Remember, you aren't obligated to give them any information at all. Even if you want to help them count people, you don't need to do more than tell them how many people live there.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
But, of course, it's generally helpful to tell them things like how much you're paying for utilities, so that studies which rely on Census Bureau data don't undercount the bizarrely paranoid.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
No, you don't have to tell them.
But that information can be invaluable in a number of ways, from helping government decide what laws and policies to enact in order to better help people, to being a treasure trove of data for historians to use in countless ways.
As someone who has slogged my way through census data in the past, I can tell you that it's full of incomplete information, largely due to the limitations of collection efforts, and the refusal of people to answer questions. What IS there is often very helpful, depending on the question being asked, but lack of information is a constant thorn in the sides of historians. If people refuse to answer more than just a number of people in the house, it becomes very hard to determine shifts in population or income levels, or a number of other valuable things.
It also can have detrimental effects on funding levels for social welfare programs, and in the case of race, could potentially (though this is a rare instance) have an effect on the outcome of a gerrymandering case.
Are you afraid of something specific Lisa, or is a principled stand?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If you want to be ignored, discounted, and treated as if you don't exist, by all means, give as little information as possible.
The people who do give information - which is not attached to your name - will thank you.
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
When I worker doing surveys over the phone I was amazed by how many people would not answer simple questions when I told them we had no way of knowing who they were, just gathering information.
"I don't think I want to tell you that" "that's alright, but I would like to remind you we have no way of linking the information to you, we don't even record your number" "Oh well my number is .......!" "Well that's fine, but I just needed to know if you have been fishing in the past month."
That was straight from a notebook I have labeled, "Why I couldn't take it anymore."
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: If you want to be ignored, discounted, and treated as if you don't exist...
I'm a white, male Republican. I'm used to it.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
::snort::
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But that information can be invaluable in a number of ways, from helping government decide what laws and policies to enact in order to better help people, to being a treasure trove of data for historians to use in countless ways.
...
It also can have detrimental effects on funding levels for social welfare programs...
I just want to observe that the quoted text demonstrates a fundamental difference between your outlook and the outlook of the fellow in the video (and, I suspect, Lisa). Your argument isn't going to carry much weight if the people you're talking to think that government shouldn't be enacting laws and policies in an attempt to help people in the first place.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, two things there.
1. I'm actually equally invested in the historical argument. Census data is invaluable in historical studies, and the less of it there is, the more incomplete the picture, the harder it is for us to understand our own past, and the fewer tools we have moving forward in understanding the consequences of our actions. By itself I find that a valuable enough reason to give generously of personal information. It's not like they're asking for credit card passwords.
2. Yes, I recognize that, but I'm not necessarily arguing against Lisa and YouTube Man, I'm presenting another argument to the people they might be addressing. If someone comes along and says "Oy, you there, don't give the Census any information, the government is out to steal your private info and they don't have the right!" The person might thing "Well gee, I guess they don't have the right, and it's no skin off my nose, so why not?" Then my arguing "Well actually, if you fall into a number of different categories, it could actually do any number of harms and injustices to you," is very much of value.
Arguing in a public forum, I'm okay with this line of argument. In a one on one conversation with Lisa or YouTube Man, I'd probably shy away from that argument, or I might ask what value they think there is in convincing people to shortchange themselves when the programs they're basically withdrawing themselves from aren't going anywhere as a result of refusing to give their information. It strikes me as a pretty cruel exhortation that might prey on the ignorance of some who are most in need.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lisa, do you imagine the people who you're afraid of having the information you wouldn't give on the census don't have it already? In your view of government, is there even a chance of that?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ace of Spades:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: If you want to be ignored, discounted, and treated as if you don't exist...
I'm a white, male Republican. I'm used to it.
yes, we all know that the statuses 'white' and 'male' definitely come with their fair share of cultural disposession and create additional hurdles for anyone so afflicted with these beneficial cultural majority statuses oh wait Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Samp, you're a liberal, how would you know what those poor conservative white males go through on a daily basis?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Well, two things there.
1. I'm actually equally invested in the historical argument. Census data is invaluable in historical studies, and the less of it there is, the more incomplete the picture, the harder it is for us to understand our own past, and the fewer tools we have moving forward in understanding the consequences of our actions. By itself I find that a valuable enough reason to give generously of personal information. It's not like they're asking for credit card passwords.
2. Yes, I recognize that, but I'm not necessarily arguing against Lisa and YouTube Man, I'm presenting another argument to the people they might be addressing. If someone comes along and says "Oy, you there, don't give the Census any information, the government is out to steal your private info and they don't have the right!" The person might thing "Well gee, I guess they don't have the right, and it's no skin off my nose, so why not?" Then my arguing "Well actually, if you fall into a number of different categories, it could actually do any number of harms and injustices to you," is very much of value.
Arguing in a public forum, I'm okay with this line of argument. In a one on one conversation with Lisa or YouTube Man, I'd probably shy away from that argument, or I might ask what value they think there is in convincing people to shortchange themselves when the programs they're basically withdrawing themselves from aren't going anywhere as a result of refusing to give their information. It strikes me as a pretty cruel exhortation that might prey on the ignorance of some who are most in need.
To your first point, I realized that. That's why I tried to excise most of that from my quote (I realize I left part of it in, in the interest of not butchering a sentence halfway through). I felt you made two valid points, but one of them clearly would have no effect on Lisa/the Youtube guy. Or, I suppose, me. The historical angle was a separate issue, and one I definitely think has merit. I don't know if Lisa would care, but at the very least I don't know she wouldn't. If that makes sense. Double negatives. Yikes.
To your second point... I'll grant you that there's merit in providing arguments that could be persuasive to third-party observers.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:When I worker doing surveys over the phone I was amazed by how many people would not answer simple questions when I told them we had no way of knowing who they were, just gathering information.
If you send me your bank, credit card, and social security numbers, I won't record them. I promise. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But that information can be invaluable in a number of ways, from helping government decide what laws and policies to enact in order to better help people, to being a treasure trove of data for historians to use in countless ways.
And if you don't want the government to be in the business of helping people?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: As someone who has slogged my way through census data in the past, I can tell you that it's full of incomplete information, largely due to the limitations of collection efforts, and the refusal of people to answer questions. What IS there is often very helpful, depending on the question being asked, but lack of information is a constant thorn in the sides of historians. If people refuse to answer more than just a number of people in the house, it becomes very hard to determine shifts in population or income levels, or a number of other valuable things.
Oh, well.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It also can have detrimental effects on funding levels for social welfare programs,
Lyrhawn, you should adapt your responses to the person you're responding to. Honestly, social welfare programs?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: and in the case of race, could potentially (though this is a rare instance) have an effect on the outcome of a gerrymandering case.
Actually, the purpose of the census is to determine how many representatives we get in Congress. Except that we don't get the Constitutionally mandated number of representatives anyway, so I'm not sure what the point is.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Are you afraid of something specific Lisa, or is a principled stand?
The latter.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: If you want to be ignored, discounted, and treated as if you don't exist, by all means, give as little information as possible.
The people who do give information - which is not attached to your name - will thank you.
I've been working on my family tree since June. It's gotten ginormous, and a lot of that is due to old census pages. So I can see how they can be useful, but that doesn't justify the government poking into our lives.
And the information on those pages absolutely is attached to your name. Just because they also issue aggregated results without names doesn't mean that the information isn't in the databases by name.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Lisa, do you imagine the people who you're afraid of having the information you wouldn't give on the census don't have it already? In your view of government, is there even a chance of that?
Oh, certainly. I'm sure that most of it exists in separate databases. I just don't feel like helping it be aggregated in a way that's unnecessarily invasive.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Lyrhawn, you should adapt your responses to the person you're responding to. Honestly, social welfare programs?
As I've said in subsequent posts, I wasn't just addressing you. But even if I was just addressing you, I'd say it's mighty callous to tell people not to participate in programs that can help them just because it gives your principles a warm fuzzy feeling. You might not think it is the business of government to help people, but these programs exist, and they do help people, sometimes they're vital to survival, and you want people to act in ways that could be detrimentally harmful, and which doesn't affect you at all (except to save you money I suppose), and in which you only provide them some of information necessary to make an informed decision. I think that's not only dishonest, it's heartless, and selfish.
quote:Actually, the purpose of the census is to determine how many representatives we get in Congress. Except that we don't get the Constitutionally mandated number of representatives anyway, so I'm not sure what the point is.
Gerrymandering is directly related to proportional Congressional representation, so tell me how it's not related. And I'm curious as to how you don't get the Constitutionally mandated number.
quote:The latter.
I can respect that as your reason. I have less respect for exhorting others to withhold information without presenting a balance of what positive outcomes there are from giving said information.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The video in the OP is .. I can't help but think of it as cute. He seems like the kind of fellow who is also prone to object to the suspicious use of fluoride in the drinking water.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"And if you don't want the government to be in the business of helping people?"
Are there no poor houses? No orphanages?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Are there? I mean, I get the quote and its point, but haven't we dropped both in favor of government assistance, temporary shelters, and foster care?
Scrooge today might have to ask that we rebuild the poorhouses and orphanages. Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: He seems like the kind of fellow who is also prone to object to the suspicious use of fluoride in the drinking water.
A few years ago an older gentleman who was convinced that the fluoride in the water was causing his bad health and refused to drink tap water, even filtered because of the mega-dose of fluoride. He became even more furious a few months later when I showed him the current newspaper article about the city wanting to start putting fluoride in the water...
Posted by School4ever (Member # 5575) on :
Did you actually look at the questions they are going to ask? They are clearly posted online. The questions cover name, race, gender, how many people live in your home and if the home is owned with a loan, owned outright, or rented (no questions on amount of loan). What is your phone number in case of questions. That's it. There is no long form this year.
I was horribly disappointed with the lack of questions. I do genealogical research, and the answers to questions have given me insight and understanding of my ancestors.
Census questions I have no idea where this guy is getting his information from.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
quote:God willing, we will prevail in peace and freedom from fear and in true health through the purity and essence of our natural fluids.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Beat ya! Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
Actually I was responding to your post.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Ah, never mind.
*Shakes hands*
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Actually, the purpose of the census is to determine how many representatives we get in Congress. Except that we don't get the Constitutionally mandated number of representatives anyway, so I'm not sure what the point is.
Gerrymandering is directly related to proportional Congressional representation, so tell me how it's not related. And I'm curious as to how you don't get the Constitutionally mandated number.
*nod* In this, I actually agree with Lisa and Goldberg. I think a much larger House would go a long way towards solving many problems. There are a number of logistical hurdles, of course, involved in having a House of over 5,000 people, but I actually think that creative solutions for a few of those might in themselves be answers to some of our problems.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't really see it solving all that much. For the last 30 years or so, and especially in the last 10, gridlock hasn't come from the House, it has come from the Senate.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I've been working on my family tree since June. It's gotten ginormous, and a lot of that is due to old census pages.
If you don't mind me asking, where did you get the census data? It keeps looking like I have to pay Ancestry.com or go to a library if I want to see the part with the names and not just tables. Is that it, or is there another option I missed?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I did a free trial at Ancestry first, but then I ponied up. I pulled a huge amount of info when I was just on the free trial. If you're good at searching, 2 weeks is a long time.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I did a free trial at Ancestry first, but then I ponied up. I pulled a huge amount of info when I was just on the free trial. If you're good at searching, 2 weeks is a long time.
I've been quite impressed that you've put so much effort into your genealogy Lisa. It's something I feel like sitting down and getting to work on from time to time, but I'd have to figure out what my aunt (a voracious genealogist) has already done.
Found any particularly interesting family in your work?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: You say that like it's a bad thing.
The whole "government that governs least governs best thing" only REALLY works when problems are handed off.
Like, if the government says "we're getting out of the retirement business, so here's your social security money back, figure it out yourself."
That probably sounds like something a libertarian would love to hear. But when it doesn't work is when the system is fundamentally flawed, and the government is so gridlocked that they can't solve the problem. So they do nothing. You might think it's a great thing for the government to collapse and for millions of people, mostly the elderly, to slowly sink into poverty and die of starvation (you know, a return to the pre-Social Security glory days that you may long for), but I have to imagine even the most callous Libertarian doesn't want to see a return to less government done that way. If we were to do it, we'd need to divest ourselves from government in a controlled manner.
Having government implode on itself is messy. And it quite literally can kill people. Sometimes gridlock is good because it stops bad legislation from going through. And sometimes it's devastating because it stops absolutely vital, or just plain RIGHT legislation from going through. I can't imagine you were a fan of the intentional gridlock that held back civil rights legislation for so long.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
The 10 questions: 1. How many people live here as of 4/1/2010? 2. Were there any other people staying here as of 4/1/2010? 3. Is this house, apartment, or mobile home: owned by you or someone else in the household with a mortgage or loan? owned by you or someone else in the household free and clear? Rented? Occupied without payment or rent? 4. What is your phone number incase we don't understand some of your answers. For each person in the household please provide the following information: 5. Name: First, Last, MI 6. Gender 7. Age as of 4/1/2010 and date of birth. 8. Is person x of hispanic, latino, or spanish origin? 9. What is person x's race? 10. Does person x sometimes live somewhere else?
By the way, regardless of what the guy in the youtube video (edit) and many people in this thread above said, you are required by law to respond to the census.
Here is a link to the FAQ section of the census bureau and a link to the actual census law Title 13, including possible penalties for failing to answer the questions. You can be fined anywhere from $100 to $5000 for failing to answer census questions.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
I'm just wondering; have people sent their Census forms back already? The form says to give how many people are living in your house on April 1, so I don't know if you're supposed to wait until then to mail it.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I'm sending mine back now because the information isn't going to change for me between now and then, so there's no reason to wait.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I got mine in the mail. And it says I'm legally required to fill it out and return it. Which of course is making it hard for me to even open it. Screw them.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Just be prepared to pay the fine if you don't.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Yeah, I'm going to send mine back as soon as I have a chance to get to a mailbox.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Lisa, is this a new disgust you with the census, or have you been rallying against it for years?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I doubt anyone will actually be prosecuted for not filling in their census. Still, it seems like a silly place to make a stand. The information being gathered is already readily available to the government agencies that you might be paranoid about having it. With $15-$20 and your home address I can gather all of the information requested in the census form and much much more. Government agencies have unlimited access to these same databases. Heck, 15 years ago when I was taking orders for Sears Catalog for not much more than minimum wage, *I* had unlimited access to those databases.
The census collects it separately because they are insulated from those other agencies and because they are currently required to do a direct count rather than merely assembling data from existing databases.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I mailed mine yesterday morning.
As for refusing to fill it out: Everyone has a right to be stupid.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I don't think anyone will be prosecuted either, nothing in the documents I linked to indicated that. However, it is a possibility, and perhaps even likely, that if you fail to respond you will be fined. That is in the title 13 information. You don't have to be prosecuted to be fined for something.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: I don't think anyone will be prosecuted either, nothing in the documents I linked to indicated that. However, it is a possibility, and perhaps even likely, that if you fail to respond you will be fined. That is in the title 13 information. You don't have to be prosecuted to be fined for something.
I meant "prosecuted" in a broad sense that included levying fines.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
If you don't send it back or fill it out completely, that will prompt a personal visit from census takers. If you dodge them, they will come back multiple times. If you object to government waste, the prudent thing to do would be to send it in the mail before these expensive follow-up procedures are invoked.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah! Why should a representative form of government do things such as make note of where its people are so it can determine which regions get more representatives, or have some idea what the racial background of people across the country is?!
It's a conspiracy is what it is!
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I think that's actually the reason for the fines MattP, to recoup the fiscal loss from attempting to gain the information. Maybe you're right, and it's an empty threat. I would have the $5000 on hand to pay though because if they do fine you for failure to respond, you're going to have to pay up to that amount. It's a matter of weighing your options? Answer questions that the government probably already has answers to or be willing to pay up to $5000 in fines if you don't.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
I hate the way they're selling the census: "Fill it out, so you get your fair share." Fair share of what? Did we stumble onto a pot of gold, and filling out the census means we get a portion of that gold? Or are we talking about tax dollars--in other words--other people's money?
It just reminds me of the L.A. riots and all the looting that followed. Everyone--even good people--ran into those places to get their "fair share." People tend to lose all sense of right and wrong when there's a potential for "free stuff."
Selling the census like this, banking on our selfishness and ignorance of where all that "free stuff" comes from, irks the hell out of me.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Selling the census like this, banking on our selfishness and ignorance of where all that "free stuff" comes from, irks the hell out of me.
I don't think it's doing any such thing. I don't know anyone who is ignorant of where federal money comes from. The census advertising is just making it explicit about how that money is apportioned. Whether you approve of federal funding or not, if you aren't counted, less of it comes to you.
It also ensures your "fair share" of voting members of the House of Representatives.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Fair share of representation in the House of Representatives.
The problem with the L.A. riots analogy is that looting wasn't getting their "fair share". When it comes to being counted in order to make up the House, it absolutely is.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I got mine in the mail. And it says I'm legally required to fill it out and return it. Which of course is making it hard for me to even open it. Screw them.
I refuse to matter! TAKE THAT, CENSUS
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
My wife and I assisted in accounting for our household so that our representatives in the government can better serve us, and those studying the social science can profit thereby.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
"Usually takes quite a bit of skill to shoot yourself in the foot while its in your mouth".
About the Republican who urged her constituents to not fill out the census..... which would've costed her seat in the elections.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I refuse to matter! TAKE THAT, CENSUS
That is by far the best way to effect change in representative system!
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Yeah! Why should a representative form of government do things such as make note of where its people are so it can determine which regions get more representatives, or have some idea what the racial background of people across the country is?!
It's a conspiracy is what it is!
I thought so too until I read some articles talking about how the census data was used to imprison minorities during WWII. It seems a lot less crazy after that.
Being a WASP, I don't think anything bad will happen to me for filling it out, but I might be thinking twice otherwise.
And Lisa, I sympathize with you. I frequently get my passive-aggressive up when people start telling me what I have to do.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Avidreader, I certainly agree bad can be done with census information. That's humanity for you. But I don't have much patience or sympathy for the idea that everything is corrupt, it's all bullcrap, and there's no sense participating-it's just a way to let one's self off the hook.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: I frequently get my passive-aggressive up when people start telling me what I have to do.
Like, for instance, "go to jury duty" ...?
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I find the whole thing a waste of time and money. Everythin I put on that form is also recorded in the taxes I fill out each year. The IRS knows who I am, how many people live in my house, and even how much we make. Why does the census need to gather the same information?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Because the Census Bureus is legally barred from getting that informatiom from the IRS. It doesn't matter that other government agencies know it - the Census Bureau has no communication, in either direction, with other government agencies, concerning your names and address information.
That's both why you have to fill out the form (or else your family doesn't get counted for representation in the House) and why it is safe to fill out the form (the Census Bureau shares it with no one, not the public, not paying companies, not other government agencies, not even law enforcement or the IRS).
[ March 19, 2010, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Actually, the IRS gives out its info to NO other government agencies, unless the taxpayer specifically fills out forms requesting such info be shared. For example, illegal immigrants who obtain an ITIN will NOT be reported to DHS (or whatever acronym INS goes by these days ).
Katie is absolutely correct about the Census Bureau's non-sharing of information. The same is true of the IRS, and quite a few other government agencies. Personally, it makes me more comfortable knowing that.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Having done research using census data when I was in college, I can't tell you how useful it is in helping scientists find all manner of useful information in the data.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I find the whole thing a waste of time and money.
Oh my god no no no no. the census is amazingly valuable, and not just for the purpose of providing count for national representation, something which should be an obligation of citizens anyway. it's got amazing usefulness in incalculable scientific/social/medical/policy management/policy implementation/budgeting analysis/you name it fields.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I filled out my census form today. It made me wonder what is important in our country. I understand the federal governments need to gauge the population. Population is proportional to representatives in congress, etc.
The only characteristic on my census form the federal government seems to be concerned with is age sex and race.
I thought the the federal government was suppose to be color blind. I understand their concern for age, sex, education, even income but what does race have to do with anything. One's race doesn't tell them anything other than the color of the skin. An individual's skin color is meaningless to the health of the nation.
Education, age, sex, income.....good metrics. Skin color means nothing but they don't even ask the truly important questions.
The education level of the population is more important than the skin color of the population.
[ March 20, 2010, 03:06 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Maybe the Census just doesn't have Jamaican neighbors to better share your enlightened perspective.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Are you a legal immigrant? would be a good question to ask the likes of my neighbors. The government might want to know how well immigrants are doing. It makes no difference if the immigrant has white skin or black. Skin color is unimportant. Skin color doesn't tell you one's education, income, religion, etc. The census is about numbers of residents, not the color of the residents. If they are to deviate from the constitutional requirement of counting residents, there are metrics more important than melanin content.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Enlightened though you may be, the nation we live in is far from color blind. Problems stemming from race exist, and happen on a daily basis. Race data can be very interesting and useful for a number of reasons.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I don't disagree. Racial statistics can be enlightening and useful. Be careful not to use the statistics that have negative connotations: crime, STD's, dropout rates, illegitimate birthrates, incarceration rates, pregnancies ending in abortion, etc. Of course income is a particular statistic often used to prove discrimination. Dare to mention the others and you're a racist.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I hate the way they're selling the census: "Fill it out, so you get your fair share."
Not only that, but they're disingenuous. One commercial talks about "Imagine if we only had 100 kids, we'd need about five teachers. Then, imagine we had 200 kids and no one filled out the census - we'd still have the same five teachers."
Bull. Teacher allocation is based on - wait for it, this is going to shock you - student enrollment numbers.
If we did allocate teacher units based on the census, that would really suck for communities like mine which has exploded in the last five years, not ten.
Another commercial talks about traffic lights...oh, so traffic engineers just sit around and wait between the decades to see if they need to add more traffic lights?
It's so ridiculous it's laughable. It's also irritating, though - and insulting that they use those types of tactics.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
I have no trouble with the Census counting how many people live in a district for the sake of representation. But that should be it's one and only purpose.
Everything else should be the job of state and local governments. These are the people who drive on the roads that may need fixing, have children in the schools that may need funding, or frequent the government buildings or parks in need of repairs.
The federal government is too far away from the problems to have an effective impact.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Another commercial talks about traffic lights...oh, so traffic engineers just sit around and wait between the decades to see if they need to add more traffic lights?
No. But the budget they have to work with will often have a lot to do with the most recent census' numbers.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
If true that is ridiculous. Cities and towns can change dramatically in a five year period, much less ten.
In 1990 we had a K-12 school - one building was big enough for every child. Before my daughter was in elementary school in 1997, they had built a new high school, and a new elementary school to account for the massive influx of new students.
We also, coincidentally, built new access to the interstate, a new shopping center and added, yes traffic lights in the last three years. If we had to rely on the 2000 census numbers I shudder to think where we'd be.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Cities and towns can change dramatically in a five year period, much less ten.
Yup.
And government rarely keeps up. This is hardly news.
To be more detailed, city and county budgets are sometimes more flexible. But the amount of money the state gets from the federal government -- which of course affects what the city and county have given them by the state -- really is not.
[ March 21, 2010, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I tend to think the census isn't necessary. I file an income tax return every year. The IRS is exceedingly efficient at confirming our deductions, including number of children. In effect, we have a census form every year. When I file my taxes I claim my children and wife. If I lie about a child as an exemption, they will catch me. They already know the numbers.
If you believe that people who don't file taxes every year will fill out a census form, you're crazy. Fortunately, there's no "minority tax credit" listed below the "child tax credit". The census isn't about population numbers. The government already has that data.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
So your stipulation is that, the poor don't fill out census forms, and don't file taxes, so under neither system are they counted. And given that, a census is just a waste of time and money?
What's your solution to counting those who don't file income taxes then? I'd note, by the way, that it isn't just the poor who don't file tax returns, it's a huge segment of the elderly.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
1) The IRS is NOT ALLOWED to share your info with any other government agencies. 2) The census is supposed to count everyone, whether they have a SSN or an ITIN or file taxes or not.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The poor have less motivation to fill out a census form than an income tax return. Every year, the poor look forward to tax returns. For every child you get a $1000 return, whether you make an income or not. The census doesn't pay the poor to fill out the form.
My stipulation is that the poor look forward to filling out IRS forms. If you are too lazy to fill out an IRS form, you are also too lazy to fill out a census form. The big screen tv you want to buy doesn't depend on the census form.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The poor have less motivation to fill out a census form than an income tax return. Every year, the poor look forward to tax returns. For every child you get a $1000 return, whether you make an income or not. The census doesn't pay the poor to fill out the form.
My stipulation is that the poor look forward to filling out IRS forms. If you are too lazy to fill out an IRS form, you are also too lazy to fill out a census form. The big screen tv you want to buy doesn't depend on the census form.
Except...many of the poor you're probably thinking of, don't earn enough to have to pay taxes (after all, not all poor people have kids), and so file a W-4 exempt and don't get anything back from the government, because they didn't pay anything in. If they even have an income. But census information can be used to determine how public funds can be used to improve the community. Which could benefit those poor people, provided they fill out the form.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
While all the traffic lights and other reasons are real, they don't matter as much as the primary purpose of the Census: To determine representation in the House.
That isn't based on "enrollment numbers." Constitutionally, that changes every ten years only.
The IRS does not share their information. This is to protect privacy - that's a good thing. Same for the Census.
Last decade, one state missed out on getting an extra representative by less than 20,000 people, who SHOULD have been counted but weren't. Quite literally, not filling out the census means that as far as Congress goes, you don't exist.
That has been explained several times in this thread. I am mystified why the anti-Census people haven't addressed that point.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: While all the traffic lights and other reasons are real, they don't matter as much as the primary purpose of the Census: To determine representation in the House.
Good point. I think it may be too far outside some people's day-to-day concerns to act as motivator though. Hence the traffic sign ads.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The IRS does not share their information. This is to protect privacy - that's a good thing. Same for the Census.
Amen!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Oh, hell. Havah filled it out and mailed it. At least she only answered the legal minimum.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Stupid constitutional republic wanting to count every stupid body in order to have a stupid accurate representation according to the stupid Constitution.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
My understanding was that there were only 10 questions and that they were all legally mandated.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
All they're entitled to ask is how many people are living here. Questions of race are beyond inappropriate. Questions of profession are none of their damned business.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Oh, hell. Havah filled it out and mailed it. At least she only answered the legal minimum.
this is like a sketch comedy now
HAVAH, YOU DID WHAT? DID YOU NOT SEE MY YOUTUBES ABOUT HOW SCARY THE CENSUS IS
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Questions of race are beyond inappropriate. Questions of profession are none of their damned business.
There's nothing on the census form about profession, though "inappropriate" and "none of their damned business" are different standards than "legal minimum."
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: All they're entitled to ask is how many people are living here. Questions of race are beyond inappropriate. Questions of profession are none of their damned business.
Answering all the questions is legally required. If you didn't do that, and didn't provide your phone number, expect a census taker to arrive at your door. And if you dodge them, they will come again and again and again...
(edit:) And the short form had no question about profession at all. See the 10 questions I posted on a previous page. Nothing about profession. Now, if you got the ACS form, there were questions about profession as I understand it. I didn't get one, so I don't have the questions.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: If true that is ridiculous. Cities and towns can change dramatically in a five year period, much less ten.
The ACS is sent out every year to selected families and is used to collect statistical data in the years between the decennial census. This helps with adjusted funding by estimating the number of people, income etc during the intervening years. And yes, part of how funding is sent is through census data and the ACS. Statewide funding for schools etc is based on enrollment numbers. Federal funding is based on how many people with school age children, and how many school age children live in the area. They send money based on the total number of children. If the federal government allocated funds based on the number of children enrolled in public school, the state would get less money from the federal government, because the private school enrollment would not be included in many cases.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Apparently, representation in the house has nothing to do with citizenship either. I didn't see a social security number question on my Census form. Why should states with high populations of illegal aliens get increased representation?
The IRS is about to be able to "share your personal data" in a number of ways. They are the new enforcement arm of your healthcare. Do you have insurance? If you don't the IRS needs to know and will verify it. Is your insurance up to federal standards? Of course they will need to make sure. There's nothing wrong with the IRS sharing your data internally to the government. Your data is now a public/private concern.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The IRS is about to be able to "share your personal data" in a number of ways.
False. The information will flow from insurance companies TO the IRS, not the reverse. Much like information currently flows from your bank to the IRS and from your employer to the IRS.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The fine's you'll have to pay for not purchasing federally approved healthcare...once Obama signs the bill tomorrow.
Once he signs that bill, it will be illegal not to purchase healthcare. For the first time in our country's history, the government is going to require you to purchase something from a private company or be in violation of the law.
Special interests anyone? I wish the government required you to buy my product. As a consolation for forcing a 22 year old to buy healthcare, the insurance companies have to cover preexisting conditions. All part of the back room deals. Preexisting conditions are covered but the 19 year old will be fined and is in violation of federal law for choosing not to purchase insurance.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:For the first time in our country's history, the government is going to require you to purchase something from a private company or be in violation of the law.
dang, guess we should have gone with single payer.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Single payer would be better. Why do you think Kucinich held out so long? He was opposed and wanted single payer. As they all say....this is a starter home. The framework is in place. Rather than go directly to single payer, they'll bankrupt insurance companies in order to justify single payer later. Then there will be no choice. In several states, Walgreen's drugs is no longer selling to Medicaid. The government can pass price control laws, but they can't legislate the laws of physics. The pills cost more than medicaid reimbursment levels. Of course, they'll make it illegal to not sell at a loss. When that doesn't work, pharmacies will be nationalized. When the nationalized pharmacies go broke, they'll raise taxes to pay for it.
The only difference is, the cashier at Walgreens isn't a member of SEIU. The Walgreen's cashier is paid $8 an hour while the DMV cashier gets full benefits, retirement and medical care. Our country will be so much better when we all work for the government.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: For the first time in our country's history, the government is going to require you to purchase something from a private company or be in violation of the law.
Car insurance is like that now in many states. Including mine.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:they can't legislate the laws of physics. The pills cost more than medicaid reimbursment levels
The cost of pills is only loosely tied to any laws of physics.
quote:The Walgreen's cashier is paid $8 an hour
I'm pretty sure their pharmacists are paid more than that.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: For the first time in our country's history, the government is going to require you to purchase something from a private company or be in violation of the law.
Car insurance is like that now in many states. Including mine.
A driver's license is a privilege, not a right. You aren't forced to own a car. Many people, especially in cities, choose not to own a car. Medical insurance is different. You can't choose to be born. The law dictates you purchase this private product...because you are alive.
Now we're going to see the full force of the government dictating your life. We're not talking speed limits here,....we're talking cholesterol levels. The cigarette tax is one thing, the red meat tax is coming. After all, the feds are paying for your excess consumption. The auto industry regulations are now your body. The salt avoiding, vegitarian, non-soda drinking good citizen shouldn't have to support the medical bills of the steak, pepsi and salty french fry eating irresponsible citizen. It's coming.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah, and in all the similar countries where universal health care has been the law of the land for decades, we've seen this show up exactly never.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Just like it's happened in all those "socialized medicine" countries?
Edit: Dangit, Samp! Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:they can't legislate the laws of physics. The pills cost more than medicaid reimbursment levels
The cost of pills is only loosely tied to any laws of physics.
quote:The Walgreen's cashier is paid $8 an hour
I'm pretty sure their pharmacists are paid more than that.
I'm sorry my metaphor was beyond you. The laws of physics = the price of goods. The government can say that Medicaid will only pay X dollars for Y product but if X < Y, they choose not to sell. The law doesn't change the "laws of economics". Of course, laws can bankrupt private industry and then the government will take them over. Unfortunately, government is less efficient, thus more expensive than the evil greedy company they drove out of business.
IE,..the water bill discussion we had earlier and the Social Security pyramid scheme.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Yeah, and in all the similar countries where universal health care has been the law of the land for decades, we've seen this show up exactly never.
You're right. They only tax the crap out of you. Some actually have lotteries to see a medical specialist while the leaders of those nations are rushed to America for heart surgery.
The wealthy covered under "universal care" fly to America for care. Equality is not universal. I prefer the best over equally horrible...unless you are a wealthy European/Canadian politician.
The best and brightest Americans go to medical school for the money. Those greedy bastards are good, that's why the rich and politically connected from universal care countries come here.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The fine's you'll have to pay for not purchasing federally approved healthcare...once Obama signs the bill tomorrow.
Once he signs that bill, it will be illegal not to purchase healthcare. For the first time in our country's history, the government is going to require you to purchase something from a private company or be in violation of the law.
Special interests anyone? I wish the government required you to buy my product. As a consolation for forcing a 22 year old to buy healthcare, the insurance companies have to cover preexisting conditions. All part of the back room deals. Preexisting conditions are covered but the 19 year old will be fined and is in violation of federal law for choosing not to purchase insurance.
It is extremely financially reckless for anyone to choose not to have insurance, even before this bill. If you have no insurance, and have to go to the hospital in an ambulance it costs well over $10,000 without insurance. Since most people can't afford to pay thousands of dollars in healthcare bills, that cost is then foisted off on those who have insurance, in the form of higher premiums. People without health insurance are also one of the reasons that waits at emergency rooms are so long. I had a friend with no insurance. She couldn't afford to pay for a doctor out of pocket, and the father of her child, who was mandated by the courts to put the child on his insurance refused to do so. Every time her daughter got sick, they had to go to the emergency room. It was a waste of time and money, because she didn't ever pay a dime for the medical treatment at the emergency room and they were required to treat her whenever she showed up.
I'm not saying this is the world's greatest bill, or that changes might not need to be made. (The Senate is still entitled to add unlimited amendments to it.) But I shouldn't be made to pay higher premiums because you choose not to have insurance. It's unfair to me, someone who, because I have preexisting conditions, has been careful to have health insurance every day of my life so that those conditions would continue to be covered. To the point where I paid so much out of my own pocket for BlueCross BlueShield when I was waiting tables that I couldn't actually afford the co-pay to go see the doctor. (I got pneumonia because I couldn't afford the co-pay for the doctor's appointment or the Prevacid, which at the time was prescription only.) I sucked it up and paid, because it was the responsible thing to do, and because I made too much money to qualify for Medicaid. Why should I have to carry another person who doesn't want to take that responsibility?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Some people "choose" not to have insurance because rent is more important. You are right. It is irresponsible for the young person not to have insurance. Young people know what the insurance companies know....it is extremely unlikely that they need it. Of course, you can find the fraction that require it for odd circumstances. Why do you think the insurance companies charge $50 for a 20 year old and $500 for a 50 year old? The young person made the same calculation as the insurance company. Of course the insurance companies would love nothing more than to have more 20 year old customers. Now that it's law, they can charge more than $50. The 20 year old no longer has a choice and the insurance company can't exclude the 50 year old.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: You're right. They only tax the crap out of you.
Yeah, and they end up saving more money overall on health care. If we had their systems, we'd have the 'crap taxed out of us' to a tune of about half of what we pay on average for health coverage premiums anyway.
Oh, and we also wouldn't be screwed if there was a gap in our coverage for any reason.
Good game. Play again?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: You're right. They only tax the crap out of you.
Yeah, and they end up saving more money overall on health care. If we had their systems, we'd have the 'crap taxed out of us' to a tune of about half of what we pay on average for health coverage premiums anyway.
Oh, and we also wouldn't be screwed if there was a gap in our coverage for any reason.
Good game. Play again?
American's "pay twice as much" for a lot of things. Things like entertainment and transportation. I like having two cars (actually I have four). I know it costs "twice as much" but it is nice that my wife and I have our own vehicles. I spend "twice as much" for electricity...I like my large two bath house. It's so much better than the small European apartment where only the extremely wealthy can afford a house like mine.
Adding up the money spent by Americans on a product means nothing. I'm sure we spend "twice as much" on pet products as well. We sure love our dogs and kitties in this country.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Adding up the money spent by Americans on a product means nothing.
So, by your utterly inane logic, if Obamacare ends up costing us twice as much as the status quo, that 'means nothing.'
Because it's just adding up the money spent by Americans on a product.
Good lord.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I like having two cars (actually I have four). I know it costs "twice as much" but it is nice that my wife and I have our own vehicles. I spend "twice as much" for electricity...I like my large two bath house.
Wait, are you suggesting that American health care is so much more expensive because we get two or three of the same procedure at a time? That's the only way your analogy makes sense.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
honey, i got a second quadruple bypass for you to take the kids out in
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: If you have no insurance, and have to go to the hospital in an ambulance it costs well over $10,000 without insurance.
Why is that?
Edited because I still suck at UBB.
[ March 23, 2010, 10:36 PM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You could tally up all the individual costs, but yeah. I have had at least two Convenient Anecdotal Friends who got whacked with $10,000 trips to the ER via ambulance.
That said, I don't think the 10k is the standard, uh, finders fee for picking up an uninsured person.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Oh, certainly. I'm not doubting that it costs that much. I used to run a couple of (very) small restaurants, and we once had an on-the-job injury that was bad enough to warrant an ambulance ride. The price tag was... steep.
I'm just curious why an ambulance ride costs so much. Costs aren't generally arbitrary. So... why so expensive?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
An ambulance is a very expensive piece of kit filled with even more expensive equipment, and it has to be staffed constantly with multiple professinals who have to go through a lot of school to get where they were, and they're on call even when not being called upon. So, you're starting by getting hit hard by overhead.
That's still surprisingly tolerable until you get to the point where ambulance services have to write off a profound amount of their operations. Anytime anyone gets a ride to the hospital and are in no position to pay (and this happens all the time, especially in urban areas where indigents cluster) you are footing your share of the bill for them.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I imagine a massive amount of the cost must be the latter, mustn't it? You have any numbers on that? I suppose I could google it myself.
I mean, certainly the overhead is substantial, but I don't see it being 5 or 10 thousand a pop substantial. I mean, the ambulance ride I mentioned previously was literally a three minute drive. EMTs aren't that well paid.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
To be cynical a moment, I assume the difference is so they get a bigger tax write off on what didn't get paid. There's not a lot of other reason to charge the company that can afford the bill less than the individual who couldn't afford what the insurance company paid.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
My Googling suggests that the actual ambulance ride is typically $1000 or less. The rest of that $10000 must be ER expenses.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I still think it's entertaining and sad when a well-off individual complains that the poor college student won't be able to pay the mandatory health insurance fee when there are provisions that substantially limit the insurance cost for that college student as well as the "fee" for not having health insurance if they choose not to.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And the poor college student can stay on his parents' insurance if they have it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: To be cynical a moment, I assume the difference is so they get a bigger tax write off on what didn't get paid.
Even better: i checked up with an EMT (thank you, wonders of internet) and they went through a line-item treatment of recuperative intent. They put the standard fee high, cut it in half, generally, for uninsured peeps, and try to recoup whatever costs, for both the ambulance service and the hospital network in general, are often eaten by the uninsured, insolvent, indigent, etc.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
We were the somewhat-unwilling subjects of both the regular census and also the ACS long form this year. Seems like we shouldn't have to do both the same year, as the questions definitely overlap. The ACS survey is much more intrusive with its questions, and some of them I felt very uncomfortable answering (not knowing for sure how safe this information really is or how they government will choose to use it). But it was either that, or they would send actual census people out, which is more distasteful to me. So we answered it.
On the regular census, the only thing that bothered me was that they did say they wanted a count "as of April 1" but they also want you to return it before April 1. So like - I'm not a prophet. People die every day - could be me. Maybe I won't be here on April 1 - but here I've already gone and said (I mailed mine in) that this is the count as of April 1, and April isn't here. Makes me feel like I'm lying.
We filled out the ACS completed accurately, yet they stilled called us to "verify" answers, and the caller definitely didn't have English as her first language (which bothered me, as this is an American census) and kept questioning some things that came across like she didn't believe the answers. Very very uncomfortable.
But I complied. Wish I had more backbone.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The ACS survey is much more intrusive with its questions, and some of them I felt very uncomfortable answering (not knowing for sure how safe this information really is or how they government will choose to use it).
As with the short form Census, the data is insulated even from other government agencies and is only made available in aggregate form for any number of purposes from government planning to sociological and economic research.
quote:Makes me feel like I'm lying.
Obviously they just want your best assessment. Most of us have a reasonable idea about how many people will be living in our home a few weeks out and the occasional mis-estimation isn't going to throw things off much.
quote: the caller definitely didn't have English as her first language (which bothered me, as this is an American census)
Did it bother you because you couldn't understand them, or was it just the fact that they spoke with an accent?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And the poor college student can stay on his parents' insurance if they have it.
What about us poor college students who are a little too old to be on their parents' insurance? Or whose parents can't afford the extra cost involved with having their child on their insurance?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: [QUOTE] Did it bother you because you couldn't understand them, or was it just the fact that they spoke with an accent?
Yes.
Which brings me to my other thought/question. They say the Census is supposed to count "American citizens" (or that was how it was originally designed). Yet, local news reports talk about how important it is that census workers go around and count EVERYONE (illegals included) to get an "accurate count" of how many live here. So which is it really, legally, supposed to be? An accurate count of legal American citizens? Or an accurate count of everyone here, whether they are legal or not?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The constitution mandates all "free persons" be counted. It says nothing about citizens. It is constitutionally required that illegal immigrants be counted.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I don't know about the American census off-hand, but the Canadian one counts non-citizens as well.
quote: Remarks: The landed immigrant status question, along with the citizenship question, is used to identify the non-immigrant population (Canadian citizens by birth), the immigrant population (landed immigrants) and the non-permanent resident population (people from another country who have an employment authorization, a student authorization, or a Minister's permit, or who were refugee claimants at the time of the census, and family members living here with them).
So both? I ask because I have a terrible time understanding people that don't have nearly perfect diction but I also recognize that this is a particular handicap of mine compared to other people that I work with. But I have trouble sympathizing with the idea that the mere existence of any accent should somehow be off-putting.
quote:They say the Census is supposed to count "American citizens" (or that was how it was originally designed).
The Constitution is probably a good place to start:
quote:Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Nothing there about citizenship. Just "free Persons". Though if the original intent is your concern, then that was to only count white people and 3/5 of each black person.
[ March 23, 2010, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah this is a pretty straightforward deal. It's supposed to count all people living here, and it's also more factually useful to count the actual number of persons, with or without citizenship.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: The constitution mandates all "free persons" be counted. It says nothing about citizens. It is constitutionally required that illegal immigrants be counted.
Thank you for clarifying that for me. I really do appreciate the information.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And the poor college student can stay on his parents' insurance if they have it.
What about us poor college students who are a little too old to be on their parents' insurance? Or whose parents can't afford the extra cost involved with having their child on their insurance?
Sorry about that. I was just pointing out that many poor college students who were too old on Saturday are not too old now.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: We filled out the ACS completed accurately, yet they stilled called us to "verify" answers, and the caller definitely didn't have English as her first language (which bothered me, as this is an American census) and kept questioning some things that came across like she didn't believe the answers. Very very uncomfortable.
Hey Farmgirl; this is Noemon.
I feel a bit dismayed that you were bothered that the caller had an accent. I had a response written, but I realized that it was responding to assumptions about what you likely meant, so I deleted it. Could you expand on your post a bit? What was it that bothered you about the person not having English as their first language?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Farmgirl, would you elaborate a bit further on your comments regarding accents and this being an American Census? The only ways I've been able to parse them have been pretty offensive. I'm hoping you can supply a different interpretation.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And the poor college student can stay on his parents' insurance if they have it.
What about us poor college students who are a little too old to be on their parents' insurance? Or whose parents can't afford the extra cost involved with having their child on their insurance?
Sorry about that. I was just pointing out that many poor college students who were too old on Saturday are not too old now.
Correction: will not be too old in 6 months.
Also, the penalties for not having insurance don't kick in quite yet. I forget if that's one of the provisions that kicks in staring 2011 or 2014.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
2014.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Thanks. That makes sense; as someone pointed out elsewhere, it goes hand-in-hand with the insurance companies not being allowed to decline someone based on pre-existing conditions.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
No problem. I have a list of major provisions in the bill organized by the year they go into effect. I've been meaning to throw it up in the healthcare thread, but I wanted to check its accuracy first. Hopefully, there will be time the afternoon.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Like this? Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Thanks rivka, that's very helpful!
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Precisely like that! Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It came from this article, which has another helpful PDF (changes in the first year) and a cool graph.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Farmgirl, would you elaborate a bit further on your comments regarding accents and this being an American Census? The only ways I've been able to parse them have been pretty offensive. I'm hoping you can supply a different interpretation.
It's possible Farmgirl meant the accent led her to believe the call-back was coming from an non-American company (e.g. Indian accent would make that likely) and she didn't like that the goverment was sending its work overseas.
How's that?
Hobbes Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It makes sense that if you're nervous about sharing data with the government, routing it through a foreign country is not going to make you feel better about it.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes:
quote:Farmgirl, would you elaborate a bit further on your comments regarding accents and this being an American Census? The only ways I've been able to parse them have been pretty offensive. I'm hoping you can supply a different interpretation.
It's possible Farmgirl meant the accent led her to believe the call-back was coming from an non-American company (e.g. Indian accent would make that likely) and she didn't like that the goverment was sending its work overseas.
How's that?
Hobbes
That's a possible explanation, and I'd like that to be what she meant. If she replies (and she mostly doesn't hang out here anymore, so it's entirely possible that she hasn't been back since her last post in this thread), we'll find out.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
That would indeed be a fair explanation.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Farmgirl, would you elaborate a bit further on your comments regarding accents and this being an American Census? The only ways I've been able to parse them have been pretty offensive. I'm hoping you can supply a different interpretation.
Y'know, I wouldn't be a fan if her meaning had been simply that she didn't like the caller having an accent either. But frankly the way you phrased your question, Juxtapose, rubbed me the wrong way too. Whereas Jake's post, asking precisely the same question, really, didn't offend at all.
Perhaps the more effective way to get an explanation isn't to sound like an irritated supervisor dealing with a subordinate who's just screwed up?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
It is possible to note that given the low salary of these call-center positions (about $14 an hour) and that they do seem to favour applications with multiple language experience, you should find immigrants with English as a second language over-represented as compared to native-born English speakers who happen to have learned a second-language.
quote:The temporary call center agent positions available for the 2010 Census will be based in the Kennesaw location. All applicants must pass a security check that includes fingerprinting, be at least 18 years old, have at least a high school diploma, sign a sworn statement to protect Census data and be legally able to work in the United States. Applicants also must be fluent in English. Fluency in other languages, including Vietnamese, Spanish, Korean, Russian and Mandarin Chinese are also needed.
It makes sense that they would favour applicants with multiple languages for the census callers as they probably end up speaking to folks with a lot of different languages.
And we do tend to suck at learning other languages compared to other people learning English.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Just tossing that in there as an extra standard swipe.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I thought it was pretty funny, albeit obviously not as daring as Colbert's go at it.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Farmgirl, would you elaborate a bit further on your comments regarding accents and this being an American Census? The only ways I've been able to parse them have been pretty offensive. I'm hoping you can supply a different interpretation.
Y'know, I wouldn't be a fan if her meaning had been simply that she didn't like the caller having an accent either. But frankly the way you phrased your question, Juxtapose, rubbed me the wrong way too. Whereas Jake's post, asking precisely the same question, really, didn't offend at all.
Perhaps the more effective way to get an explanation isn't to sound like an irritated supervisor dealing with a subordinate who's just screwed up?
Probably. I'm pretty bad at predicting how my tone is going to carry through the tubes. It's one of the reasons I don't post more often.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I believe you, but that really doesn't seem a problem with tone so much as outright wording. I'm imagining someone saying your post right now in a variety of tones of voice, and having much the same response to it. So lemme strike the 'irritated supervisor' from my post and leave it at 'supervisor dealing with a subordinate'.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Any part of the wording, specifically? I'm a little at a loss here.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
"I'm hoping you can supply a different interpretation."
I can remember my first impression being, "Huh, well, Internet tone isn't reliable...well, OK, is Juxtapose Farmgirl's boss?" at the end.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think it's this bit:
quote:I'm hoping you can supply a different interpretation.
It sort of sounds like you are telling her to supply a different interpretation.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It sets up a situation where you consider Farmgirl to be in a position where she needs to justify herself to you. Since she doesn't, it isn't an appopriate situation to set up.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:...well, OK, is Juxtapose Farmgirl's boss?
Thank you, Internet.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, that took about a minute and a half.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I see. Maybe phrasing it as a question would work better.
--------
Farmgirl, I'd still like to hear a bit more of your thoughts. Would you be willing to share them?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Adding up the money spent by Americans on a product means nothing.
So, by your utterly inane logic, if Obamacare ends up costing us twice as much as the status quo, that 'means nothing.'
Because it's just adding up the money spent by Americans on a product.
Good lord.
American's spend more on everything. We aren't nationalizing dog food. We have larger homes, more vehicles, more pets and better health care. All those things cost more money.
According to the bill signed into law...preventative medicine is "FREE". Doesn't that make sense? Preventative medicine can save money in the long run. Great idea. I'm sure this will lower the cost of healthcare in America.
One problem....it isn't free. The laws of physics still apply. Insurance companies can't charge a copay for a mammogram or colonoscopy but that doesn't make it "free". The insurance company still has to pay the hospital for the procedure. The hospital still has to pay the doctors, nurses and for equipment.
What's the catch. Your "free" preventative medicine will be made up for with higher premiums. Of course the insurance companies will be demonized for raising premiums but what choice do they have. Raise premiums or go out of business.
Exactly according to plan. Government mandates force them to either raise premiums or go out of business to cover your "free" preventative care. Either way, they lose. Evil greedy profiteers or go out of business. Sounds like a sound plan for a government takeover. The bill wasn't for single payer government controlled healthcare. It'll lead to it on a painful path.
I didn't allow you to put an oak tree in my backyard...I only wanted a shrub. People are short sighted and stupid.
Immediate single payer would be better. It's inevitable. They prefer the pain to get there over being direct and honest with the public. The public can suffer for their own good.
In reality, single payer was passed, it's just going to be a painful decades long transition.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Adding up the money spent by Americans on a product means nothing.
So, by your utterly inane logic, if Obamacare ends up costing us twice as much as the status quo, that 'means nothing.'
Because it's just adding up the money spent by Americans on a product.
Good lord.
American's spend more on everything. We aren't nationalizing dog food. We have larger homes, more vehicles, more pets and better health care. All those things cost more money ...
The original statement is that Americans spend twice as much on healthcare. That is actually a % of GDP figure. It should be obvious that Americans cannot spend more on "everything" in this kind of measure.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Inane logic...? Is our heathcare so bad because we spend so much? I suppose Zimbabwe has the best healthcare for spending the least.
If you really cared about a person, the cost of their care would be irrelevant.
Also, your "GDP" numbers are meaningless. As a percentage of GDP Americans spend more on pets than Europeans. Americans spend more on cars than Europeans. Americans spend more on red meat than Europeans, we eat more red meat. We have more pets and more cars. We also have the best healthcare in the world. That's why wealthy Europeans and European politicians come to America for care. America also spends the highest GDP on the military. Where does the rest of the world turn to for a good military? If Canada didn't have the luxury of having free military protection, they might reconsider their healthcare expense. The US should start charging the UN for their peacekeeping missions instead of being it's #1 supporter in finance and troops.
America is the best and spends the most in a lot of area's. GDP is meaningless. Maybe we should look at GDP expenditures on government employees. Your GDP numbers are comparing us against countries where you can't afford a home, they rely on the US military, they don't own as many cars, etc.
GDP numbers are especially skewed when you live in a nation that "PRODUCES" less.
The US is tops in healthcare responsiveness and quality. If you need good-fast care...US is top of the list.
Good and fast costs more. America, the originators of McDonald's and high speed internet.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
By the way, Americans pay too much for internet as a percentage of GDP. There are nations that don't have internet, let alone high speed. The one's with universal dial-up are better. Without America, you wouldn't even have dial-up.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Inane logic...? Is our heathcare so bad because we spend so much? I suppose Zimbabwe has the best healthcare for spending the least.
If you really cared about a person, the cost of their care would be irrelevant.
Also, your "GDP" numbers are meaningless.
Wow, you're really in over your head. The more you talk, the more it is obvious. Sorry.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Statistics are a funny thing. If you need heart surgery, you get it the fastest in the United States. If you need a hip replacement..you get it the fastest in the United States. If you don't have insurance, you can go to an emergency room and you have to be treated,..in the United States.
If you need a heart surgery in Canada, get on a list that considers your age. If you're a Canadian with means, fly to America and save your life. If you're a Canadian with universal care and a broken arm, sit in the lobby of the emergency room all day waiting to be helped. The uninsured American would've had his arm set and cast put in place hours before yours. The uninsured American needing heart by-pass surgery would be under the knife while you wait on a list prioritized by metrics.
You benefit from the greedy innovation of the United States. I wont bother to the list them. I'll let you consider. Fill in the blank.....The first _________ occurred in the US.
Any area you choose. Medicine, technology, etc.
If America gets European style healthcare, the rich Europeans will have no where to run. If America was Europe, the world would still have dial up. Maybe DSL.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
The first successful heart transplant occurred in South Africa.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Good and fast costs more. America, the originators of McDonald's and high speed internet.
You're putting McDonald's in the category 'good, fast, and costs more'?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: The first successful heart transplant occurred in South Africa.
South Africa must be ahead of the world. How about things like: radio, flight, electricity, light bulbs, vaccines, automobiles, computers, etc, etc.
Our society of greed sure has produced a lot. Unlike the "fair" nations of the world, we are a nation of greedy innovators.
Greedy innovators better humanity. Fair socialist nations sit back and wait for the government to provide. America's contributions to the world have delayed the collapse of European nations. Europe should be thankful we haven't treated medical and mechanical technology the same as weapons technology. We hide our weapons technology and share the rest. Be glad we shared Penicillin.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Very true. Alexander Fleming was a great American. May we all bow in the shadow of his generosity in sharing his invention with the rest of the world.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*snort* Of course, while you are absolutely correct that Fleming was no American, it was Americans who made penicillin commercially viable.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:How about things like: radio, flight, electricity, light bulbs, vaccines, automobiles, computers, etc, etc.
God bless those great Americans like Bose, Tesla, Hertz, Marconi, du Temple, Forlanini, Vuia, Volta, Faraday, Ohm, Bell, Siemens, Kelvin, Swan, Brody, Jenner, Pasteur, Bernardi, Lanchester, Benz, Otto, Diesel, Schickard, Thomas de Colmar, Babbage, Herzstark, Turing, Zuse, and Faggin.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dante:
quote:How about things like: radio, flight, electricity, light bulbs, vaccines, automobiles, computers, etc, etc.
God bless those great Americans like Bose, Tesla, Hertz, Marconi, du Temple, Forlanini, Vuia, Volta, Faraday, Ohm, Bell, Siemens, Kelvin, Swan, Brody, Jenner, Pasteur, Bernardi, Lanchester, Benz, Otto, Diesel, Schickard, Thomas de Colmar, Babbage, Herzstark, Turing, Zuse, and Faggin.
Really? is this supposed to be a refutation, or are you just trying to be cute?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Looks like a pretty good refutation to me.
The idea that the rest of the world isn't good at invention or making inventions commercially available is a completely ridiculous idea.
Americans didn't invent electricity, whatever that means, nor did Americans invent flight (Ben Franklin saw a balloon flight in France 130 years before the Wright brothers, and an Englishman pioneered self-powered fixed wing flight in the 1840's, so while it would be accurate to say that Americans invented "controlled heavier-than-air powered flight" that's about it for major American contributions to the invention flight.
An Italian invented radio. Or possibly a german, depending on what you count as radio. If we grant invention to Tesla, who was the first one to reliably transmit radio waves, well, he was Serbian. Got his education in Europe, and didn't move to the US until he was 30. So I SUPPOSE you could say an American invented radio, but that would be pretty disengenuous.
The german's invented the automobile, and thousands of automobiles sold in europe before Olds built his first assembly line, so...
Germans, Britians, and Americans all invented computers around the same time working independently of each other, and computers were sold all through Europe independent of any American innovation or marketing.
Really, the list is crap from beginning to end, as a demonstration of either american ingenuity or American marketing.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: If you don't have insurance, you can go to an emergency room and you have to be treated,..in the United States.
You sure can, and then spend years if not the rest of your life doing nothing but paying for it to the neglect of other things that need to be paid for like insurance for the next time something happens.
I think one of the best episodes of 30 Days was when he and his fiance attempted to live on minimum wage for a month. He got a job at a temp agency (he eventually realizes he has to work two full time jobs), and she got a job working in the kitchen of a cafe. He took the bus to work, and she walked two hours everyday so as to save money. He got an inflamed hand from doing manual labor, and she got an infection that needed anti-biotics. Both of them tried to get seen a free clinic where a doctor could simply prescribe antibiotics for her or steroids for him. They spent hours waiting only to be told that their names hadn't been randomly called (they had a lottery system as there were just too many people) for that day. Finally in desperation they went the emergency room route. She got a quick checkup and a prescription, he got a surgical wrap for his hand and some anti-inflammatory cream, (the wrap cost $40 on the bill, about one days wages at minimum wage after taxes.)
At the end of the month, they had made rent, their rental deposit, food (they were eating essentially rice/beans beans/rice), they had gotten furniture for free from a church program, and they managed to eat out exactly once for his fiances birthday, and take two children out to a matinee. But when they got the two bills from the emergency room they were in the hole several thousand dollars.
They didn't even set out to demonstrate whether or not America's health care was effective, it was just something that came up when both of them got sick while working.
[ March 28, 2010, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And of course that doesn't even get into the problem of difference in care in ERs compared to regular doctors.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
America is the "great melting pot". We didn't invent everything but we know how to make it available to the masses, cheap. So cheap in fact, their production is eventually exported to other nations.
American's are resilient and inventive. Our society allows for upward mobility. When my wife and I first got married, we made $800 a month and had a $550 rent payment in a 500 square foot apartment surrounded by drug dealers and prostitutes. I know beans and rice, top ramen and noodle ronie quite well. When the dinner choice is Top Ramen with an egg or tuna and the tuna is an expensive splurge, you know what it is like to be poor. We look back on those days fondly. We knew it was temporary because we were improving ourselves. I'm lucky to live in a nation where that lifestyle is but a stepping stone. Some people accept their current level, others strive to improve. If you accept where you are, the rest owe you nothing. If you're too lazy to improve your current situation, you have accepted your current situation. It took decades of long hours and student loan debt to get where we are.
I read an article in the local paper about an unfortunate individual who was let go from his job at a Pawn Shop after working there for 12 years. I don't pity a man who worked at a pawn shop for 12 years. Many of the people who voted for "change" accept the status quo in their own lives.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
mal- it is great that you were able to move up the economic ladder. Statistically, you had a higher probability of doing so in Canada (or Norway). Despite our claims of upward mobility, most other nations actually do better on that scale.
Posted by Jenos (Member # 12168) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: America is the "great melting pot". We didn't invent everything but we know how to make it available to the masses, cheap. So cheap in fact, their production is eventually exported to other nations.
American's are resilient and inventive. Our society allows for upward mobility. When my wife and I first got married, we made $800 a month and had a $550 rent payment in a 500 square foot apartment surrounded by drug dealers and prostitutes. I know beans and rice, top ramen and noodle ronie quite well. When the dinner choice is Top Ramen with an egg or tuna and the tuna is an expensive splurge, you know what it is like to be poor. We look back on those days fondly. We knew it was temporary because we were improving ourselves. I'm lucky to live in a nation where that lifestyle is but a stepping stone. Some people accept their current level, others strive to improve. If you accept where you are, the rest owe you nothing. If you're too lazy to improve your current situation, you have accepted your current situation. It took decades of long hours and student loan debt to get where we are.
I read an article in the local paper about an unfortunate individual who was let go from his job at a Pawn Shop after working there for 12 years. I don't pity a man who worked at a pawn shop for 12 years. Many of the people who voted for "change" accept the status quo in their own lives.
American mobility is less than you perceive it to be. Many other countries are much more fluid in their social mobility, notably many European countries have greater social mobility than America. There are a significant number of problems that hinder social mobility in America, the fact that you were capable of it does not effectively show that Americans in general can "get farther if they work harder". Its much more an indicator of the fact that you were lucky, not that you were particularly more hard working than any other person in a low social class.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: mal- it is great that you were able to move up the economic ladder. Statistically, you had a higher probability of doing so in Canada (or Norway). Despite our claims of upward mobility, most other nations actually do better on that scale.
Have you ever watched House Hunters International? You don't have to be wealthy to own a home in America. America's 10% unemployment during the "worst economic downturn since the great depression" is normal unemployment in Europe. Of course Europe has socialized medicine and guaranteed housing. France's 20% welfare rate should be praised.
Norway is a homogeneous society.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I didn't say you would own a home in Europe, I said statistically you are more likely to end up higher on the economic ladder than your parents.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Our society allows for upward mobility.
Like they've been saying, the European states have better upward mobility than the united states.
*watches information be ignored again*
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Samp- technically he didn't ignore the information. He countered with an unrelated fact (home ownership).
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: I see. Maybe phrasing it as a question would work better.
--------
Farmgirl, I'd still like to hear a bit more of your thoughts. Would you be willing to share them?
Okay, I was going to just ignore this, because I felt you were trying to "create" an issue that doesn't exist - or pronounce upon me your own idea and interpretation of why I said that.
But after further thought, and reflection upon myself of why it bothered me, I thought I would respond.
Let me say first that you had better not DARE imagine any kind of racism/ethnic prejudice in what I said. My great friend Betto, who I have breakfast with almost every morning is from Honduras, has a very heavy accent, and I enjoy talking to him immensely and the accent does not bother me.
My other good friend, Ging, is from the Philippines and it took me forever to learn to understand what she says, but I finally "get" it now and we have lunch often and I love conversing with her.
It isn't the accent.
I think what rubbed me raw about the caller was the accent combined with the intrusive questions asked, as well as the "tone of voice" with which they were asked -- that tone that kind of implied she didn't believe my answers -- made me feel like she was accusing me of lying. I realize that her having an accent made it much more difficult for me to decipher her implied intent -- harder for me to "read" what she was asking/meant in some of her questions, and easier for me to take offense because it felt to me like her tone was one of interrogation rather than respectful confirmation of questions. You can get a lot out of a person's voice inflection, and when that can be distorted by an unfamiliar accent, it can make things come across in the wrong way.
Understand, due to the nature of this survey, these were somewhat personal questions, ones I was not comfortable answering even if the person was someone I knew, quite honestly, and here was a stranger than I couldn't even confirm anything about asking me "are you SURE"? type questions about things I didn't wish to divulge in the first place.
(Edit: And what Hobbes said on the previous page -- that thought did cross my mind....)
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Farmgirl, thanks for clarifying. I can totally understand that if you felt the questions were too intrusive, it might make it worse because the accent just drove it home more that you were having to give information to a stranger.
Not to mention, if you hire someone to gather information on the phone they need to be clear, understandable, and above all - polite to folks.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Farmgirl, thanks. Feeling interrogated isn't fun, and being accused of lying doubly so. What you wrote makes a lot of sense, and I appreciate you taking the time to post it.
I don't, however, see what any of that has to do with this being an American census. I believe you when you say there wasn't anything racist behind what you wrote. But I don't think it was unreasonable for me be bothered by it and and ask for clarification (even if it was poorly phrased).
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Everyone should select "African American". All humans came from Africa. My ancestors were black when they migrated to Europe. The impacts of latitude on ancestral melanin content are not important....we're human. Even I can tell the difference between an Afican and an African American, at a glance. African Americans are turning white.
Check back in 1000 years. They'll have a nice tan.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
'Even you'? But I thought with your Jamaican neighbors, you were a serious expert on racial matters, malanthrop.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I know fore sure, Arty didn't select "African American".
I'm no expert because of my neighbors. It's likely I've lived a much more diverse life than you. I spent 12 years in the military with blacks, hispanics, asians, etc. Only rank matters there. Race and sex is a non-issue in the military. It is also a non-issue in my neighborhood. There are more Puerto Rican's in my neighborhood than Jamaicans. My neighborhood is extremely diverse. My working class neighbors of other races are just as concerned as I. They're just as likely to say, "There goes the neighborhood" as I am. Maybe more likely....they can't be called racist.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Race and sex is a non-issue in the military.
Race and sex is a non-issue for promotion and authority.
If anyone want's to read your link, it discusses the military's effort to prevent sexual assault and harassment. A quote from your link, "We want our Army to be an example for the rest of the country."
Your link indicates that sexual assault and harassment is an issue. Sex isn't an issue for promotion and acceptance. There will always be a-holes and rapists. At least in the military a woman or minority can't claim that they didn't have the same opportunity and a white boy will will follow the orders of and say, "yes mam" to a minority female officer. The military screens out racists like St Luke's screens out smokers.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
OK, let me see if I can get this straight. You're saying that the military acknowledges that sexual assault and sexual harassment are issues for itself. Both are directed mostly towards women.
But sex is not an issue for promotion and authority?
Did you have to train yourself to hold two such contradictory ideas in your mind at once, or does it just come naturally?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Mal, you should have a look at table 4, on page 35, which pretty clearly shows a correlation between race, sex, and promotion. In favor of whites and males.
ETA: the study concerns the US Navy.
Posted by mamapajamas (Member # 12325) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: If you want to be ignored, discounted, and treated as if you don't exist, by all means, give as little information as possible.
The people who do give information - which is not attached to your name - will thank you.
That's true. I filled mine out the minute I got it and put it back in the mailbox.
A day later I got a card reminding me to fill out my census form.
Two days later I got ANOTHER reminder to fill out my census form.
In the next few days, I got several MORE reminders.
Then, this past week, I received a second census form. So did most of my neighbors. In other zip codes in this city, they got only one.
I'm wondering whether I should fill it out and send it in and be counted TWICE.
I didn't find any of the questions particularly objectionable.
I DID, however, wonder at the cost of postage and competence of management for sending out all of those reminders and TWO census forms within certain zip codes.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
No, in fact if you read the insert they state specifically that if you already returned your form you should not return the second. I just got a second form too. I suspect that there are some areas where large numbers of people have not returned the form. Rather than send a census worker to every residence, they are trying to get more forms back to save on costs. I don't know for sure, but that's my supposition.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Race and sex is a non-issue in the military.
That idea is brilliant. Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ace of Spades:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: If you want to be ignored, discounted, and treated as if you don't exist...
I'm a white, male Republican. I'm used to it.
That must be why there are so few White male in the Senate. And why you never hear about white male succeeding in business....
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I'm a white, male Republican. I'm used to it.
It's like Christian persecution in the US. It does happen, but it's like throwing rocks at tanks, technically the tanks are under attack, but...
Posted by mamapajamas (Member # 12325) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: No, in fact if you read the insert they state specifically that if you already returned your form you should not return the second. I just got a second form too. I suspect that there are some areas where large numbers of people have not returned the form. Rather than send a census worker to every residence, they are trying to get more forms back to save on costs. I don't know for sure, but that's my supposition.
I was joking about filling it in and returning the second form. I was making a joke about getting to be counted twice.
I'm wondering WHY two forms were sent out to everyone in only ONE zip code in this city.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Interesting "comment" at the end of that article, Kat (posted by someone else) about how the statistics are figured - and whether or not the people actually received the form. There are always so many variables to statistics that I wonder about blanket suppositions like this article tries to make.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I was actually hoping for a little more science in the article - and I'm not sure that "open but not too open" is a good descriptor of a personality trait. But still, kind of interesting.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Trouble is, since the data is only by state, it's really fairly meaningless. For example, I'm quite certain there are correlations by demographic data -- they just don't sift out at the state level.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I remember hearing both Rush and Glenn encourage people not to participate in the census. The problem in part as I see it is that both of them do nothing but complain about everything their opponents do, attempt to make people believe there's no middle ground, and then encourage people to refuse to cooperate at every turn.
The unfortunate side effect of a policy like that is that it undercuts any ability your side has to accomplish anything meaningful. A policy of pure obstructionism is enormously unsatisfying.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
).![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)