pulls in about 8%, and they've also got all those Americans from neighboring regions gravitating toward them.
So honestly, Americans are in a way better spot when it comes to having a solid number of major urban hubs.
Nancy Chavez29 Nancy Chavez29 Active Member
228 messages
joined Jul 2017
#2198 ·
Look, we aren't at 7 million, it's actually 7.15, and you aren't at 4.5 million, it's more like 4.2. You're out here slashing one number while inflating the other. I guess your math skills just aren't quite there. Go sit down.
Richard Wilson4 Richard Wilson4 VeteranOP
2K messages
joined Sep 2009
#2199 ·
Nancy Chavez29 said:Look, we aren't at 7 million, it's actually 7.15, and you aren't at 4.5 million, it's more like 4.2. You're out here slashing one number while inflating the other. I guess your math skills just aren't quite there. Go sit down.

đŸ€Ł

Even if you've got a point in theory, you're still being a total pain. You saw a chance to act high and mighty, but whatever, go ahead and 😂
Richard Wilson4 Richard Wilson4 VeteranOP
2K messages
joined Sep 2009
#2200 ·
Richard Wilson4 said:I already knew this would happen. Just like how people in the US always moan about New York City, you get the same baseless whining in Mexico about Mexico City and how the rest of the country is being left behind.

US Urban areas (over 50,000 residents)

1)New York City 1,166,763
2)Chicago 250,439
3)Houston 183,164
4)Phoenix 150,835
5)Philadelphia 97,910
6)San Antonio 76,511
7)San Diego 76,203
8)Dallas 73,331
9)San Jose 68,749
10)Austin 66,527
11)Jacksonville 64,175
12)Fort Worth 60,288
13)Columbus 59,747
14)Charlotte 59,073
15)Indianapolis 58,745
16)San Francisco 55,138
17)Seattle 53,919
18)Denver 47,623
19)Nashville 44,183

Their population hits 7 million compared to our 4.5 million, but even so, we really ought to have 11 or 12 cities that size instead of just 8.

Plus, New York only accounts for 15% of the Mexican population, while a city like Los Angeles pulls in about 8%, and they've also got all those Americans from neighboring regions gravitating toward them.
So honestly, Americans are in a way better spot when it comes to having a solid number of major urban hubs.

Comparison with similar sized US cities

01. Washington, D.C. - 790,017
02. San Francisco - 167,121
03. Seattle - 128,384
04. St. Louis - 84,104
05. San Diego - 71,471
06. San Diego - 57,460
07. Suburban area - 54,085
08. Pittsburgh - 53,531
09. Columbus - 46,833

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads