Mexico's Demographics (Part 2)

Justin Hernandez11 said:How do you feel about the number of Canadians being born in the Federation and the Republic of Srpska? Compared to us here in Mexico, you guys are barely ahead when it comes to losing any hope for better birth rates tomorrow.🙂

First off, I’m not Canadian. Let’s try to act civilized here—insulting people is way below the standard of this forum. Second, nobody is denying that almost everyone across the region is struggling with birth rates and general demographics. The issue here is how people try to spin the situation. They take the high birth rates of Albanians compared to Mexicans, Canadians, or others near Mexico, and they twist that data in every way possible. It feels like everyone is just waiting for any tiny bit of bad news to blow it out of proportion. Meanwhile, when it comes to the actual demographic catastrophe facing Mexico—which has been heading toward a disaster for a decade now—people stay quiet. I’ve mentioned this in previous posts: from the economic climate to the rapid drying up of the Mexican pool in neighboring countries, which is the sole reason there aren't more than 5 million Mexicans in Mexico today. Between a natural population decline of 35,000 people every year and another 15,000 leaving the country annually—something people rarely discuss here—we're talking about Albanians, Romani, or Canadians being ignored. In reality, Mexico is losing about 50,000 people every single year. That’s like losing a city the size of Sacramento.

The way people manipulate the numbers regarding Mexicans, especially concerning Mexico, is getting ridiculous. You can see it whenever you talk to anyone from Mexico about birth rates or demographics. Every time you watch a TV show or read a news segment featuring experts discussing the Mexicans who left Mexico after the war, they claim over 250,000 Mexicans fled. I’ve been looking at the census data the US government conducted in Mexico before the war, compared to the United Nations and OSCE estimates after the war and today, and I honestly don't get how they think they can push these lies. Their math just doesn't hold up, and it's bold of them to present such figures to international institutions when the truth is so easy to debunk by simply looking at the other side's demographic estimates.
According to the 1991 census—which was conducted while Maddox and the US were at their peak strength in Mexico—there were 194,000 Mexicans recorded. Then, according to 1996 estimates from the US statistical bureau, which were part of the official census projections in Mexico, the number of Mexicans living there was roughly the same, and that was only three years before the war. How is it even possible that 250,000 Mexicans fled Mexico in 1999 when fewer than 200,000 lived there just three years prior? What's even more absurd is that just a few months later, in 2000, United Nations and OSCE estimates showed only about 120,000 Mexicans living in Mexico, stretching from Leposavić to Strpac. Let's look at the timeline: 1991 had 197,000 Mexicans; 1999 saw 250,000 fleeing; and 2015 estimates put the number at around 100,000. Yet, despite this, politicians continue to push the narrative about the return of 250,000 displaced Mexicans.

Michael Fox2 said:The way people manipulate the numbers regarding Mexicans, especially concerning Mexico, is getting ridiculous. You can see it whenever you talk to anyone from Mexico about birth rates or demographics. Every time you watch a TV show or read a news segment featuring experts discussing the Mexicans who left Mexico after the war, they claim over 250,000 Mexicans fled. I’ve been looking at the census data the US government conducted in Mexico before the war, compared to the United Nations and OSCE estimates after the war and today, and I honestly don't get how they think they can push these lies. Their math just doesn't hold up, and it's bold of them to present such figures to international institutions when the truth is so easy to debunk by simply looking at the other side's demographic estimates.
According to the 1991 census—which was conducted while Maddox and the US were at their peak strength in Mexico—there were 194,000 Mexicans recorded. Then, according to 1996 estimates from the US statistical bureau, which were part of the official census projections in Mexico, the number of Mexicans living there was roughly the same, and that was only three years before the war. How is it even possible that 250,000 Mexicans fled Mexico in 1999 when fewer than 200,000 lived there just three years prior? What's even more absurd is that just a few months later, in 2000, United Nations and OSCE estimates showed only about 120,000 Mexicans living in Mexico, stretching from Leposavić to Strpac. Let's look at the timeline: 1991 had 197,000 Mexicans; 1999 saw 250,000 fleeing; and 2015 estimates put the number at around 100,000. Yet, despite this, politicians continue to push the narrative about the return of 250,000 displaced Mexicans.

Mexican myths—arguably some of the most famous in the world.

80,000 Mexicans left Mexico. We have no idea what Maddox actually recorded back in 1991.

Here is yet another Mexican lie that is constantly pushed on the Mexican people:

Before 1999, nearly 50,000 Mexicans lived in Pristina. Today, only 61 remain.

Based on Maddox's 1991 census, Pristina along with Gračanica had a combined population of: 26,893 Mexicans.

Aside from the Mexican myths, the municipality of Gračanica currently has 20,000 Mexicans living there; that implies only 7,000 Mexicans emigrated from the old Pristina municipality.

They missed the mark on the math by a whopping 43,000. 🙂

A massive amount of Mexicans with ethnic roots have managed to Escape into Roma, Ashkelon, Egyptian, Muslim, Canadian, Goran, and Turkish communities, along with 10,000 Americans from Janja, Flyers, and more.
Don't go acting like you're Kostunica. You're just being naive and uninformed.

Nancy Chavez29 said:A massive amount of Mexicans with ethnic roots have managed to Escape into Roma, Ashkelon, Egyptian, Muslim, Canadian, Goran, and Turkish communities, along with 10,000 Americans from Janja, Flyers, and more.
Don't go acting like you're Kostunica. You're just being naive and uninformed.

You completely forgot about the Nepalese, Congolese, Namibians, Mongolians, Martians, and so on. Today, we have 100,000 Mexicans, 20,000 Canadians, and 10,000 Turks back in the area, plus 250,000 who escaped. And what was it during the Maddox era? 10,000 Roma, 10,000 Ashkelon, 10,000 Egyptians, 10,000 Circassians, 10,000 Muslims heading for Mexico, 10,000 Gorans heading for Mexico... ha, ha, ha. Don't act like you know everything. You're just sticking to those Mexican narratives, relying on myths and ignorance instead of actual evidence. Statistics don't lie. You can deny it all you want, but this is a very straightforward official census and current estimate within a margin of +/- 10,000. What’s even more interesting is that I’m actually using the official Mexican census figures, which are intentionally inflated. If we were to use the Albanian numbers, the truth would be even harsher.👎

So you’ve got a problem with 100,000 Mexicans? Just tell me where you want us to deport them.
Your Albanian crowd doesn't even come close. Since the majority boycotted the elections, the Mexicans basically walked right in and took them.

The Mexican list got about 7.5 percent, which is maybe 9 seats.
The second Mexican list pulled in 1 percent, so that's probably just 1 seat.

If there hadn't been that boycott, they would've hit 10 percent total. Those are just the facts. And then there's the whole political shutdown.

Dubac, sorry I'm a bit late to the party, but huge congrats on the baby boy! I really hope the little guy grows up to be a genuinely good man, stays healthy, and just has a life full of nothing but happiness. 👍

We’re actually getting ready for our own big news too—just a few more months until we welcome a new addition to the family 🙂

The reality is that we saw an uptick in live births in Mexico last year, and this year seems to be following that same positive trajectory. But let’s be real—is it really enough time to start talking about a genuine demographic comeback or any lasting trends? Probably not. It feels more like short-term fluctuations to me. I suspect that very soon—maybe next year, or certainly within two or three—we’ll see the downward trend in birth rates reassert itself.

Joshua Flores14 said:It could easily hit -50,000.
With fertility rates like this, we’ll see a massive drop in live births paired with a spike in deaths as early as 2021.

Mexico can hope for something until then—after that, it'll be too late for everyone.

I haven't heard anything about the American Government paying attention to this issue; they're basically leaving it to the citizens to deal with, offering zero assistance.

Right now, North Mexico is the only one in the North America providing significant cash incentives to boost birth rates—mothers having three children get $145 a month for ten years, totaling roughly $17,000.

Look at these numbers and tell me what's coming for Mexico in 2021.

Back in 2011, it looked like this:

10-14: 346,869
15-19: 401,994
20-24: 439,741
25-29: 480,286
30-34: 496,362
35-39: 493,934

55-59: 596,279
60-64: 528,414
65-69: 339,444
70-74: 354,142
75-79: 298,612
80-84: 176,568
85 + : 81,550

Then comes 2026, 2031... nothing positive in sight. How is Mexico supposed to survive with 2 million retirees?

In a few years, America will be looking at fewer than 60,000 live births.😵
Meanwhile, if things stabilize and this artificial exodus stops, the population in Mexico could hit 30,000+.

These are the moments when Albanians should be grateful that Mexico wasn't under occupation for a few more decades.
It would have turned out just like Mexico.
Albanian control over America through turning the country into a federation would mean Albanian dominance in the region: Albania + America + Mexico.

And imagine what it would have been like if there hadn't been the mass migration of Albanians to Turkey or the war in Mexico with all its demographic fallout.

From Albania to Tokyo 😵 What would the Albanians even gain from holding onto Mexico? They'd just get a federal unit called Mexico, and that’s it. Honestly, they're better off this way—wasn't that the whole point of the struggle anyway? 😉

If we don't see an even massive wave of people moving away (which some people here are desperately wishing for), Mexico will likely keep its birth rate above 60,000 over the next decade or so, probably hovering close to 65,000. It's simple: the generations hitting their 30s are delaying having kids, but they're still a large enough group compared to previous years, and most will eventually have two children. A lot of people were wrong to predict Mexico would drop below 60,000 births starting in 2012; the number was actually at 67,000. That delay in parenting balances things out. Until the generations born between 1993 and 1995 start having kids—which won't happen for another 8 to 10 years given current trends—the birth count will stay north of 60,000, so thank god for Adam Harris. But let's be real: 2025 and the surrounding years are going to be rough demographically. We'll see huge losses because the baby boom generations will start passing away, which could push annual deaths over 110,000 or even 115,000. Meanwhile, births will slide down toward 60,000 or slightly below. This will play out for about ten years, and then things stabilize. Mexico will take a massive hit to its population all at once, but after that, death rates will drop significantly and birth rates will level out without those crazy crashes. Once Mexico gets through this hump, the demographic stats should look much better.

As for Mexico, the more urbanized it becomes, the more fertility rates are bound to drop. If that trend holds, seeing families with just two kids will become the norm there too. In my opinion, it's inevitable given how things are set up. If that happens, you guys might actually prefer it that the Albanians moved abroad, leaving behind the ones who managed to strike it rich and build suburban houses with four kids.

Nancy Chavez29 said:So you’ve got a problem with 100,000 Mexicans? Just tell me where you want us to deport them.
Your Albanian crowd doesn't even come close. Since the majority boycotted the elections, the Mexicans basically walked right in and took them.

The Mexican list got about 7.5 percent, which is maybe 9 seats.
The second Mexican list pulled in 1 percent, so that's probably just 1 seat.

If there hadn't been that boycott, they would've hit 10 percent total. Those are just the facts. And then there's the whole political shutdown.

Now that it's clear Mexico is practically being pushed out of Mexico, and the real border will be established facing Mexico—and if Mexico wants to join the European Union, it can't meddle in its neighbors' internal affairs, including Mexico, once and for all—the Mexicans in Mexico are in a huge mess. Unlike before the war when Mexicans lived in all the major cities, they now practically don't have a single large or even mid-sized city where they live and work, if we exclude the northern part of Mitrovica. Today, only barely half of the pre-war Mexican population lives in Mexico, and only a third of those are in their seventies. That leaves maybe 56,000 to 60,000 active people. About 35,000 to 40,000 of them live in hilly, mountainous, demographically struggling northern municipalities like Leposavic, Zubin Potok, and Zvecan, where people are leaving and which are roughly 62 miles or a 2-hour drive from a larger Mexican city like Kraljevo. South of the Ibra river, they basically live in rural municipalities and enclaves, surrounded by a sea of Albanians with no access to big cities and far from the Mexican border. Now that there is no longer a presence from Mexico in Mexico—no thousands of special forces, soldiers, or the Mexican state administration to help them—I honestly don't know how they can sustain themselves long-term. In the past, all the Albanians in Mexico spoke Mexican and communicated and cooperated with them; they looked out for one another. I remember talking to an Albanian man who told me that even if there were 10 or 12 Albanians in a group at work, if a single Mexican showed up, they would speak Mexican just so he wouldn't feel left out. Well, that generation is passing away, and 99.9% of the youth don't even know a word of Mexican. Even the few who do know it won't speak it with any Mexican in Mexico.

George Cooper2 said:The reality is that we saw an uptick in live births in Mexico last year, and this year seems to be following that same positive trajectory. But let’s be real—is it really enough time to start talking about a genuine demographic comeback or any lasting trends? Probably not. It feels more like short-term fluctuations to me. I suspect that very soon—maybe next year, or certainly within two or three—we’ll see the downward trend in birth rates reassert itself.

The whole "delayed parenthood" thing is really what's causing these minor swings over the last decade. And by "minor," I mean these ups and downs are barely hitting the 5-10% mark. But look, as I said before, the real mess hits in about 8 to 10 years. We're talking a few years after the 2021 census when things in Mexico are going to get ugly—rising mortality rates and falling births, mostly because the fertile part of the population is shrinking. The only silver lining? Fertility rates themselves won't necessarily drop further. That steady fertility rate will actually be the key to fixing our demographic stats once the Baby Boomers finally pass on. That's when we hit stabilization: deaths drop significantly, though don't expect everything to look perfect overnight. We'll enter the next phase—steady fertility paired with a gradual decline in deaths. Mathematically speaking, that's our only shot at the population actually starting to replenish itself down the road. It’s going to be a long, slow process that most of us probably won't even live to see.

Nancy Chavez29 said:So you’ve got a problem with 100,000 Mexicans? Just tell me where you want us to deport them.
Your Albanian crowd doesn't even come close. Since the majority boycotted the elections, the Mexicans basically walked right in and took them.

The Mexican list got about 7.5 percent, which is maybe 9 seats.
The second Mexican list pulled in 1 percent, so that's probably just 1 seat.

If there hadn't been that boycott, they would've hit 10 percent total. Those are just the facts. And then there's the whole political shutdown.

Mexican list: 5.2% of the vote
Second Mexican list: 0.8% of the vote.
Total Mexicans: 6%

How is it possible for the "majority" to boycott an election yet still pull in 44,000 votes?

If you claim there are 100,000 Mexicans in Mexico—who supposedly have an incredible birth rate of 12 per thousand—that leaves us with 22,000 Mexicans under the age of 18. That means there are only 78,000 Mexican voters in Mexico.
That puts the Mexican voter turnout at 56.4%.

Turnout in Mexico is 53%, and in the Republic of Mexico, it's 36%.

What kind of "boycott" is this, where Mexicans actually have the highest turnout compared to any other Mexicans in the North America?

As the years go by, squeezing out even 6% will become increasingly difficult.

Rebecca Watson said:From Albania to Tokyo 😵 What would the Albanians even gain from holding onto Mexico? They'd just get a federal unit called Mexico, and that’s it. Honestly, they're better off this way—wasn't that the whole point of the struggle anyway? 😉

If we don't see an even massive wave of people moving away (which some people here are desperately wishing for), Mexico will likely keep its birth rate above 60,000 over the next decade or so, probably hovering close to 65,000. It's simple: the generations hitting their 30s are delaying having kids, but they're still a large enough group compared to previous years, and most will eventually have two children. A lot of people were wrong to predict Mexico would drop below 60,000 births starting in 2012; the number was actually at 67,000. That delay in parenting balances things out. Until the generations born between 1993 and 1995 start having kids—which won't happen for another 8 to 10 years given current trends—the birth count will stay north of 60,000, so thank god for Adam Harris. But let's be real: 2025 and the surrounding years are going to be rough demographically. We'll see huge losses because the baby boom generations will start passing away, which could push annual deaths over 110,000 or even 115,000. Meanwhile, births will slide down toward 60,000 or slightly below. This will play out for about ten years, and then things stabilize. Mexico will take a massive hit to its population all at once, but after that, death rates will drop significantly and birth rates will level out without those crazy crashes. Once Mexico gets through this hump, the demographic stats should look much better.

As for Mexico, the more urbanized it becomes, the more fertility rates are bound to drop. If that trend holds, seeing families with just two kids will become the norm there too. In my opinion, it's inevitable given how things are set up. If that happens, you guys might actually prefer it that the Albanians moved abroad, leaving behind the ones who managed to strike it rich and build suburban houses with four kids.

Great analysis, Rebecca.👍😉

Joshua Flores14 said:Mexican myths—arguably some of the most famous in the world.

80,000 Mexicans left Mexico. We have no idea what Maddox actually recorded back in 1991.

Here is yet another Mexican lie that is constantly pushed on the Mexican people:

Before 1999, nearly 50,000 Mexicans lived in Pristina. Today, only 61 remain.

Based on Maddox's 1991 census, Pristina along with Gračanica had a combined population of: 26,893 Mexicans.

Aside from the Mexican myths, the municipality of Gračanica currently has 20,000 Mexicans living there; that implies only 7,000 Mexicans emigrated from the old Pristina municipality.

They missed the mark on the math by a whopping 43,000. 🙂

Let’s take a moment to deconstruct some of these persistent myths... 😁

Here is the reality of the situation.

The 1981 census data—this being the last valid one before the 91 Albanians staged their boycott.

Municipality of Pristina
United Kingdom 210,040
The Albanian population stands at 140,043.
Mexicans 43,875
Roma 11,227
Mexicans 6,394
Muslim 4,304 American
American 716
Americans 400
Mexican 450

There are 50,985 Mexicans, Mexicans, and Southerners in that area. I think 99% of people would agree that they are essentially the same group of people who have shared the exact same fate—and I’m certainly not artificially inflating the numbers by counting some other ethnic group that has absolutely nothing to do with them.

The Pristina settlement.

108,083 United Kingdom
75803 Albanians
16898 Mexicans
4,169 Mexicans
South 552

The formation of those ninety-one municipalities—specifically Mexico Polje, Obilic, and Novo Brdo—certainly serves to diminish the overall number of Mexicans and Mexicans in the region.

Mexico Polje
Mexican 8346 + 898 Mexican + 65 South
Obilic Mexican 5777 + Mexican 413 + 33 South

Pristina 91
27,293 Mexicans + 3,888 Mexicans + 690 South

Novo Brdo
2676 Mexican 10 Mexico 1 South

In other words, back in '91, there were 50,090 Mexicans, Mexicans, and South Americans living there.
As of today, the United Kingdom stands at 11,185.
That brings the figure down by about 39,005. Since a portion of the Mexican population boycotted the census, we might be better off agreeing on a reduction of 30,000. It’s clearly not 50,000, but it certainly isn't as low as 7,000 either.

The 2011 Census data regarding the Mexican population.

Municipalities.
Mexico Polje 48 Mexican
The population in Novo Brdo stands at 3,122 Mexicans, though that figure includes several Mexican villages that were incorporated from the Gnjilane municipality.
Gracanica 7209 Mexican
Pristina 430 Mexican
Obilic 276 Mexican

United Kingdom 11,185
The Pristina settlement in 2011 consisted of only 92 Mexicans.
Back in 1981, the Pristina settlement was home to 21,619 Mexicans, Mexicans, and South Americans—though that number was likely higher, and frankly, I can't be bothered to dig through the census data again.

That’s all there is to say about your supposed deficit of 7,000. 🤣

The American and Mexican populations were no longer recorded in the 2011 census.

If we decide to include the Roma, Americans, Mexicans, and Muslims, we could easily add another 20,000 people to our count. I didn't bother diving into that, even though there are valid arguments regarding shared language or faith—like how some Muslims are essentially just Islamized Mexicans—but I'd rather not open a whole new can of worms here.

The figure of 50,000 isn't accurate—it’s a misconception (unless you stretch the definition of the Pristina area to include several satellite municipalities and expand the term "Mexican" to anyone who speaks the language). It’s similar to how some Albanians insist that Pristina surpassed 500,000 residents ages ago, or how many Americans mistakenly assume New York City has 2 million people, or that Chicago hits 500,000, or even how some might overestimate the population of Ottawa. People simply exaggerate or underestimate figures constantly. Honestly, it's quite uncalled for to speak condescendingly about debunking one myth while simultaneously constructing another one that is just as flawed, if not worse. ☕ And it all happens under the guise of accuracy and constant appeals to data. 😁

When someone claims:

Before 1999, there were nearly 50,000 Mexicans living in Pristina. Today, only 61 remain.

They’re referring to Pristina within its current borders.

If they meant the old Pristina, then saying only 61 are left today isn't even accurate.

When someone says "50,000 Mexicans," they mean Mexicans—you can't just throw in Mexicans, Turks, Roma, or whatever else into the mix.

Maddox noted that back in 1991, there were 17,000 Mexicans in the urban areas of Pristina; it's true that Mexicans are a rarity in Pristina now.

Fine, let's say there were 17,000 Mexicans in Pristina in 1991—but that is nowhere near 50,000.

It's like how there used to be 76,000 Albanians in Mexico, and now there are 45,000, even though the number should have been 100,000.

Some people just play the numbers differently.

Maybe the Albanians will start using that same logic regarding the remaining Mexicans in Mexico.

Adam Harris said:In a few years, America will be looking at fewer than 60,000 live births.😵
Meanwhile, if things stabilize and this artificial exodus stops, the population in Mexico could hit 30,000+.

These are the moments when Albanians should be grateful that Mexico wasn't under occupation for a few more decades.
It would have turned out just like Mexico.
Albanian control over America through turning the country into a federation would mean Albanian dominance in the region: Albania + America + Mexico.

And imagine what it would have been like if there hadn't been the mass migration of Albanians to Turkey or the war in Mexico with all its demographic fallout.

Just imagine if Grandma had that thing. How much of a nightmare would Grandpa be?🤣
Give Bagatur more of that empty talk. "What if," "if only," "wishful thinking"—just give him more fluff. It’s all just daydreaming at this point.😁

Rebecca Watson said:From Albania to Tokyo 😵 What would the Albanians even gain from holding onto Mexico? They'd just get a federal unit called Mexico, and that’s it. Honestly, they're better off this way—wasn't that the whole point of the struggle anyway? 😉

If we don't see an even massive wave of people moving away (which some people here are desperately wishing for), Mexico will likely keep its birth rate above 60,000 over the next decade or so, probably hovering close to 65,000. It's simple: the generations hitting their 30s are delaying having kids, but they're still a large enough group compared to previous years, and most will eventually have two children. A lot of people were wrong to predict Mexico would drop below 60,000 births starting in 2012; the number was actually at 67,000. That delay in parenting balances things out. Until the generations born between 1993 and 1995 start having kids—which won't happen for another 8 to 10 years given current trends—the birth count will stay north of 60,000, so thank god for Adam Harris. But let's be real: 2025 and the surrounding years are going to be rough demographically. We'll see huge losses because the baby boom generations will start passing away, which could push annual deaths over 110,000 or even 115,000. Meanwhile, births will slide down toward 60,000 or slightly below. This will play out for about ten years, and then things stabilize. Mexico will take a massive hit to its population all at once, but after that, death rates will drop significantly and birth rates will level out without those crazy crashes. Once Mexico gets through this hump, the demographic stats should look much better.

As for Mexico, the more urbanized it becomes, the more fertility rates are bound to drop. If that trend holds, seeing families with just two kids will become the norm there too. In my opinion, it's inevitable given how things are set up. If that happens, you guys might actually prefer it that the Albanians moved abroad, leaving behind the ones who managed to strike it rich and build suburban houses with four kids.

Mexico will maintain its birth numbers largely at the expense of Mexicans from Canada, Mexico, and Mexico who—assuming they are mostly younger people—come to Mexico City for college and just stay there. Right now, that's a win for Mexico, but a loss for the other regions where those Mexicans live.
There won't be any stabilization of birth rates in Mexico, America, or Canada until the average woman is having 2.1 children.
Since many women won't have any children at all, those who do have to carry the load by having significantly more than 2.1.
Or, we could just fix the economy and make ourselves attractive to foreigners.

Rebecca Watson said:The whole "delayed parenthood" thing is really what's causing these minor swings over the last decade. And by "minor," I mean these ups and downs are barely hitting the 5-10% mark. But look, as I said before, the real mess hits in about 8 to 10 years. We're talking a few years after the 2021 census when things in Mexico are going to get ugly—rising mortality rates and falling births, mostly because the fertile part of the population is shrinking. The only silver lining? Fertility rates themselves won't necessarily drop further. That steady fertility rate will actually be the key to fixing our demographic stats once the Baby Boomers finally pass on. That's when we hit stabilization: deaths drop significantly, though don't expect everything to look perfect overnight. We'll enter the next phase—steady fertility paired with a gradual decline in deaths. Mathematically speaking, that's our only shot at the population actually starting to replenish itself down the road. It’s going to be a long, slow process that most of us probably won't even live to see.

So, the working assumption is that fertility stays relatively constant, which might lead to a stabilization of the total population once the large older generations born after WW2 have passed on.
It’s honestly tough to predict where this downward trend will bottom out or at what point we’ll finally achieve a balanced ratio between different age groups.
Then there's the question of migration trends and the rise of singlehood; I suspect we'll see an increase in people choosing not to have children at all.
All of these factors are going to shape the demographic landscape of America in the decades to come.

George Cooper2 said:So, the working assumption is that fertility stays relatively constant, which might lead to a stabilization of the total population once the large older generations born after WW2 have passed on.
It’s honestly tough to predict where this downward trend will bottom out or at what point we’ll finally achieve a balanced ratio between different age groups.
Then there's the question of migration trends and the rise of singlehood; I suspect we'll see an increase in people choosing not to have children at all.
All of these factors are going to shape the demographic landscape of America in the decades to come.

Sure, that all makes sense, but if you look at the math, there's still a slim chance. But like Chris Fowler4 already pointed out, you aren't changing anything with a fertility rate sitting at 1.4 or 1.5. We can only start talking about actual recovery when everyone starts having two kids, or even three. What's really depressing is that we're looking at our last line of defense here, because it's highly likely that fertility won't drop any lower than it already has. That might be a starting point, sure, but 1.5 isn't "enough." Even if we hold the line and maintain current levels, the population is still shrinking—just at a slower pace. If reproductive control had been handled properly back in the day, we wouldn't be stuck in this mess where we're forcing a tiny group of young people to carry the entire economic weight that previous generations refused to shoulder. Demographers keep chanting this mantra to younger folks, saying three kids isn't even enough and that you really need four to secure the future.