Posted by:
judyblue
(
)
Date: April 02, 2012 12:39PM
Raptor Jesus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting that the total growth is pretty much
> a straight line.
I thought the same thing, RJ. I have limited experience with population studies (and mostly at national and global levels rather than within small communities, but the principles should be the same), but shouldn't a total membership graph show an upward growth curve?
I mean, even if it is growing at a steady rate (say 2% per year), the increase wouldn't just be 2% higher every year - it has to take into account the growth from the year before.
In other words, if it starts at 1,000,000 members the first year, and adds 2% (or 20,000), then year two will have 1,020,000. But you can't just add another 20,000 the next year to keep the straight line going - you have to take into account the 20,000 from the first year. So year three would be 1,020,000 + 2% = 1,040,400 - 400 people more than a straight line graph would indicate. The next year would be 1,061,208 - 1,208 people above the straight line graph. It should be curving upward, but it doesn't.
Unless the overall growth is reducing at the exact same rate necessary to counteract exponential growth, there's no way the total membership rate should be a straight line. But, according to the overall growth % chart, this isn't happening.
The only conclusion I can draw from this is that the Morg statistics department is pulling their numbers completely out of their asses. It's almost like they plotted a growth pattern ahead of time and keep reporting on the projection as if it were true, so the members won't notice the stagnation.