Opposition to Spending on the Census

[Desmond Hawkins]

Why are people so opposed to it? It is a great investment, and it pays off forever. The earlier you start administering additional categories and detail, the more use you will get out of them decades later when you want to measure the long-term trends of... whatever. It is infrastructure! The only difference is that it won't fall apart in 50 years like a bridge.

I would support a yearly census.

 

[Masquerouge]

I think you need to give a bit more background to your OP

 

[Bill3000]

You support a yearly census of 300 million people? Good luck.

 

[Cutlass]

Because white conservative people are a decline portion of the population. And the longer governmental policy fails to recognize that, the better off they are.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

You support a yearly census of 300 million people? Good luck.

Fine then, expand the detail of the census far more and forget the every year part. Either way, it is a good investment. Do you know how many forecasts and ultimately decisions, private and public, are rooted in census data? While a yearly census is maybe excessive, I am fairly certain that the 1 billion dollars of spending in the stimulus bill will easily be paid back in more efficient decisions in the future.

And no Masque, I will not dig up articles. I will say that there are Republicans strongly criticizing the "pork" going into the census.

Now if you excuse me, I have to go and crunch some Canadian census data.

*bias revealed*

 

[Masquerouge]

You support a yearly census of 300 million people? Good luck.

That's not how censuses are done. You can census a rotating representative sample of the population every year, giving you a good idea at the general trends.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Why are people so opposed to it? It is a great investment, and it pays off forever. The earlier you start administering additional categories and detail, the more use you will get out of them decades later when you want to measure the long-term trends of... whatever. It is infrastructure! The only difference is that it won't fall apart in 50 years like a bridge.

I would support a yearly census.

Poorer people are harder to count (less stable housing arrangements, less willing to be counted sometimes), and they overwhelmingly tend to live in Democrat heavy districts. As a result if spending increases (in an effort to count more people), reapportionment will tend to favor the Democrats more than otherwise. Republicans might actually risk losing seats in 2012-2020.

Because white conservative people are a decline portion of the population. And the longer governmental policy fails to recognize that, the better off they are.

I'm not so sure this is also true, but it could have merit. The problem I see with this is that you can find conservatives in the minority population if you tried, if we got past the whole race thing. The Republicans shot themselves in the foot over the past decade or so, trying to push hispanics and blacks into the "them" group instead of recognizing the conservative tendencies that could have garnered the GOP a bunch of minority votes.

 

[bhsup]

That's not how censuses are done. You can census a rotating representative sample of the population every year, giving you a good idea at the general trends.

Absolutely not. The census must not be statistical. Count 'em, count 'em all.

 

[Earthling]

Yeah, Stolen Rutters has one of the major reasons already down, which is probably true in other countries as well. The United States is required to have a Census of everyone for electoral procedures. And I agree the data is probably useful otherwise.

 

[Masquerouge]

Absolutely not. The census must not be statistical. Count 'em, count 'em all.

But you will count them all, eventually, since you're rotating samples!

Every year you're censusing 10% of the population, in a bit more than 10 years you will have your full census.

Win-win!

 

[amadeus]

What good would it do for us to take a full and complete census every year?

 

[mrt144]

Absolutely not. The census must not be statistical. Count 'em, count 'em all.

The population that is counted by the census must not be ignorant of statistics.

 

[Masquerouge]

What good would it do for us to take a full and complete census every year?

Is anybody actually proposing that?

 

[Integral]

Question - is this funding 'for the census' specifically funding for the decennial census, or is it for the Census Bureau? Because the Bureau does far more than just the census - they compile regional economic data, monthly trade data, yearly household income statistics, and a host of other things.

 

[Higher Game]

Because white conservative people are a decline portion of the population. And the longer governmental policy fails to recognize that, the better off they are.

You forget that "minority" and "majority" no longer apply numerically (if they ever did), but rather describe power and influence. This country has at least 200 years of rural white conservative morality left in it, even if we're a minority even right now.

The Republicans shot themselves in the foot over the past decade or so, trying to push hispanics and blacks into the "them" group instead of recognizing the conservative tendencies that could have garnered the GOP a bunch of minority votes.

No, Republicans stood by their principles and paid for it, knowing that Democrat policies would fail and they'll come roaring back in 2012, and hold on for another 3 terms or so.

 

[Mowque]

You forget that "minority" and "majority" no longer apply numerically (if they ever did), but rather describe power and influence. This country has at least 200 years of rural white conservative morality left in it, even if we're a minority even right now.

I've met alot of those people, and they aren't Nazis, no matter what you think.

 

[Kerozine]

Canadian census sees cities surging

[...] census cost $567-million to conduct [...]

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070313.wcensuslede0313/BNStory/National

Too expensive to do so on a yearly basis.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

No, Republicans stood by their principles and paid for it, knowing that Democrat policies would fail and they'll come roaring back in 2012, and hold on for another 3 terms or so.

Uh, that's actually the diametric opposite of what I was trying to imply. Sorry for not being clear.

 

[JerichoHill]

The census is already changing, there is no longer the "long form" census, and now we have rolling averages. This is more cost effective and the data quality is still good pretty much down to the block group level, but not the block level. What we gain in a better evolving snapshot over time we lose in small-group detail.

I pretty much know the census like the back of my hand. Every social scientist researcher should know the census well. Its the best freaking data source available for academic and public government, private company research. Its got to have a huge multiplier effect

you can read about the change involving the ACS on their website.

 

[amadeus]

Is anybody actually proposing that?

Not proposing, but supporting?

I would support a yearly census.