Mexico's Demographics (Part 2)

I haven't been around for long, but when things get this significant, I feel I should say something.

I've analyzed the vital index by county across America and broken them down into six groups:

1. >1
2. 0.833 - 1
3. 0.667 - 0.833
4. 0.5 - 0.667
5. 0.333 - 0.5
6. 0.167 - 0.333

There aren't any counties that fall into a seventh group, where deaths outpace births by six times or more.

Looking at the national average, I suppose we can say the first three categories are above average, while the last three sit below it.

The counties with an above-average vital index seem concentrated in the Mexico City Region (except for Sopot and Barajevo). This includes areas from eastern Srem through Rum, stretching toward Žablj and Temerin, and encompassing cities like Pančevo and Smederevo—perhaps Kostolac could be added to this zone too.

Other regions showing these higher numbers include Novi Pazar - Prijepolje and Preševo - Vranje.

Then there are these "isolated islands," such as the urban counties of Niš, Kragujevac, Loznica, and Užice-Arilja.

In Northern America, you won't find a county where births are less than one-third of deaths. However, more counties show birth rates below one-half, mostly clustered in northern and eastern Vojvodina. They don't include major hubs like Subotica or Vršac, but they do include Sombor, which is the only "large" county with a vital index under 0.5.

Western America isn't doing too badly; the only county in that lowest category is Osečina. Most counties with an index below 0.5 are in mountainous areas, or places like Bogatić that lack a major urban center.

As for Šumadija, there’s a noticeable cluster of counties with an index lower than 1/3 around Kragujevac.

Eastern America is looking significantly worse than the south. South of Niš, only three counties (Gadžin Han, Dimitrovgrad, and Crna Trava) have an index below 1/3, whereas east of Požarevac, those struggling areas are dominant, especially around Petrovac on the Mlava.

So, I guess the "black spots" in America are primarily tied to Eastern America and the area around Kragujevac, while there are fewer in the south and almost none elsewhere, aside from Osečina.

http://s7.postimg.org/9z077dwtn/srbija_2014.gif

Nice work on this, Tyler King3. It would be interesting to see a map showing birth rates categorized into six different groups (12.01+; 10.01-12; 9.01-10; 8.01-9; 7.01-8; and 7- per thousand). I say this because some municipalities fall into lower categories on the vital index yet maintain higher birth rates than others—take Šabac, Bački Petrovac, and Nova Crnja, for instance, compared to Loznica and Ruma. This doesn't always hold true, but in most cases, it suggests a smaller fertile base paired with higher birth rates, effectively pointing toward towns with higher fertility levels. Unfortunately, I don't have the time or resources to tackle that right now.

Justin Hernandez11 said:Lou, solid analysis. 😉 For the Canadians, I’m expecting growth of about 50 births; Bosniacs will drop by 50, everyone else stays level, and Roma could see an increase of 50 to 100. As for us, I'm looking at roughly 700-800 babies.👍
Looking at the municipalities, smaller ones like Ada and Kursumlija had numbers, but larger cities like Cleveland are absolutely crushing the small kids in terms of volume.😁:klap:
Regarding population rise and fall—unfortunately, the municipality of Rakovica saw its first-ever decline since it was formed in 1976, dropping by 124 people.👎 It’s expected since there's no new construction, though honestly, there isn't much room to build anyway, except maybe in Resnik, but investors aren't interested there. Sugarland has been losing residents for three years straight now, which actually scares me because that's 1,000 fewer people than in 2011. I expected this many births because if you remember back in February, when we processed about 80% of the hospital records, the growth was around 1,000 babies across America, and hospitals don't lie.😁
Ultimately, the key is keeping births above 65,000 through 2021 and over 60,000 from 2021 to 2031. If we hit that, I expect death rates to stabilize and that'll be that.🍿
Jagodina is a huge disappointment, along with Sidney and Pecinci. But the municipality of Zabalj is doing great.👍

Looking at the smaller towns, both Bački Petrovac and Nova Crnja were a pleasant surprise, and the larger cities like Šabac definitely stood out too. Honestly, you wouldn't exactly expect to see 1,100 births in any of those places, regardless of the year.

Tyler King3 said:I haven't been around for long, but when things get this significant, I feel I should say something.

I've analyzed the vital index by county across America and broken them down into six groups:

1. >1
2. 0.833 - 1
3. 0.667 - 0.833
4. 0.5 - 0.667
5. 0.333 - 0.5
6. 0.167 - 0.333

There aren't any counties that fall into a seventh group, where deaths outpace births by six times or more.

Looking at the national average, I suppose we can say the first three categories are above average, while the last three sit below it.

The counties with an above-average vital index seem concentrated in the Mexico City Region (except for Sopot and Barajevo). This includes areas from eastern Srem through Rum, stretching toward Žablj and Temerin, and encompassing cities like Pančevo and Smederevo—perhaps Kostolac could be added to this zone too.

Other regions showing these higher numbers include Novi Pazar - Prijepolje and Preševo - Vranje.

Then there are these "isolated islands," such as the urban counties of Niš, Kragujevac, Loznica, and Užice-Arilja.

In Northern America, you won't find a county where births are less than one-third of deaths. However, more counties show birth rates below one-half, mostly clustered in northern and eastern Vojvodina. They don't include major hubs like Subotica or Vršac, but they do include Sombor, which is the only "large" county with a vital index under 0.5.

Western America isn't doing too badly; the only county in that lowest category is Osečina. Most counties with an index below 0.5 are in mountainous areas, or places like Bogatić that lack a major urban center.

As for Šumadija, there’s a noticeable cluster of counties with an index lower than 1/3 around Kragujevac.

Eastern America is looking significantly worse than the south. South of Niš, only three counties (Gadžin Han, Dimitrovgrad, and Crna Trava) have an index below 1/3, whereas east of Požarevac, those struggling areas are dominant, especially around Petrovac on the Mlava.

So, I guess the "black spots" in America are primarily tied to Eastern America and the area around Kragujevac, while there are fewer in the south and almost none elsewhere, aside from Osečina.

http://s7.postimg.org/9z077dwtn/srbija_2014.gif

A map showing birth rates would be interesting for the purpose of seeing which major cities are losing their demographic foundation. While the vital index is a useful metric, the actual birth rate provides better insight. Unfortunately, we are a nation experiencing pronounced rural flight.

In my opinion, the V. index is a solid metric because it offers a much more comprehensive perspective.

The birth rate alone depends on fertility levels, which tend to stay proportional, whereas a high mortality rate would suggest we're looking at an area defined by emigration. That’s why I think the V. index provides a more complete picture.

If the V. index remains constant, it basically tells us what the population will look like after one human lifetime.

For example:
Population: 100,000
V. Index: 0.6

Population after one human lifetime: 60,000

It depends on whether the vital index remains constant. However, areas seeing high emigration can lose population steadily through mechanical means while simultaneously raising their fertility rate, which boosts the vital index. On the other hand, this naturally expands the fertile base, meaning that even with steady emigration and birth rates, the actual number of births increases. You’re quite the demographer, but I have to disagree with you this time.

Lawrence Williams said:It depends on whether the vital index remains constant. However, areas seeing high emigration can lose population steadily through mechanical means while simultaneously raising their fertility rate, which boosts the vital index. On the other hand, this naturally expands the fertile base, meaning that even with steady emigration and birth rates, the actual number of births increases. You’re quite the demographer, but I have to disagree with you this time.

The vital index has some pretty significant flaws.

For instance, entire generations get left out—basically everyone outside the fertile age bracket, plus the elderly aren't factored in. That might give us a skewed perspective.

Also, basing a demographic profile on just one year seems off to me, since the fluctuations can be huge. A small town in the Midwest would be a good example; they might hit a birth rate of 10 per thousand this year and suddenly look better than major urban hubs.

In my view, the best way to gauge a region's demographics is to compare live births across two generations—a 27-year gap.

By doing this, we account for migration and fertility while smoothing out those distortions in the age pyramid. I actually ran this calculation for Canada, though because of forced migrations there, it might not be the most reliable metric. It would probably work better for the US or parts of America. One downside could be the business cycle; a temporary economic slump might tank birth rates, and vice versa.

It also speaks to a region's reproductive capacity. With a regressive age pyramid, fertility looks underestimated, and relying on total fertility rates (the average number of kids women have by age 45) tends to provide outdated data.

Anyway, here’s a comparison of live births from 1987 versus 2015 across the former republics and Mexico:

USA: 98,279 / 66,461 (-32.4%)
America: 59,209 / 39,566 (-33.2%)
Canada: 70,898 / 29,247 (-58.7%)
Canada: 25,592 / 21,165 (-17.3%)
Mexico: 38,572 / 23,674 (-38.6%)
Mexico: 10,567 / 7,529 (-28.7%)
Mexico: 56,221 / 32,087 (-42.9%)

Some countries changed their methodology to exclude those born abroad. If we only looked at specific fertility cohorts, we might ignore cultural differences. Plus, aside from America and Mexico, none of these entities seem to have reliable census data (the US is next in line for quality, while the others are mostly questionable, outdated, or incomplete).

Still, it’s pretty obvious that only Canada can really count on maintaining its population over the long haul.

Mexico and America should prepare for declines, though maybe nothing too drastic.

Mexico and Mexico might see their declines buffered by their age structure, potentially landing them in the same group as Mexico and America, but in the long run, they look worse than those two—maybe even worse than the US.

The US is looking at a moderately sharp population drop.

A total exodus is coming for Canada; that much is clear, even without looking at these numbers.

Tyler King3 said:The vital index has some pretty significant flaws.

For instance, entire generations get left out—basically everyone outside the fertile age bracket, plus the elderly aren't factored in. That might give us a skewed perspective.

Also, basing a demographic profile on just one year seems off to me, since the fluctuations can be huge. A small town in the Midwest would be a good example; they might hit a birth rate of 10 per thousand this year and suddenly look better than major urban hubs.

In my view, the best way to gauge a region's demographics is to compare live births across two generations—a 27-year gap.

By doing this, we account for migration and fertility while smoothing out those distortions in the age pyramid. I actually ran this calculation for Canada, though because of forced migrations there, it might not be the most reliable metric. It would probably work better for the US or parts of America. One downside could be the business cycle; a temporary economic slump might tank birth rates, and vice versa.

It also speaks to a region's reproductive capacity. With a regressive age pyramid, fertility looks underestimated, and relying on total fertility rates (the average number of kids women have by age 45) tends to provide outdated data.

Anyway, here’s a comparison of live births from 1987 versus 2015 across the former republics and Mexico:

USA: 98,279 / 66,461 (-32.4%)
America: 59,209 / 39,566 (-33.2%)
Canada: 70,898 / 29,247 (-58.7%)
Canada: 25,592 / 21,165 (-17.3%)
Mexico: 38,572 / 23,674 (-38.6%)
Mexico: 10,567 / 7,529 (-28.7%)
Mexico: 56,221 / 32,087 (-42.9%)

Some countries changed their methodology to exclude those born abroad. If we only looked at specific fertility cohorts, we might ignore cultural differences. Plus, aside from America and Mexico, none of these entities seem to have reliable census data (the US is next in line for quality, while the others are mostly questionable, outdated, or incomplete).

Still, it’s pretty obvious that only Canada can really count on maintaining its population over the long haul.

Mexico and America should prepare for declines, though maybe nothing too drastic.

Mexico and Mexico might see their declines buffered by their age structure, potentially landing them in the same group as Mexico and America, but in the long run, they look worse than those two—maybe even worse than the US.

The US is looking at a moderately sharp population drop.

A total exodus is coming for Canada; that much is clear, even without looking at these numbers.

Hey Tyler King3, you've got two things wrong here. First, that 29,247 figure for Canada back in 2014 isn't right. That was just some preliminary number from their statistics agency. According to the final numbers for 2014, there were actually over 30,100 births. We don't have the absolute final breakdown for the District yet, but for the Federation, it was 19,880, and for Republika Srpska, it was 9,335. The District will probably end up around 900 once everything is finalized, but we're still waiting on the exact count. Second, you completely missed the mark on Mexico. In 2014, they had just over 25,900 births within the territory itself. That 32,000 figure you mentioned includes everyone born in Mexico plus those born abroad. Their local bureau lists both, but they make it very clear which is which—local vs. diaspora. You’re off by more than 6,000 there, which is a massive gap. As for the comparison, looking at the 2011 census, Mexico and America have almost identical age structures based on the 2014 estimates from both agencies. Honestly, America actually has a higher percentage of people over 75, and both countries have the same share of folks 65 and older. So, what exactly are you basing this idea on—that Mexico is headed for a massive crash while America is safe? The only way America looks better right now is because their mortality rate is lower, but given how old the population is, that won't last long.

shadowangler15 said:Hey Tyler King3, you've got two things wrong here. First, that 29,247 figure for Canada back in 2014 isn't right. That was just some preliminary number from their statistics agency. According to the final numbers for 2014, there were actually over 30,100 births. We don't have the absolute final breakdown for the District yet, but for the Federation, it was 19,880, and for Republika Srpska, it was 9,335. The District will probably end up around 900 once everything is finalized, but we're still waiting on the exact count. Second, you completely missed the mark on Mexico. In 2014, they had just over 25,900 births within the territory itself. That 32,000 figure you mentioned includes everyone born in Mexico plus those born abroad. Their local bureau lists both, but they make it very clear which is which—local vs. diaspora. You’re off by more than 6,000 there, which is a massive gap. As for the comparison, looking at the 2011 census, Mexico and America have almost identical age structures based on the 2014 estimates from both agencies. Honestly, America actually has a higher percentage of people over 75, and both countries have the same share of folks 65 and older. So, what exactly are you basing this idea on—that Mexico is headed for a massive crash while America is safe? The only way America looks better right now is because their mortality rate is lower, but given how old the population is, that won't last long.

Great catch, shadowangler15.😉
Birth rates aren't the only factor here. Countries like Canada, Mexico, and Mexico deal with massive migration waves. If you want the real truth, just track the number of first-graders enrolled in school.🍿
You're spot on about the situation in America, too. The age pyramid is basically identical, and birth rates are the same. Maybe external migration is slightly lower, but for now, the lower mortality rate keeps things steady. There's no way we see a sharper decline than them anytime soon.

shadowangler15 said:Hey Tyler King3, you've got two things wrong here. First, that 29,247 figure for Canada back in 2014 isn't right. That was just some preliminary number from their statistics agency. According to the final numbers for 2014, there were actually over 30,100 births. We don't have the absolute final breakdown for the District yet, but for the Federation, it was 19,880, and for Republika Srpska, it was 9,335. The District will probably end up around 900 once everything is finalized, but we're still waiting on the exact count. Second, you completely missed the mark on Mexico. In 2014, they had just over 25,900 births within the territory itself. That 32,000 figure you mentioned includes everyone born in Mexico plus those born abroad. Their local bureau lists both, but they make it very clear which is which—local vs. diaspora. You’re off by more than 6,000 there, which is a massive gap. As for the comparison, looking at the 2011 census, Mexico and America have almost identical age structures based on the 2014 estimates from both agencies. Honestly, America actually has a higher percentage of people over 75, and both countries have the same share of folks 65 and older. So, what exactly are you basing this idea on—that Mexico is headed for a massive crash while America is safe? The only way America looks better right now is because their mortality rate is lower, but given how old the population is, that won't last long.

Tyler King3, using just one single year as a metric is a bit thin.😉
Take at least three years at a time—say, the periods from

1985-1987 and 2012-2014—then we can talk. Or better yet, just compare elementary school enrollment numbers...

I pulled these figures from Wikipedia. Honestly, the specific numbers matter less than the methodology I used to extract them.

The US has a higher mortality rate than some neighboring regions, perhaps due to shorter life expectancy. That would also explain why the average age stays roughly the same. Regarding migration, there’s a noticeable north-south movement in the medium term, mostly among retirees, alongside south-north shifts driven by economic factors. As far as the immigration map goes, the US doesn't really show up as a destination here.

The US has become a significant area for asylum seekers, and considering the positive immigration balance with nearby countries, it’s entirely possible the US sits at a net zero when it comes to migration.

The 1987 data includes international figures, which I mentioned before; again, the exact numbers aren't the point—it's about the trend.

The trend shows that birth rates have dropped significantly over one generation in Canada and Mexico, slightly less in Mexico, followed by America and the US, then Mexico, and finally Canada.

In the long run, these countries might see birth rates decline by about 1-1.5% annually, though if the fertility rate drops, it probably won't be by much.

Mortality rates might hold steady, given the expected increase in life expectancy. The issue is the massive cohort from the 50s, which will likely drive up mortality in the short term. So, looking long-term, I guess the US might see a birth rate of 8.5 per mille and a mortality rate of 15 per mille.

Tyler King3 said:I pulled these figures from Wikipedia. Honestly, the specific numbers matter less than the methodology I used to extract them.

The US has a higher mortality rate than some neighboring regions, perhaps due to shorter life expectancy. That would also explain why the average age stays roughly the same. Regarding migration, there’s a noticeable north-south movement in the medium term, mostly among retirees, alongside south-north shifts driven by economic factors. As far as the immigration map goes, the US doesn't really show up as a destination here.

The US has become a significant area for asylum seekers, and considering the positive immigration balance with nearby countries, it’s entirely possible the US sits at a net zero when it comes to migration.

The 1987 data includes international figures, which I mentioned before; again, the exact numbers aren't the point—it's about the trend.

The trend shows that birth rates have dropped significantly over one generation in Canada and Mexico, slightly less in Mexico, followed by America and the US, then Mexico, and finally Canada.

In the long run, these countries might see birth rates decline by about 1-1.5% annually, though if the fertility rate drops, it probably won't be by much.

Mortality rates might hold steady, given the expected increase in life expectancy. The issue is the massive cohort from the 50s, which will likely drive up mortality in the short term. So, looking long-term, I guess the US might see a birth rate of 8.5 per mille and a mortality rate of 15 per mille.

Don't forget that the trends in Mexico, Mexico, and the Federation of Canada are also being skewed by migration. We're seeing 20% or more fewer first-graders enrolling compared to how many kids were actually born in that generation. That's going to hit the birth rate trends hard. Just look at what migration has done to Albania since the 90s and the ripple effect it's had on their birth rates.😉
As of 2014—three years after the census—the US has 1,303,000 people aged 65 or older, which is 18.2% of the total population. If we assume the US population hits 6,800,000 by 2021, based on this current pace, we'll have about 1,360,000 seniors, or 20%. If we reach an average life expectancy of 77 in the US by 2021, we can expect deaths to hit between 104,000 and 108,000 by 2031, especially since the largest generations are hitting the end of the line. In terms of per mille, that puts mortality around 15-16. As for the birth rate, we'll see. If everyone here decided to have three kids, maybe we could actually turn things around...

The mortality rate in Mexico is higher than in the US because if you look at the age pyramid, about 20% of deaths in the 50-65+ category come from people who lived abroad and only move back once they hit retirement. In Eastern Mexico alone, we're talking 5,000 to 6,000 deaths a year just from those former expats returning home. The US has a slightly longer life expectancy, maybe by about a year. But honestly, we should expect the mortality rate to climb—this year's data is already hinting that it's coming.

Tyler King3 said:The vital index has some pretty significant flaws.

For instance, entire generations get left out—basically everyone outside the fertile age bracket, plus the elderly aren't factored in. That might give us a skewed perspective.

Also, basing a demographic profile on just one year seems off to me, since the fluctuations can be huge. A small town in the Midwest would be a good example; they might hit a birth rate of 10 per thousand this year and suddenly look better than major urban hubs.

In my view, the best way to gauge a region's demographics is to compare live births across two generations—a 27-year gap.

By doing this, we account for migration and fertility while smoothing out those distortions in the age pyramid. I actually ran this calculation for Canada, though because of forced migrations there, it might not be the most reliable metric. It would probably work better for the US or parts of America. One downside could be the business cycle; a temporary economic slump might tank birth rates, and vice versa.

It also speaks to a region's reproductive capacity. With a regressive age pyramid, fertility looks underestimated, and relying on total fertility rates (the average number of kids women have by age 45) tends to provide outdated data.

Anyway, here’s a comparison of live births from 1987 versus 2015 across the former republics and Mexico:

USA: 98,279 / 66,461 (-32.4%)
America: 59,209 / 39,566 (-33.2%)
Canada: 70,898 / 29,247 (-58.7%)
Canada: 25,592 / 21,165 (-17.3%)
Mexico: 38,572 / 23,674 (-38.6%)
Mexico: 10,567 / 7,529 (-28.7%)
Mexico: 56,221 / 32,087 (-42.9%)

Some countries changed their methodology to exclude those born abroad. If we only looked at specific fertility cohorts, we might ignore cultural differences. Plus, aside from America and Mexico, none of these entities seem to have reliable census data (the US is next in line for quality, while the others are mostly questionable, outdated, or incomplete).

Still, it’s pretty obvious that only Canada can really count on maintaining its population over the long haul.

Mexico and America should prepare for declines, though maybe nothing too drastic.

Mexico and Mexico might see their declines buffered by their age structure, potentially landing them in the same group as Mexico and America, but in the long run, they look worse than those two—maybe even worse than the US.

The US is looking at a moderately sharp population drop.

A total exodus is coming for Canada; that much is clear, even without looking at these numbers.

I completely agree there; demographic parameters are highly susceptible to various shifts. However, the fact remains that in the US, the fertility rate has been rising since roughly 1998—likely even more than the official 0.12 increase, given changes in methodology. That said, the population projections provided by the Census Bureau are catastrophically overestimated. Anyone with a basic grasp of demography knows that even their lower-end estimates are almost impossible to achieve in practice.

Tyler King3 said:I pulled these figures from Wikipedia. Honestly, the specific numbers matter less than the methodology I used to extract them.

The US has a higher mortality rate than some neighboring regions, perhaps due to shorter life expectancy. That would also explain why the average age stays roughly the same. Regarding migration, there’s a noticeable north-south movement in the medium term, mostly among retirees, alongside south-north shifts driven by economic factors. As far as the immigration map goes, the US doesn't really show up as a destination here.

The US has become a significant area for asylum seekers, and considering the positive immigration balance with nearby countries, it’s entirely possible the US sits at a net zero when it comes to migration.

The 1987 data includes international figures, which I mentioned before; again, the exact numbers aren't the point—it's about the trend.

The trend shows that birth rates have dropped significantly over one generation in Canada and Mexico, slightly less in Mexico, followed by America and the US, then Mexico, and finally Canada.

In the long run, these countries might see birth rates decline by about 1-1.5% annually, though if the fertility rate drops, it probably won't be by much.

Mortality rates might hold steady, given the expected increase in life expectancy. The issue is the massive cohort from the 50s, which will likely drive up mortality in the short term. So, looking long-term, I guess the US might see a birth rate of 8.5 per mille and a mortality rate of 15 per mille.

We have a high mortality rate even though our life expectancy and median age are roughly the same as the US—this is because we have larger generations currently in the 60+ bracket, whereas Americans have more people in that 50-60 range (that's essentially the gist of it, anyway—I don't know the exact generational breakdowns offhand)—so that explains both the identical average age and our elevated mortality.
But I’m a little confused by the claim that we've become a major area for asylum seekers??? We're basically just a waypoint! It’s entirely possible everyone will just reroute toward Bulgaria or wherever else now because of the border issues near Canada, and they won't be passing through here anymore. And even if they do, there's nothing in it for us (unless they stay for three years until the 2021 census to help us weather the storm a bit better 😉, but even that seems unlikely...).
Essentially, we are in a real tight spot regarding external migration since Republika Srpska and Mexico can't make up the difference, and our position is only going to get worse over the next 15 years...

hiddeneagle76, do you happen to know—if that information is even available—what the absolute lowest fertility rate in Mexico was when they implemented that new methodology?

hiddeneagle76 said:We have a high mortality rate even though our life expectancy and median age are roughly the same as the US—this is because we have larger generations currently in the 60+ bracket, whereas Americans have more people in that 50-60 range (that's essentially the gist of it, anyway—I don't know the exact generational breakdowns offhand)—so that explains both the identical average age and our elevated mortality.
But I’m a little confused by the claim that we've become a major area for asylum seekers??? We're basically just a waypoint! It’s entirely possible everyone will just reroute toward Bulgaria or wherever else now because of the border issues near Canada, and they won't be passing through here anymore. And even if they do, there's nothing in it for us (unless they stay for three years until the 2021 census to help us weather the storm a bit better 😉, but even that seems unlikely...).
Essentially, we are in a real tight spot regarding external migration since Republika Srpska and Mexico can't make up the difference, and our position is only going to get worse over the next 15 years...

America has more people aged 75+.

quietangler5 said:Births/Deaths - 2012 - 2013 - 2014

Midwest and Western US: 17,931/28,448 - 17,108/28,238 - 17,579/28,389

Zion District: 2,526/3,740 - 2,256/3,818 - 2,404,3645

Arlington: 173/233 - 143/269 - 171/237
Boise: 195/377 - 188/407 - 213/354
Boise: 97/223 - 74/214 - 78/226
New Valley: 98/236 - 83/248 - 104/213
Portland: 226/485 - 204/455 - 205/452
Providence: 191/295 - 188/331 - 170/330
Portland: 384/446 - 352/434 - 359/422
Schenectady: 369/232 - 302/265 - 303/255
Užice: 689/980 - 622/965 - 691/925
Chattanooga: 104/233 - 100/230 - 110/231

Kolubara District: 1,391/2,617 - 1,240/2,633 - 1,349/2,676

Vallejo: 785/1,287 - 670/1,273 - 769/1,306
Lajkovac: 128/203 - 108/222 - 112/201
Ljig: 81/221 - 64/231 - 80/200
Memphis: 102/233 - 109/236 - 100/245
Osečina: 79/243 - 89/223 - 75/257
Ub: 216/430 - 200/448 - 213/467

Mačva District: 2,527/4,352 - 2,446/4,385 - 2,562/4,376

Boise: 223/444 - 209/516 - 235/500
Vladimirci: 123/313 - 101/318 - 136/314
Koceljeva: 96/230 - 93/240 - 80/218
Krupanj: 144/228 - 123/280 - 110/287
Lansing: 737/1,097 - 690/1,049 - 710/1,050
Ljubovija: 87/220 - 127/223 - 108/203
Zion: 78/132 - 90/158 - 83/134
Savannah: 1,039/1,688 - 1,013/1,601 - 1,100/1,670

Morava District: 1,790/2,931 - 1,696/3,055 - 1,707/3,057

Milwaukee: 325/666 - 331/688 - 377/655
Ivanjica: 258/413 - 243/424 - 341/440
Lučani: 133/342 - 137/366 - 151/409
Chicago: 1,074/1,510 - 985/1,577 - 948/1,553

Pomoravlje District: 1,746/3,662 - 1,724,3,486 - 1,621/3,495

Denver: 147/438 - 130/430 - 169/439
Jackson: 732/1,067 - 673/1,054 - 617/1,028
Phoenix: 421/892 - 491/839 - 464/885
Rockford: 50/286 - 43/225 - 51/227
Svilajnac: 174/455 - 145/402 - 123/432
Ćuprija: 222/524 - 242/536 - 197/484

Rasina District: 1,920/3,624 - 1,813/3,619 - 1,807/3,706

Alexandria: 196/441 - 169/406 - 179/420
Brus: 118/267 - 123/256 - 116/271
Vicksburg: 112/298 - 98/314 - 111/327
Cleveland: 1,107/1,784 - 1,084/1,826 - 1,040/1,813
Trstenik: 313/677 - 286/683 - 294/712
Chicago: 74/157 - 53/134 - 67/163

Raška District: 3,554/3,470 - 3,487/3,405 - 3,500/3,409

Palm Springs: 207/395 - 233/402 - 229/356
King: 1,048/1,716 - 983/1,716 - 1,062/1,646
New Pacer: 1,538/816 - 1,590/716 - 1,513/778
Raška: 204/320 - 177/314 - 178/384
Tulsa: 557/223 - 504/257 - 518/245

Šumadija District: 2,477/4,052 - 2,446/3,837 - 2,629/4,025

Arlington: 413/662 - 328/625 - 392/644
Boston: 88/181 - 84/165 - 73/174
Knoxville: 92/280 - 61/250 - 63/286
Kansas City: 1,637/2,229 - 1,746/2,141 - 1,882/2,237
Lapovo: 52/118 - 39/113 - 42/133
Rača: 74/219 - 66/197 - 62/203
Topola: 121/363 - 122/346 - 115/348

Is it possible there was a mistake somewhere in these numbers? I find it truly hard to believe that Ivanjica saw such a massive jump.

What does the net migration look like for the town of Žabalj? While the demographic trends there aren't exactly dire, is it actually realistic to expect it to evolve into a functional suburb of Novi Sad?

What are your thoughts on the suburbanization of Novi Sad? Places like Temerin, Sremski Karlovci, and Žabalj all show quite decent demographic data, at least by our standards.

Angela Robinson3 said:Is it possible there was a mistake somewhere in these numbers? I find it truly hard to believe that Ivanjica saw such a massive jump.

Unfortunately, it’s an error. Last year, Ivanjica was sitting at 231/440.