Gross = without deductions
Net = with deductions
There, I understand.
Cedars
World map showing net reduction in publisher numbers
by cedars 188 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
slimboyfat
So what was the gross increase in Brazil last year and the net increase?
-
slimboyfat
Aren't many of those baptized already publishers?
Leolaia, not just many, but everyone who gets baptised must first be an unbaptised publisher, as far as I am aware.
-
cedars
So what was the gross increase in Brazil last year and the net increase?
Gross increase was 14,197. If you count baptisms (a growth indicator) as a deductible to arrive at how many stayed or left, then once deducting 27,425 baptisms from the 14,197 gross increase, you arrive at our "net" figure of -13,228. You seem to want to call it a net increase, even though it's a negative figure.
Cedars
[edit post: to be more exact, it's a net decrease of 13,228, or a net increase of minus 13,228. Depends whether you want to express the minus in the figure or not.]
-
Soldier77
This analysis points out a few things about the WTS report.
1. Distinction of unbaptized publishers and publishers numbers. Not included.
2. The tracking of these numbers.
3. Reporting these numbers.
What I want to see is the numbers of unbaptized publishers for this year with difference of last year. The difference of baptized publishers for this year over last. Then include the number baptized for the year etc.
That would give us a better idea of the "growth".
-
slimboyfat
No, the gross increase was 27,425.*
The net increase was 14,197.
And those "missing in action" were 27,425 - 14,197 - those who died = unknown
*Assuming baptisms and net changes in publishers even out to be roughly equivalent over time, and excluding emigration as 00Dad suggested.
-
cedars
slimboyfat
No, the gross increase was 27,425.*
I'm actually relieved now! You've been convincing me I don't know my maths, but you've just proved you don't have a clue, sorry mate.
27,425 could never possibly be described as the "gross increase" - it's purely the number of baptisms. We've already established (as Leolaia can verify) that baptisms do not equal "increase". This is because many of those baptized are registered as unbaptized publishers the same year.
27,425 is a variable that I refer to as a "growth indicator". It is NOT the "gross increase". That's a very misleading term to give it.
Cedars
-
slimboyfat
What I want to see is the numbers of unbaptized publishers for this year with difference of last year. The difference of baptized publishers for this year over last. Then include the number baptized for the year etc.
That would give us a better idea of the "growth".
Yes it would, but those figures are not available.
-
cedars
slimboyfat
And those "missing in action" were 27,425 - 14,197 - those who died = unknown
That's my equation you quoted. Are you saying it now has merit, so long as you call the figure "missing in action" and deduct the estimated mortalities? That's a LONG way from how you were arguing a few moments ago. What's changed?
Cedars
-
slimboyfat
I made that qualification about baptisms not being strictly equal to the gross increase in my post.
None of which helps the inaccuracy of your description of a net increase in publishers as a net reduction.