Has anyone figured out the U.S. "growth" without Alaska?

by OnTheWayOut 5 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  OnTheWayOut

  I haven't stopped to really examine this, but I keep hearing that the U.S. figures for
  3% growth last year included Alaska (and Hawaii?) because it is no longer a separate
  branch.

  It doesn't sound too complicated for you math minds that tabulate this stuff.
  What would be the growth of the U.S. if they didn't merge these?
  Could you take the last separate Alaska report number out of the growth and
  see if they added it to the U.S. numbers or combined the two numbers.

  Example: 2006- Alaska has [A] publishers and U.S. has [U] publishers
  2007- Either Alaska and U.S. had [A + U] publishers plus growth
  or Alaska and U.S. had [U] publishers plus growth (hiding [A] in the growth)

  I would be interested in hearing the truth about their numbers from anyone in the know.
• 

  MeneMene

  Missing Link said the Alaska numbers did not alter the US 3%. I checked further and found -

  They did add in Alaska to the 2007 report before figuring the increase.

  On the 2006 Report: Alaska - 2006 Avg Pubs - 2141 US - 2006 Avg Pubs - 1,008,281

  On the 2007 Report: US - 2006 Avg Pubs - 1,010,442

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/153601/2810137/post.ashx#2810137

  So, it looks like the Alaska ##s did not inflate the US ##s
• 

  5go

  I think some hit the nail on the head with the fact that Alaska wasn't showing an increase. So they merged it to remove that from the report.
• 

  jonathan adabe

  The USA growth (including Alaska) was 3.18%
  Remove Alaska (assuming no change to 2006 data) USA growth would show 3.19%
  Add all three, USA, Alaska, Hawaii and overall growth would be 3.17%

  The small numbers of Alaska and Hawaii do not affect the results of the huge USA numbers.

  Hope this helps. Based on Average Publishers not Peak numbers. JA
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Well, okay then.

  The WTS seems to do virtually everything on the sly with hidden agenda.
  Perhaps this is just a simplifying of data when no more branch was being used,
  and perhaps for one of just a handful of times, they did something for no particular
  reason. It could happen.

  Thanks all for your observations.
• 

  jonathan adabe

  Incidently the Alaska figures for 2004, 2005, 2006 showed negative growths of minus 0.58%, minus 2.92%, and minus 0.88%.

  There are no published data for Alaska in 2007.