Originally posted by Asher
I don't know what your problem is. I didn't misread.
You took a 5 year growth rate and compared it to the quoted 25 year growth rate for Calgary. The only way to do this is to extrapolate. Do you even realize that?
You didn't compare like metrics, you fudged the numbers until they were like at which point I told you you can't do that.
I don't know what your problem is. I didn't misread.
You took a 5 year growth rate and compared it to the quoted 25 year growth rate for Calgary. The only way to do this is to extrapolate. Do you even realize that?
You didn't compare like metrics, you fudged the numbers until they were like at which point I told you you can't do that.
Okay, I'm going to try doing this with really small words.
Let's say I have a population of 100 midgets. After 25 years their population is 200. This means that their population grew at about 2.8% annually, on average, during that period.
Let's say I have another population of 100 midgets. After 5 years their population is 115. This means that their population also grew at about 2.8% annually, on average, during that 5-year period.
Therefore, for at least a particular 5-year period, the second population of midgets was experiencing a growth rate equivalent to the first.
What the hell -- you just took a 5 year metric and compared it to one over 25 years (as an estimate) then you decided to give me **** for being more precise? You're upset with me because I was being precise, I'm asking for you to find equivalent real numbers rather than relying on projections or extrapolations to make that claim.
I never once extrapolated anything. I compounded the numbers to perform a mathematical comparison, one exactly equivalent to comparing the average annual growth rate.
Jesus Christ, I thought you'd be able to understand this.
Comment