Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

eh, I figured it out, but I think even that only works if the writer and reader have shared assumption that the thing in question inevitably grows and so insert "(rate of increase of)"...

"VR slowdown", I'd think less people are buying in, but no-one's throwing their headsets away. "Border crossing slowdown", the number of people crossing the border is actually less than before.



sort by: page size:

That could help, but the article is ignores the obvious.

US population growth rate 2019-2022 was quite low due to the pandemic the actual increase was 18% or ~500 people from 2019. Further, working from home changed the dynamics around driving presumably a great number of people got worse because they didn’t do it as much. The numbers of pedestrians may have also increased faster than population growth rate.


I suspect the growth has slowed a lot in the last 5-7 years.

Hypothesis: population growth looks like /, while public land growth looks like - or \ (e.g. cursory search for statistic shows federal acreage drop of 4.9% from 1990 to 2018)

>the number of 2 or more income households has actually fallen

Where in your citation is this claim supported? The /percentage/ has fallen which could either mean that the number has fallen or that the total population increase at a faster pace than the number.


The title makes it seem like the growth slowed after the questions on societal impact were raised. I think the growth stalled years ago and has been declining even before the questions were raised.

It's probably excessively naive, but my first guess is some sort of demographic velocity.

My expectation is that the gap will be the smallest in the places that have the most mobile populations.


Interesting to think about in the context of overall rate of "moving" in the US has been declining for a while[0[

[0] https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2016/comm/cb16...


This... Makes perfect sense. And it's really odd that the population would increase instead of decreasing, for obvious reasons.

Whatever the case, there must be something wrong with millennials and younger, but I'd bet it's more likely to be overreporting instead of underreporting.


Perhaps “indoorsyness” however they measure it is increasing, but not enough to cancel out population growth.

You kind of hint at this with points 2 & 3, but I think you could add:

(5) There are way more people than there used to be


> first assertion is incorrect (monotonic increase)

Huh, someone should fix that. Do you have a good source?

That said, I was observing over long timelines. Decade over decade, participation goes up.

> second assertion (near a historic high) can be attributed to population increase

That increases the denominator. Participation is measured as a fraction. We’re about flat for the last two decades on the tail of broad increases.


Yeah but the growth rate is half or a third what it once was, and declining.

Additionally, normalising to 100% obscures the overall number of houses being built / available. A dropping percentage could still mean a net increase, perhaps even relative to population growth.

The argument may well be correct, but the data as presented can't reliably support it.


But is the portion of people without those restrictions increasing or decreasing? How would you measure it?

I don’t think numbers are declining.

In related news, see https://www.rrmediagroup.com/News/NewsDetails/NewsID/18899


On an adjusted basis, sure. I was speaking in absolute terms. What's happening is that people are leaving the second quintile. About 1/3 move down, 2/3 move up.

The sort of thing people in the second quintile used to do has evaporated.


I didn’t check, but it’s a safe bet the average number of people in a household decreased significantly.

That could increase demand even if the population decreased slightly (which it didn’t, according to another reply)


Source please and maybe population increase would explain that.

From the article:

> Between 1970 and 2014, the latest data available, populations fell by an average of 60%.

next

Legal | privacy