Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneStarMike
Well thank you - that answers part of my question, but not the other part. If the 2010 "estimate" is more accurate than the problematic 2010 "official" count, shouldn't we be comparing the 2010 "estimate" to the 2013 "estimate" to get a truer sense of the city's growth rate? Another way to put it is: In your opinion, which figure more accurately represents our rate of growth between 2010 and 2013? 12.02% or 9.2%?
|
9.2%. That's the way the census bureau does it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneStarMike
I'm pretty sure you're right considering I provided a direct link to it in the response above yours.  |
I didn't even notice that... That's what I get for skimming.