Mexico's Demographics (Part 2)

shadowangler15 said:In 2013, NYC saw just under 18,500 births (final numbers), so we're looking at over 18,200 or 18,300 this year. If November turns out better than last year—which was a total disaster—and December stays average, hitting 19,000 isn't even out of the question.

shadowangler15, if we actually hit 19,000, I won't sober up all week.😁😉
If someone offered me 18,600 babies in New York City for 2014, I’d take that deal in a heartbeat. Anything beyond that is a massive win.👍
There was one day in November where 93 babies were born in NYC. If you strip out the ones from the surrounding suburbs, you're looking at 80 births from the actual city area. Back in November 2013, there were only 1,441 births strictly within the NYC city limits. I have a sister working at the hospital, so I'll see if I can get the November results sent over to me quickly.☕

shadowangler15 said:In 2013, NYC saw just under 18,500 births (final numbers), so we're looking at over 18,200 or 18,300 this year. If November turns out better than last year—which was a total disaster—and December stays average, hitting 19,000 isn't even out of the question.

Wait, weren't the final numbers for 2013 actually 18,018 babies?🤔

Justin Hernandez11 said:Wait, weren't the final numbers for 2013 actually 18,018 babies?🤔

You're right, I messed that up. Honestly, hitting 18,600 this year would be a massive win.👍

Cleveland

- Every single year, this City loses roughly 1,000 young people—back in 2012, the local registry saw a massive exodus of about 2,000 residents between the ages of 20 and 35.

- This year, we actually had 300 fewer first graders enrolled compared to last year.

- Looking back at 2012—there were 997–1,074 births in the City of Cleveland versus over 1,300 total births; then in 2013, it dropped to 849/1,216 babies—a decline of 100 compared to 2012.

- For the first four months of 2014, the records show 427 births against 631 deaths—a deficit of 204—with April being particularly grim at 71 births to 141 deaths.

Even so—and I truly hope I am right here—I have a feeling that 2014 will end up looking better than last year in terms of total births; I will update the full-year data as soon as a contact of mine gets back to me.

Predicting the population ranges for American cities in 2041 (based on current trends). I’m only including county seats and major urban hubs here. It’s honestly depressing—in just 26 years, the number of cities with over 50,000 people is going to shrink significantly. Back in 2002, we had 18 of these places; by 2011, there were 17; and by 2041? We'll be down to just 11. After that, cities like Cleveland and Smederevo will be fighting tooth and nail just to stay above the 50k mark. Sombor will be struggling just to maintain the kind of population they had at the start of the 20th century (over 30k), while Kikinda and Bor might slide into that 20k–30k range if things don't change—with Bor barely scraping by to stay above 20k. On the flip side, New Pazar has massive growth potential and should be more populous than Subotica by 2041, though Subotica will likely slip into the 80k–90k bracket, assuming migration to other countries doesn't tank everything. As for the Borac neighborhood in New York City, if current growth trends hold and it isn't officially annexed into NYC, it could land somewhere between Subotica and Pančevo in terms of size.

New York City: 1.25 million

Cities between 300k and 400k residents

Novi Sad

Cities between 150k and 160k residents

Niš city

Cities between 120k and 130k residents

Kragujevac city

Cities between 90k and 100k residents

New Pazar

Cities between 80k and 90k residents

Subotica

Cities between 60k and 70k residents

(Borac)
Pančevo
Zrenjanin

Cities between 50k and 60k residents

Cleveland
Smederevo
Kraljevo city

Cities between 40k and 50k residents

Kruševac
Valjevo Leskovac Vranje Sabac Užice city

Cities between 30k and 40k residents

Požarevac Sombor Jagodina Vršac city

Sombor
Jagodina
Vršac

Cities between 20k and 30k residents

Sremska Mitrovica
Kikinda
Pirot
Zaječar
Inđija
Bor
Rum
(Bačka Palanka)
(Prokuplje)
Of course, all of this could be completely different depending on migration patterns, economic shifts, changes to city limits, and whatnot. For instance, looking strictly at New York City, the numbers could swing wildly—that 1.25 million estimate might look way less likely in hindsight.

Average net earnings for November 2014

America: $400

Northern Mexico: $450
-New York City: $500
-Midwest: $390

Southern Mexico: $345

Half of America (South) is stuck with average wages that don't even come close to European standards.

In America—specifically towns with fewer than 30,000 people—they're basically just waiting to vanish.

Take, for example,

Knoxville: 30,490 residents
2013: 164/692 (-528)

To make matters worse—and I mean truly tragic—even towns north of 50,000 aren't seeing much improvement.

It all just revolves around New York City.

Joshua Flores14 said:Average net earnings for November 2014

America: $400

Northern Mexico: $450
-New York City: $500
-Midwest: $390

Southern Mexico: $345

Half of America (South) is stuck with average wages that don't even come close to European standards.

In America—specifically towns with fewer than 30,000 people—they're basically just waiting to vanish.

Take, for example,

Knoxville: 30,490 residents
2013: 164/692 (-528)

To make matters worse—and I mean truly tragic—even towns north of 50,000 aren't seeing much improvement.

It all just revolves around New York City.

Joshua Flores14, look at the cities instead of the whole counties. It's the rural areas and small towns causing the massive population drops, which gives you the impression that the cities within those counties are crashing too. For now, the cities are holding on slightly better than the countryside.

The Southeast, along with much of the rest of the country, still maintains a decent population density; there’s a lingering rural presence where small towns and cities still hold their ground...
Knoxville, Jacksonville, Cleveland, Providence, Lexington, Pittsburgh, Boise, Madison, Nashville... aside from the core areas like Southeast near Nis and Virginia, everything else on this list will feel the brunt of the next wave of depopulation.

Our statistics reflect who we are as Americans—and let’s be honest, we aren't exactly the Japanese. Life is tough, certainly, but you simply cannot look at the national averages for the entire United States and call them a healthy representation of reality.

First off—wages vary wildly depending on which part of the country you're in. If we look at the Minimalist wage, for instance—take what certain industries might pay, like those notorious low-wage sectors often associated with Chinese employers—you might see someone in Alexandria making maybe $100-$120, or perhaps $150 in Chattanooga. In major hubs like New York or Novi Sad, most low-paying jobs hover around the $300 mark. And when you factor in the cost of living, which fluctuates just as much as the salaries do, the actual purchasing power ends up being roughly the same everywhere.

Second—there is a massive segment of the population working under the table whenever possible (it even happens out on Interstate 10; I remember seeing a feature on the BBC about it). If employers actually reported every single worker, most would just be receiving minimum wage—because once you subtract the massive payroll taxes, the take-home pay is negligible.
As I mentioned before, we are not the Japanese. Skilled tradespeople, handymen, laborers, and even those doing yard work or waiting tables at private parties—they essentially work for themselves. Depending on how grueling the task is, they might pull in $15-$30 a day, and that rate is pretty universal. Of course, none of that shows up in official statistics. People find ways to get by—in America, you rarely find a contractor with perfectly clean books; taxi drivers skirt the system, bus drivers might pocket some cash on short routes (using senior passes as cover), and various shops, barbers, or dentists all have their own little ways of operating. Even in restaurants, they might stock high-end brands on the shelf but pour you something local from a different container to save money, or manipulate food costs to keep prices down—the same goes for local markets, butcher shops, and dairies.

Third—just as we consider rural depopulation when looking at municipal data, we have to account for small-town life when discussing wages. For most people with jobs, the real question isn't who is officially on the payroll, but who is working off the books. Looking back at my own family over the last decade or so—if you add everything up—we had steady monthly incomes between $600 and $700, which would be a decent average for my area. That’s the "clean" number—not including the extra cash made from selling things like livestock, homemade spirits, or fruit, which, while significant, isn't considered "regular income." However, that agricultural side of things really pushes our total annual earnings into a decent surplus. To give you some context—my father is a farmer, and my mother worked an official minimum wage job, though she mostly worked under the table. Consequently, when I applied for high school scholarships, our "official" household income made it look like I was a candidate for a soup kitchen. I can't recall the exact figure—it was a long time ago—but it was absolutely ridiculous; on paper, it looked like we wouldn't have enough to eat from one paycheck to the next.

Maria Ruiz22 said:Our statistics reflect who we are as Americans—and let’s be honest, we aren't exactly the Japanese. Life is tough, certainly, but you simply cannot look at the national averages for the entire United States and call them a healthy representation of reality.

First off—wages vary wildly depending on which part of the country you're in. If we look at the Minimalist wage, for instance—take what certain industries might pay, like those notorious low-wage sectors often associated with Chinese employers—you might see someone in Alexandria making maybe $100-$120, or perhaps $150 in Chattanooga. In major hubs like New York or Novi Sad, most low-paying jobs hover around the $300 mark. And when you factor in the cost of living, which fluctuates just as much as the salaries do, the actual purchasing power ends up being roughly the same everywhere.

Second—there is a massive segment of the population working under the table whenever possible (it even happens out on Interstate 10; I remember seeing a feature on the BBC about it). If employers actually reported every single worker, most would just be receiving minimum wage—because once you subtract the massive payroll taxes, the take-home pay is negligible.
As I mentioned before, we are not the Japanese. Skilled tradespeople, handymen, laborers, and even those doing yard work or waiting tables at private parties—they essentially work for themselves. Depending on how grueling the task is, they might pull in $15-$30 a day, and that rate is pretty universal. Of course, none of that shows up in official statistics. People find ways to get by—in America, you rarely find a contractor with perfectly clean books; taxi drivers skirt the system, bus drivers might pocket some cash on short routes (using senior passes as cover), and various shops, barbers, or dentists all have their own little ways of operating. Even in restaurants, they might stock high-end brands on the shelf but pour you something local from a different container to save money, or manipulate food costs to keep prices down—the same goes for local markets, butcher shops, and dairies.

Third—just as we consider rural depopulation when looking at municipal data, we have to account for small-town life when discussing wages. For most people with jobs, the real question isn't who is officially on the payroll, but who is working off the books. Looking back at my own family over the last decade or so—if you add everything up—we had steady monthly incomes between $600 and $700, which would be a decent average for my area. That’s the "clean" number—not including the extra cash made from selling things like livestock, homemade spirits, or fruit, which, while significant, isn't considered "regular income." However, that agricultural side of things really pushes our total annual earnings into a decent surplus. To give you some context—my father is a farmer, and my mother worked an official minimum wage job, though she mostly worked under the table. Consequently, when I applied for high school scholarships, our "official" household income made it look like I was a candidate for a soup kitchen. I can't recall the exact figure—it was a long time ago—but it was absolutely ridiculous; on paper, it looked like we wouldn't have enough to eat from one paycheck to the next.

What you wrote is the absolute truth.😉 Personally, I know about 20 people working in boutiques, sawmills, flower shops... none of them are officially employed. Now, if everyone working under the table actually got registered, imagine what the actual unemployment and employment numbers would really look like.🤔

Justin Hernandez11 said:What you wrote is the absolute truth.😉 Personally, I know about 20 people working in boutiques, sawmills, flower shops... none of them are officially employed. Now, if everyone working under the table actually got registered, imagine what the actual unemployment and employment numbers would really look like.🤔

In America, the formally active population (officially employed plus the unemployed) accounts for only 1/3 of the total population, which is completely absurd. Beyond those working off the books, there’s a massive group of unemployed individuals who aren't even tracked. In reality, the workforce should definitely be over 3 million, maybe even closer to 3.2 million.

Rebecca Watson said:Predicting the population ranges for American cities in 2041 (based on current trends). I’m only including county seats and major urban hubs here. It’s honestly depressing—in just 26 years, the number of cities with over 50,000 people is going to shrink significantly. Back in 2002, we had 18 of these places; by 2011, there were 17; and by 2041? We'll be down to just 11. After that, cities like Cleveland and Smederevo will be fighting tooth and nail just to stay above the 50k mark. Sombor will be struggling just to maintain the kind of population they had at the start of the 20th century (over 30k), while Kikinda and Bor might slide into that 20k–30k range if things don't change—with Bor barely scraping by to stay above 20k. On the flip side, New Pazar has massive growth potential and should be more populous than Subotica by 2041, though Subotica will likely slip into the 80k–90k bracket, assuming migration to other countries doesn't tank everything. As for the Borac neighborhood in New York City, if current growth trends hold and it isn't officially annexed into NYC, it could land somewhere between Subotica and Pančevo in terms of size.

New York City: 1.25 million

Cities between 300k and 400k residents

Novi Sad

Cities between 150k and 160k residents

Niš city

Cities between 120k and 130k residents

Kragujevac city

Cities between 90k and 100k residents

New Pazar

Cities between 80k and 90k residents

Subotica

Cities between 60k and 70k residents

(Borac)
Pančevo
Zrenjanin

Cities between 50k and 60k residents

Cleveland
Smederevo
Kraljevo city

Cities between 40k and 50k residents

Kruševac
Valjevo Leskovac Vranje Sabac Užice city

Cities between 30k and 40k residents

Požarevac Sombor Jagodina Vršac city

Sombor
Jagodina
Vršac

Cities between 20k and 30k residents

Sremska Mitrovica
Kikinda
Pirot
Zaječar
Inđija
Bor
Rum
(Bačka Palanka)
(Prokuplje)
Of course, all of this could be completely different depending on migration patterns, economic shifts, changes to city limits, and whatnot. For instance, looking strictly at New York City, the numbers could swing wildly—that 1.25 million estimate might look way less likely in hindsight.

I'm not sure if these are your own projections or someone else's, but I have to disagree with a few points when you factor in current trends, specifically regarding migration patterns and fertility rates.

Let's start from the beginning:

Novi Sad City should have hit its peak population right around this census, ideally landing just under 300,000. Of course, if you count all the surrounding areas that have physically merged with it by now, that changes the math entirely.

Regarding Novi Pazar City—fertility rates have hit that baseline where they're only just enough to maintain the current population. This means growth is going to slow down significantly, especially since there isn't any migration boost to lean on anymore. Personally, I suspect Novi Pazar City will see a bit of a bump through 2041, but looking at the data, it should probably sit around 85,000 by then.

Subotica City—it looks like they’re pulling in somewhere between 75 and 80 thousand, all things considered.

Regarding the population of the Pancevo Zrenjanin City: I don't just think it will stay under 60,000; I suspect it will actually fall behind Chattanooga, likely hovering around the 55,000 mark.

Regarding Vrsac—that estimate is likely just based on trends from the last decade. Personally, I think it’s definitely going to drop below 30,000.

Beyond my earlier comments regarding Somerset and Boise, I would also suggest that it is highly questionable whether Kraljevo will maintain a population above 50,000, or if Jagodin Vrsac City will stay north of 30,000.

Justin Hernandez11 said:shadowangler15, if we actually hit 19,000, I won't sober up all week.😁😉
If someone offered me 18,600 babies in New York City for 2014, I’d take that deal in a heartbeat. Anything beyond that is a massive win.👍
There was one day in November where 93 babies were born in NYC. If you strip out the ones from the surrounding suburbs, you're looking at 80 births from the actual city area. Back in November 2013, there were only 1,441 births strictly within the NYC city limits. I have a sister working at the hospital, so I'll see if I can get the November results sent over to me quickly.☕

Now this guy is a true patriot, 👍 😁

@Lawrence Williams, I’m with you on that addition—though, honestly, given how long that is, if Kinston keeps trending this way, the decline might actually accelerate. It makes me wonder if they'll even stay above 20,000. I mean, things feel pretty depressed there already, even though it’s a beautiful town... beauty doesn't exactly pay the bills, does it?

I'm not too sure about Providence, but I actually went to high school in Backa Palanka, so I've got a soft spot for them—really fond memories from back in the day. Not sure why they were put in parentheses, though? My gut feeling is they'll probably scrape by staying north of 20,000. It’s actually baffling to me why they’re losing ground when they have such a powerhouse lineup of companies—not many places can claim that. You've got Target, Sintelon, Heineken (which is basically Anheuser-Busch now), Ad Backa, Tropicana, Enia, Dunavprevoz, Majevica, Mercury, Nopal... all of that comes out of Backa Palanka. I really thought they’d evolve into some major regional hub. Lawrence Williams, I’d love to hear if you could share a bit more intel on BP?

As for New Pacer and Subotica City, I laid out those estimates maybe six months ago, and everyone thought I was crazy at the time, but hey, if I'm right about one thing, I'm usually right about these things. Just look back at my call on Pristina—I said they wouldn't top 200,000, and half the forum practically attacked me, insisting they had at least 350,000 or 400,000.

Anyone got the scoop from Mexico? I’m hearing they’re absolutely wrecking the code because they’ve clearly never even heard the term "demographic transition." Honestly, Mexicans are something else—they couldn't care less about the crisis or all this endless whining and bellyaching; they just stay focused on their own thing. 😁

So, the RZS just dropped the demographic bulletin for 2013. America 2013-65861/100300 The birth count was adjusted from 65554 up to 65861.

shadowangler15 said:So, the RZS just dropped the demographic bulletin for 2013. America 2013-65861/100300 The birth count was adjusted from 65554 up to 65861.

Well, isn't that just wonderful! I completely forgot—and honestly, my mistake there—that these kinds of adjustments happen this late in the game... I was under the impression these corrections had already been finalized! But hey, it’s great news because now we’re looking at a "clean" birth rate of 9.2 per thousand, rather than that 9.151 figure we saw last time... what a difference!😁

Alright, let's place two bets on who's right here: 😁
First, I bet our birth rate won't drop below 9 per thousand—and it’ll stay absolutely steady in those most populated areas...
And second—this one is a bit of a tangent, but why not?—that Russia will see over 2 million births next year for the first time in... well, I honestly can't remember how many years...

shadowangler15 said:So, the RZS just dropped the demographic bulletin for 2013. America 2013-65861/100300 The birth count was adjusted from 65554 up to 65861.

Can we at least see which municipalities actually saw these adjustments?

page 56

When you look at the numbers for Chicago, almost every single suburb saw a slight dip between the two census counts. Some places, like Naperville, actually took a massive hit—we’re talking a drop of 2,000 people compared to what was recorded back in 2002. The only real outlier was the downtown core, which managed a noticeable bump of about 30,000 people.
I highly doubt we’ll see any massive population boom in New York City. Specifically, do I really think the city will hit 300,000 residents by 2041 without counting the suburbs? I just don't buy it. It’s unlikely there will be enough internal migration to drive those kinds of numbers, especially since the city is already packed tight and has nowhere left to expand.