by Joker10 59 Replies latest jw friends
I wonder how much of that is inflation. If they count those who are witlesses, plus those studying to become witlesses as reported, then I might believe that it is close to 2 million in this country. However, most of those studies become complete fiascos as they discontinue the study or bumble on without doing anything else.
The only major religion that has been showing significant growth in this country is atheism. Which is good news.
Just to throw some other figures in here:
To increase from 1.381M to 1.914M between 1990 to 2008 requires a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.3%
The same time period shows adult population increasing from 175.44M to 228.18M which is 1.5% CAGR
Therefore the net difference is 3.8% year on year growth, adjusted for population expansion.
If I had the 1990 peak publisher figure as reported by the WTS for the USA I could run a comparison to their 1.105M 2007 peak figure.
joker10,
:Leolaia, how do you figure? 583,000 people on top of the 1,381,000 is 44%.
So? If a group grows from 100 to 200 in 100 years, it has grown 100%. Whoopty doo. It has actually grown at roughly 1% per year. Annual growth averages are much more meaningful than overall growth between two arbitrary years.
If you took the growth rate of dubs between 1970 and 1975 it would look like a spectacular number, yet just a few years later the WT cult lost members.
For the Catholic Church to grow 10% in one year, it would have to get 100,000,000 new members. For the WTS to grow 10% in one year, it would only have to get about 700,000 members, or 99,300,000 LESS members than the Catholic Church.
Why don't you post some statistics that tell the REAL story, like the fact that the JW religion loses more members every year than the Nazi party lost after WWII?
Besides that, even if 100,000,000 million dubs existed and believed their idiotic religion, it is still an idiotic religion.
Farkel
[deleted for redundancy]
Farkel
Leolaia, how do you figure? 583,000 people on top of the 1,381,000 is 44%.
1,914,000 x 0.438 = 838,332. Not 583,000.
1,331,000 / 1,914,000 = 0.695. Not 0.562.
My number takes joker's 43% figure and his 1991 and 2008 comparison dates and divided by 17, instead of 7. I used HIS number and therefore his assertion.
I've seen this sort of thinking a couple of places here. You can't divide the 43% by 17 to get annual growth. It's accumulated, just like interest.
Let's take an example of having $100 invested and paid 10% interest once per year. At the end of year 1, you get $10 interest ($100 * 10% = $10) and you have $110. At the end of your second year, your interest is $11 ($110 * 10% = $11) and you have $121. Over the 2 years, you gained 21%, but your annual interest rate wasn't 10.5% (21% divided by 2) it was 10%.
The exact computation can be done this way:
10^( log 10 (end_value / beginning_value) * (1/years) ) - 1
So, the annual growth rate to go from 1,381,000 to 1,914,000 in 18 years is 1.829803%
Of course, that would assume a static annual growth rate. When in fact, there were different growth/decline rates from year to year throughout those 18 years.
http://www.gatheringofisrael.com/gospelclock/gospelclock2002.html
Don't know if there's an updated version but this puts it in perspective.
jws....BTW, 1,331,000 wasn't the figure for 1991; it was the figure for 2001. Could you do the same computation for the 7 years beween 2001 and 2008?
Wow!! A gospel counter...
To increase from 1.381M to 1.914M between 1990 to 2008 requires a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.3%
The annual growth rate would be 1.83% over that period. 5.3% over 18 years would mean they grew by 2.5 times and would be at about 3.5M.
The same time period shows adult population increasing from 175.44M to 228.18M which is 1.5% CAGR
Close, but 1.47%
Therefore the net difference is 3.8% year on year growth, adjusted for population expansion.
Net would be 0.36%.
