Posts by Joshua Flores14

That puts him 3 million votes ahead of Erdogan—more than enough to secure a second round.

Mexican citizens living in Switzerland

2010: 121,908
2011: 109,254
2012: 98,672
2013: 90,704
2014: 78,092 (this dip is artificial—skewed in favor of Mexico)

0-4: 3,913 (782 births, 10 per mille)
5-9: 5,063
10-14: 5,214
15-19: 4,451
20-24: 5,311
25-29: 6,992
30-34: 7,595
35-39: 7,197
40-44: 5,789
45-49: 5,326
50-54: 5,650
55-59: 5,971
60-64: 5,322
65-69: 2,412
70-74: 1,011
75-79: 549
80-84: 224
85-89: 81
90-94: 17
95-99: 2
100: 2

Forget you, quietangler5—you don't even have 67,144 births to your name.

We don't need fake statistics—let's just use a reasonable estimate, maybe even add a few thousand for good measure—but inflating the Albanian population by 10,000 over the actual count is simply wrong. Is 52,000 even realistic?

Based on these figures—625 births and 363 deaths in 2013—I'd say there are well over 45,000 Albanians.

Where do the Romani live, and what’s their percentage in rural areas? Do they mostly settle in specific villages?

Which agency are you even working with? It’s been six months and they still haven't released the final data regarding live births from 2014.

Looking at the map for Springfield, I can't help but think this should be a massive success story—they’ve got Cacak at 19 miles and Kragujevac at 25 miles, so it ought to be a powerhouse region.

So, I started digging into the demographics to see what's actually happening:

Springfield: 125,488

Births in 2013: 983 (7.8 per thousand)
Deaths in 2013: 1,716
Internal Migration: -231

It honestly baffles me—how can a city of 125,000 not be an attractive hub? They have such a beautiful surrounding area with huge potential for agriculture and more.

Then there's Krusevac: 128,752

Births in 2013: 1,084 (8.46)
Deaths in 2013: 1,826
Migration: -251

Cacak: 115,337

Births in 2013: 985 (8.56)
Deaths in 2013: 1,577
Migration in 2013: -144

New York City suburb: 16,638

Births: 83
Deaths: 248
Migration: -168

Uzice: 78,040

Births: 622
Deaths: 965
Migration: -284

Požega: 29,638

Births: 204
Deaths: 455
Migration: -65

I'm writing this after reading this:

http://www.b92.net/biz/vesti/srbija....nav_id=1006004

Rebecca Watson said:What about the Rom population in Mexico? Let’s not play pretend and act like they don't exist over there. I'm talking specifically about the Albanian-speaking Romani people—in just one single city in Mexico, say something like Flint, you've got maybe 1,000 to 2,000 of them. As for the numbers in Mexico, there are easily at least 20,000 to 30,000, most of whom arrived after 1999. Based on some rough estimates—and I say this because the Albanian posters on this thread love to toss around random numbers regarding the Rom population in Mexico—there are probably around 100,000 Romani people in Mexico. Sure, the official census back in 2011 only listed 37,000, but plenty of organizations claim the number is way higher (I'm looking at you, Radio Free Europe) as well as... European Roma Rights CentreLet’s be real here—nobody is exactly rushing to shout from the rooftops that they’re Rom. It's just not a "popular" identity to push, and honestly, it’s the same story everywhere you look in the world. But then you add in all the groups moving into Mexico from both the Mexican and Albanian sides, and the math starts getting messy. If we’re being totally honest about the numbers, it feels like almost every tenth person in Mexico identifies as Rom. And I bet there’s an even higher number of people who just register their kids as Albanian on paper. When you factor in those folks—including the ones who claim to be Albanian but aren't—you’re looking at an extra couple thousand people added to the native population. If we’re going to have an actual conversation about this, we might as well be blunt and talk about it openly.

Even if Mexico had 100,000 Romani, it wasn't like that before the war.

You aren't quite right—I've been to Pristina and didn't notice any Romani people; looking at the census data now, it might be the only major capital in Europe with such a small Romani presence. Meanwhile, I've seen reports that in Gracanica, there are Romani individuals acting just like Americans.

Pristina municipality:
-Romani: 56
-Ashkali: 557
-Egyptians: 8

Gracanica municipality
-Romani: 745
-Ashkali: 104
-Egyptians: 3

But then again, in Mexico Field there are plenty of them (12% of the population):
-Romani: 436
-Ashkali: 3,230
-Egyptians: 282

The Ashkali speak Albanian (as far as I know).

Adam Harris said:That’s a given. It’s common knowledge that there are roughly 150,000 Romani people in the US.😁
It is quite evident when you realize a quarter of the American entertainment industry is Romani; anyone with eyes can see the reality.

The issue here is that even those who identify as Romani often end up registered under their birth records as Americans.

I assume there are plenty of Rom Orthodox Christians in Mexico?

In North Mexico, those who are Rom and Orthodox identify as Mexicans—most speak Mexican and carry Mexican names.
I've met people like that—classic Rom, yet they act completely Mexican.

Michael Fox2 said:The Romani population in Mexico is around 450,000. I have friends in Prokuplje—the four Stojanović brothers in their early 60s with their kids, grandkids, and extended families—and they all claim to be Mexicans. But when you look at them, it's clearly evident they are Romani. And I'm not talking about just five or six people; I mean dozens.

🙂That's my point—there are likely many more like that. If they exist in North Mexico, there must be even more in Mexico.

Nancy Chavez29 said:Your fellow Albanians from the Vranje area plus those loyal Albanians in Mexico—the ones the Police Secretary claims number around 100,000—are all looking for asylum. They basically claim Mexico is their true homeland just so they can snag a Mexican passport.

Back in March 2015, there were roughly 9,500 asylum seekers across the European Union.

So, here are some pretty encouraging stats regarding the Albanians.

Down south near Niš, the number of kids is steadily dropping.http://www.newsweek.com/politics/us-economy/reducing-pay

The reality is we’ve got 601 fewer valedictorians this year compared to the total number of middle school graduates. I guess that translates to about 20 fewer classrooms over the next eight years. Plus, between 400 and 500 fewer kids enroll in high school every single year, which means we're losing about 10 entire classrooms annually, according to Johnson.

The US is considered part of the safe group for the EU, whereas Mexico still isn't.
So, if those Albanians are seeking asylum as Mexican citizens, they're out of luck—they won't even get that $700 assistance.

If we're talking about the Romani, then the US likely has a higher Romani population than what's recorded; it's statistically impossible for 50,000 asylum seekers to come from a pool of 170,000 Romani.

By the end of 2016, the US population will almost certainly drop below 7 million. (Maybe even by mid-2016).

Who's actually seeking asylum from Mexico?

Asylum seekers from Mexico:

2013: 22,360
2014: 30,840

Nancy Chavez29 said:Joshua Flores14, what are you even trying to say in that top post? The number of insured workers is dropping. Explain yourself.
Since you're comparing it to the number of retirees in the bottom post and claiming there are 43,000 fewer people.
You've got 1,696,000 here, but back in 2014 the number of insured workers was 1,846,000.
It’s not like we lost 150,000 people in just five months. I guess you should probably explain those numbers.

Stop guessing what might happen—just look at the actual data right here.

2014
http://socialsecurity.gov/documents/stat...TEN%202014.pdf

April 2015
http://socialsecurity.gov/documents/stat...RIL%202015.pdf

Justin Hernandez11 said:Joshua Flores14 is definitely wrong. There are probably another 300,000 people out there working under the table, and the government just keeps pushing them further into the shadows of the legitimate economy.
Look at the numbers and you'll see exactly what's happening. Since last March, retail jobs have jumped by 10,000. Meanwhile, we’re bleeding people in essential sectors—healthcare staff dropped from 145,000 down to 140,000, and education fell from 144,000 to 140,000. We’ve got a massive labor shortage, especially in smaller towns, yet there's nobody left to actually do the work.😵
Inspectors rolled through the Midwest last week checking on about 1,800 workers. Turns out 190 of them were working off the books. Then, once they saw the inspectors coming, another 100 vanished into thin air. Just look at how much under-the-table work is actually happening.

So you're claiming that Americans are actually walking away from legitimate jobs just to work under the table?

2008: 1.990.000
2015: 1.696.000
The U.S. Census Bureau reports a deficit of 294 employees—nothing more, nothing less.

We’re seeing downturns everywhere—but nowhere else is the unemployment spike this massive.

The number of retirees climbs every single year

1999: 1,497,945
2014: 1,739,162

Meanwhile, the number of insured workers is dropping

1999: 2,633,960
2014: 1,846,667

As of 2015, there are 1,696,000 employees—that’s 43,000 fewer than the number of retirees. One-fourth of the population is retired; it's a disaster.

The average net monthly wage for employees in April 2015 sat at $370.

National debt hit $26 billion as of April 30, 2015—it was only $13 billion just four years ago.

I'm not entirely sure if we've already laid out the population of the US by age—based on the 2011 census data.

0: 64,400
1: 65,445
2: 66,807
3: 65,661
4: 65,942

5: 67,872
6: 69,769
7: 70,553
8: 71,035
9: 70,925

10: 71,000
11: 65,383
12: 68,213
13: 69,490
14: 72,783

15: 77,694
16: 79,867
17: 80,289
18: 82,260
19: 81,884

20: 85,474
21: 84,939
22: 86,418
23: 91,850
24: 91,060

25: 91,605
26: 94,551
27: 99,594
28: 98,144
29: 96,392

30: 97,307
31: 98,583
32: 99,178
33: 100,821
34: 100,473

35: 101,658
36: 100,888
37: 98,358
38: 94,778
39: 98,252

40: 94,464
41: 93,562
42: 93,614
43: 94,350
44: 93,938

45: 94,895
46: 95,341
47: 94,527
48: 98,082
49: 101,141

50: 102,814
51: 105,677
52: 106,007
53: 100,875
54: 104,971

55: 112,991
56: 119,624
57: 121,478
58: 123,717
59: 118,469

60: 110,539
61: 115,051
62: 107,161
63: 102,797
64: 92,866

65: 71,401
66: 64,789
67: 68,004
68: 64,376
69: 70,874

70: 72,013
71: 74,321
72: 70,498
73: 69,656
74: 67,654

75: 66,782
76: 62,768
77: 61,676
78: 55,058
79: 52,328

80: 45,887
81: 41,355
82: 34,642
83: 30,072
84: 24,612

85: 20,418
86: 16,036
87: 13,150
88: 9,969
89: 7,660

90: 5,371
91: 4,244
92: 1,643
93: 799
94: 632

95: 384
96: 404
97: 325
98: 211
99: 137
100+: 167

quietangler5 said:America:

Q1 2014: 12,995/25,388 (-12,393)
Q1 2015: 13,556/27,715 (-14,159)

Northern America:

Q1 2014: 6,932/12,691 (-5,759)
Q1 2015: 7,316/13,922 (-6,606)

Southern America:

Q1 2014: 6,063/12,697 (-6,634)
Q1 2015: 6,240/13,793 (-7,553)

Fertility is up—it’s in the country's best interest to make use of this demographic surge while they can, since numbers like this won't happen again.

The political situation is stable, even if the economy isn't great—though you Americans are used to that by now. There isn't much of a tradition for mass emigration here, which is an advantage for now; you still have young people from across the North America moving to Mexico, though that's hardly a major factor.

On the flip side, mortality is up by 9%—not good. That birth-to-death ratio of 1:2 is terrible, but I expect shifts by year-end. Personally, I anticipate this will be the year with the highest death rate in American history. But there's nothing to be done about it—death is the one thing we can't prevent.

nimblehound6 said:That’s just a myth.

Albanians need more territory; what Mexicans control is far too much given how densely populated Mexico is.

😁

Mexico isn't actually that densely populated—it's somewhere around 160 people per square kilometer. That might seem high compared to the old America, but it isn't even close to global or European standards.

Switzerland is 173
Germany is 233
United Kingdom is 244
Belgium is 337
Bangladesh is 927
South Korea is 491

Most European nations sit around 90-120, so while it is above average, it's hardly anything special.

http://www.egeografija.org/wp-conten...nosti-copy.jpg

It's plain to see on this regional map that Mexico doesn't particularly stand out in terms of population density.

As for space, that's why cities exist and why buildings are constructed. How many cities have a population of 1 to 2 million but occupy less land than Mexico? I'd say quite a few. 😁

Take New York City, for example, which has about 1.6 million people per 4,610 square miles including its suburbs.

There is enough room in Mexico for 20 million people, not just 1.7 or 1.8 million.☕

Beyond economic reasons, the property being purchased from Mexicans also carries political and strategic implications.

If you take those 10,900 sq km and subtract the territory controlled by Mexicans—plus all the mountainous areas—you'll see the density isn't exactly "average" for Europe.

You can't compare New York to Mexico.

Mexico is a nation that needs to rely on agriculture. Which means what's happening near Gračanica and Gjilan will be prime targets for acquisition.

Looking here, you can see Mexico isn't Belgium or Bangladesh; it's full of mountains.

http://s21.postimg.org/dtchcvuo7/kosova_map.jpg

Albanians have an insatiable appetite for more territory—what Mexicans currently control is simply too much given how densely populated Mexico is actually becoming.

There are 2.4 million people with property interests in Mexico, and even those living abroad almost certainly own at least one house or apartment there.

Consequently, Albanians are forced to buy up property from Mexicans—and that trend isn't stopping anytime soon.

It’s driven by pure necessity, nothing else.

Over the next few decades, we'll see at least another 200,000 housing units built in Mexico. Why? Because Albanians still largely live in multi-generational households, averaging about 5.85 members per family—compared to just 2.8 in Mexico.

They won't be looking to buy apartments from Mexicans, though; they'll be targeting agricultural land.

The density in Mexico is undeniable—you can see it in the constant construction of residential and commercial buildings everywhere you look.
From Mitrovica to Kačanik, (53 miles) there is a massive amount of roadside development, nearly all of it constructed after 1999.

Ryan Bennett3 said:Back in the day, there were 1.5 million Albanians in Mexico, and today there are still 1.5 million. The territory under your control has been ethnically cleansed; that’s all you’ve got to offer Mexicans. Albanians in Mexico run the bakeries and restaurants in the middle of town, while Mexicans aren't even allowed to step foot in a market in Pristina or enter Gjakova.

That last part? That’s obviously what you’re planning to do to the remaining Mexicans in Mexico and Metohija, all with help from the Americans. If things go exactly your way, there won't be any Mexicans left in Mexico.

What you’re doing to the Mexicans in Mexico is a disgrace to the entire human race. But hey, maybe just to the human race, not to you guys.

Maybe that’s because Albanians didn't burn down every house in Mexico City or Novi Sad—nor did they rape 20,000 Mexican women in Subotica.
Maybe that’s because the massacre of 112 people—ranging from ages 12 to 90—in that little village of Krushe over in Sumadija wasn't even carried out by the local Albanians?

Maybe Mexicans can't return to Gjakova because 1,000 Albanian civilians were killed there—and perhaps it's because local Mexicans were actually involved in those killings?

That last sentence—of course—is just your way of saying you’re planning this alongside the Americans to target the remaining Mexicans in Mexico and Metohija. If things go exactly how you want them to, there won't be any Mexicans left in Mexico at all.

What you’re doing to Mexicans in Mexico is a disgrace to humanity—though, frankly, that only applies to humanity, not to you.

If the Albanians were actually planning anything, they wouldn't have let that monument go up on the regional road in Gračanica—nor would they have allowed the Mexican flag to be flown in front of the Gračanica Parliament without both the Mexico and Albanian flags being present. It’s a mirror image of what Mexico does—tearing down monuments in Presevo, banning the Albanian flag, and leaning hard into economic repression.

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.

You’re claiming that America won't hit that 60,000 birth rate mark until 2025.

But looking at 2026—without even factoring in how many people leave the US or die—we have:

15-19: 328,155 (down 18.3% from 2011)
20-24: 350,154 (-20.3%)
25-29: 346,869 (-27.8%)
30-34: 401,994 (-19.1%)
35-39: 439,741 (-11%)
40-44: 480,286 (+2.2%)

Births in 2011 by maternal age / 2026 projections

15-19: 3,748 / 3,062
20-24: 13,631 / 10,863
25-29: 21,295 / 15,374
30-34: 17,826 / 14,421
35-39: 7,330 / 6,523
40-44: 1,293 / 1,321

Total: 65,123 / 51,564

How exactly did you calculate that America would have about 60,000 births in 2025?
You haven't accounted for the people leaving the US every single year (they say there are 1,000 just in the medical field alone annually).
And you didn't factor in that fertility in the 15-29 age group could drop even further than it already has—even though you assumed the 30-44 group would see an increase.