4 ms·
The problem with such calculations is that they're very sensitive to the chosen starting point: compare the growths in the most recent 3 instead of 5 years: Au
by em500 2y ago
The problem with such calculations is that they're very sensitive to the chosen starting point: compare the growths in the most recent 3 instead of 5 years:
Austin: 502-> 510 growth: 1.6%
Dallas: 263-> 295 growth: 12.2%
NYC: 255-> 318 growth: 24.7%
SF: 349-> 361 growth: 3.4%
LA: 384-> 443 growth: 15.4%
- pinkmuffinere 2y agoIf we're looking for a trend that follows a specific city instead of specific year and city, then I agree. For that purpose I think I'd like to run this same calculation for the 5 year interval 2019-2024, and 2018-2023, and 2017-2022, etc, to see if there is a trend that is unique to the cities, as opposed to the cities in a certain year. However, my interpretation of the original claim about Austin is "Austin house prices have grown less in the last 5 years than other places". That claim is pretty specific, and can be examined by looking at just the start and end points. Looking at the end points, it seems incorrect.
- lurk2 2y agoI ran into this problem yesterday trying to calculate changes in federal spending over time. One user claimed that inflation-adjusted spending had sharply declined between 2000 and 2010 - which was true. But I had already calculated that spending had sharply increased from 1990 to 2023. I couldn't understand how we had reached such different conclusions until I looked at the IRS data book and saw that there was a slump in 2010 (presumably due to the effects of the Great Recession) and a huge spike starting in 2020. "Lies, damn lies, and statistics."