A Few Words About These United States Population Statistics.
All figures listed below for years before 1992 are US CensusBureau figures as per the source files. Where there were anassortment of figures for a specific year, we averaged them.1992 was an estimate. Years after 1992 are our estimates ona predicted growth rate of 1%, as the average growth rate ofall the averaged figures from 1972-1992 was exactly 1.00%.
The raw data from which we took these figures is appended asfootnote #2. All dates not given are presumed to be July 1,as that is the official date given by the US Census Bureaus,over the years, except where otherwise noted. Dates are forfootnoted figures only.
Why and How You Should Use These Tables
Given the rapid inflation that took place sometimes over thepast few decades, you might be aware that if a report said acertain monetary figure was up 10% during one decade, it wasprudent to check to see if the figures took the inflationarytrends into account to tell you the actual value a figure inone year might represent would actually be less than figureswhich counted more value in lesser numbers of dollars in theprevious decade.
Thus you would be wise to consult a table of Price Indices—such as the file "price10.txt" released in 1993, before yourevaluation of such figures is complete.
The same is true of population figures, which are going up acertain amount every year, in a very similar manner to thoseprice index figures, only not quite as fast, in most cases.
What Started This Report
Very recently, there was a report issued on education, whichstated something on the order of people in the United Statesare receiving 10% more of a certain level of education, thanthey were a decade before.
The years and the exact figures have been altered to protectthose responsible from embarrassment.
For example: let us presume the report stated:
Graduation From Grade School was up 5% from 1981 to 1991.
You would think from this report that the average kid had 5%greater chances of getting a Grade School Diploma in 91 thanin 81. . .but. . .it turns out that it was just the oppositebecause the population was 1.097352 times larger in 91, thanit had been in 1981. . .which is about 10% larger, thus in a"real education" sense, in the same way the monetary reportsare given in "real dollars" or "constant dollars," educationwas actually moving in just the opposite direction, and thuswas DOWN about 5% instead of UP about 5% from 1981 to 1991.
Remember, these were not from years quoted in the report andthe figures were not exactly 5% or 10% respectively, nor thediploma referred to was not a Grade School Diploma, but theyare pretty close to being exact, in terms of the percentagesand years; much closer than you might expect.
***Here is a footnote explanation of how to be more exact***
To be exact, one would have to do a demographic analysis, ofthe specific portions of the population of the ages at whichsuch diplomas were conferred, as it would be irrelevant froma realistic point of view to measure the population on wholebases if you were only concerned with people who were of theage to receive Kindergarten Diplomas between 1981 and 1991—or whatever ages and a whatever kind of diploma. Thus thesefigures are not as precise as they could be, but still giventhe trends of population and education, it is obvious that atrend in one is not following the direction of the other. Afurther look at the US Census figures averaged below will be