Long Form Census

[Black Dog]

Back to big brother watching us again. You people just don't get it, but then if you want the government to hold your hand thru life, then maybe it is a good thing.

People who think that answering a few questions on the LFC is tantamount to Big Brother-style surveillance should be smacked in the face repeatedly with a copy of Bill C-51.

[cybercoma]

Well, the last time I got the long term census it took (I think) half an hour to fill out (Can't remember exactly... it was over a decade ago.). That's time I could have spent doing more important tasks (like plotting world domination, watching Family Guy, etc.) So it did affect me personally.

Perhaps your time isn't valuable, but if we DO value our free time, not wanting to spend that time filling out a census form is a "good reason".

If you're going to force a good portion of the population to give up a significant amount of their free time, it would be nice to know that the information is actually of benefit to the responder in some way. Simply saying "other people need it" may not cut it.

So I guess what you're saying is you don't put any value on how your tax money is spent because that's a big reason for the census.

[segnosaur]

Because statisticians didn't try to explain multiple times why the Long Form census was important.

https://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/canadian_public_policy/v036/36.3.green.pdf

Ok, first of all, keep in mind that your article is not available to the general public. (Only the first page or so is.)

However, to be honest I don't really think its telling us anything that hasn't been mentioned before.

Yes, the switch from the census to a survey is problematic. Yes, it does introduce all sorts of issues with sampling bias. Yes, it makes comparisons between census years difficult if not impossible. It may even be more expensive in the long run. The question is, how does it affect the average citizen. You know, the ones who live their lives never having to look at any sort of statistics except for the occasional census form. Does it enhance their lives in any way? (More money? More safe?)

Many of the arguments that are brought up when talking about the census are things like "It helps us locate services" or "It helps businesses know where to locate". The question is, in how many of those situations is the enhanced accuracy of the long-form census critical, and in how many cases is the less accurate survey still "good enough" (or where the data can be taken from other sources). For example, one of the earlier references gave a hypothetical example of a school opening up that was largely unused because of bad census data; however, the short form census would still give basic demographics, and school boards can also look at recent trends in enrollment to do their planning.

[ToadBrother]

Many of the arguments that are brought up when talking about the census are things like "It helps us locate services" or "It helps businesses know where to locate". The question is, in how many of those situations is the enhanced accuracy of the long-form census critical, and in how many cases is the less accurate survey still "good enough" (or where the data can be taken from other sources). For example, one of the earlier references gave a hypothetical example of a school opening up that was largely unused because of bad census data; however, the short form census would still give basic demographics, and school boards can also look at recent trends in enrollment to do their planning.

How about we start with the loss of the labour market data that the Long Form census provided, that was lost in 2010, which has greatly reduced the accuracy of labour market projections. This is critical economic data that we have lost a significant amount of fine resolution on.

[segnosaur]

So I guess what you're saying is you don't put any value on how your tax money is spent because that's a big reason for the census.

I do care about how tax money is spent. The question is whether the long-form census was critical for making the best decisions for spending that money.

There are a lot of things that a government can look at when making spending decisions... demographics provided by the short form, retail sales (which provide a more immediate feed back about economic conditions than census data taken years ago), unemployment figures, etc. And many spending programs are fixed so the census is irrelevant (e.g. military spending).

If you're going to suggest that the government needs data to figure out what to spend money on, then you'll have to tell me what programs you were planning that require that information.

[TimG]

People who think that answering a few questions on the LFC is tantamount to Big Brother-style surveillance should be smacked in the face repeatedly with a copy of Bill C-51.

I see a lot of gross exaggeration from opponents of both measures.

[ToadBrother]

I see a lot of gross exaggeration from opponents of both measures.

And I see a lot of objections that are little more than spurious invention.

[TimG]

And I see a lot of objections that are little more than spurious invention.

I see a lot of denial from you. You still have not given me any reason to believe the bias introduced by compelling unwilling participants is less than the bias introduced by only accepting volunteers. I suspect there is no evidence one way or another and it is simply assumed that most people will be honest.

[ToadBrother]

I see a lot of denial from you. You still have not given me any reason to believe the bias introduced by compelling unwilling participants is less than the bias introduced by only accepting volunteers. I suspect there is no evidence one way or another and it is simply assumed that most people will be honest.

YOu are aware that the problem of significant bias was only introduced when STats Can tried to replace the mandatory census with a voluntary one, right?

And frankly, since you're the one inventing this objection in defiance of what statisticians are saying, it's incumbent upon you to demonstrate why your objection has any weight at all. It's you making the claim, you demonstrate why a mandatory census is inaccurate and can't deal with bias.

[Ash74]

Random questioning by police is handy as well. Does not mean we should do it. Rights and all

[Wilber]

You are avoiding my point. Statisticians have no magic that tells them exactly how inaccurate the data is because they have way to know what the the "correct" answers are. They can only look for patterns that might suggest fiction but it is still just a guess. Seems to me there is a huge assumption being made that the biases introduced by a voluntary census are actually less than the biases introduced by unmotivated people providing bad data.

I personally don't care if the census is mandatory or not but it is probably cheaper to make it mandatory even if the data is just as unreliable.

That's a good point. While it is illegal not to fill it out, is one bound to tell the truth when filling it out? You are not under oath. If not, there is no real way of knowing which information is accurate and which is not. You just have to go on trust.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Wilber

[segnosaur]

How about we start with the loss of the labour market data that the Long Form census provided, that was lost in 2010, which has greatly reduced the accuracy of labour market projections. This is critical economic data that we have lost a significant amount of fine resolution on.

I have no doubt that it has reduced labor market data. But why is it considered "critical"?

For training purposes? Job listings and current school enrollment listings should give an idea what jobs are needed. (Not to mention the fact that since students have free will to make their own decisions, the government wouldn't have the ability to force them into any particular field anyways.)

Knowing where to invest/stimulate the economy? Unemployment rates should give an idea where the economy is most depressed.

And how much of that data is just a case of asking "what happened" (as opposed to "what can we do?")

[ReeferMadness]

I see a lot of denial from you. You still have not given me any reason to believe the bias introduced by compelling unwilling participants is less than the bias introduced by only accepting volunteers. I suspect there is no evidence one way or another and it is simply assumed that most people will be honest.

Welcome to the internet age, where everyone is an expert. You don't need to know anything about the science because you can always find an "expert" who agrees with you. Or not. Even if you know nothing about the matter at hand, you can just make up some "logical" objection and not even bother learning about it.

Don't want vaccinations? That's OK because they're just a plot concocted by evil pharmaceutical companies. Don't want to stop driving your big-ass SUV with heated seats? No problem because climate change is just a scam invented by scientists who otherwise couldn't get a real job. Don't like the long form census? Well, it's just a plot by a bunch of pinkos who want to control he universe.

If the science doesn't correspond with your world view, just feel free to ignore it. Revel in your ignorance. Welcome to the 21st century.

[Big Guy]

Why make decisions based on data and statistics? All that does is allow the public to understand why changes have to made to accommodate changes in our society. We have the Bible and the beliefs of our elected officials to give us direction for the future!

BTW, Daily, I track the passage of the sun around the earth - I even have video to prove it.

[poochy]

Why make decisions based on data and statistics? All that does is allow the public to understand why changes have to made to accommodate changes in our society. We have the Bible and the beliefs of our elected officials to give us direction for the future!

BTW, Daily, I track the passage of the sun around the earth - I even have video to prove it.

Which decisions, please explain in detail.

[The_Squid]

Which decisions, please explain in detail.

Here's some really basic reasons that municpalities and provinces will use it for:

Planning schools.

Planning public transportation and infrastructure needs in the future.

Planning health infrastructure like care homes and hospitals. Which ones need to be expanded? Which ones can be eliminated?

Every community across the entire nation will use it for these basic purposes.

[ToadBrother]

Here's some really basic reasons that municpalities and provinces will use it for:

Planning schools.

Planning public transportation and infrastructure needs in the future.

Planning health infrastructure like care homes and hospitals. Which ones need to be expanded? Which ones can be eliminated?

Every community across the entire nation will use it for these basic purposes.

The long census also gives context to the more basic demographic information. Are certain income levels more likely to do certain things; ie. have children, invest, pursue certain classes of occupations and so forth. The loss of the labour market detail is probably the most severe deficit of the loss of the long census, and considering how important that is going to be over the next few decades, the 2010 gap will never be quite filled.

[Big Guy]

Which decisions, please explain in detail.

Too many to note on the federal, provincial and municipal levels.

I am disappointed that Navdeep Bains, the newly named minister of Innovation, Science and Development, was not clearer on what "mandatory" will mean. That had been a contentious issue at the time. Perhaps a decision has not been made yet.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/11/05/liberals-restore-mandatory-long-form-census.html

Even Tony Clement, the minister who initiated the dropping of the form admits it was a mistake: “Looking back on it, I would say that it would have been better to have a much broader review of data collection in our country and come up with a better system,” Clement said.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Big Guy

[drummindiver]

Bill C-51 infringes upon our privacy.

Accolades for the long form census, which you are required to fill out or go to jail.

The hypocrisy is strong.

[drummindiver]

Here's some really basic reasons that municpalities and provinces will use it for:

Planning schools.

Planning public transportation and infrastructure needs in the future.

Planning health infrastructure like care homes and hospitals. Which ones need to be expanded? Which ones can be eliminated?

Every community across the entire nation will use it for these basic purposes.

You certainly don't need the LFC for any of these points.

[Big Guy]

Bill C-51 infringes upon our privacy.

Accolades for the long form census, which you are required to fill out or go to jail.

The hypocrisy is strong.

I guess we could start that discussion again. I suggest that it will still come down to privacy vs security. I look at the form the same way I look at security legislation. I give up my personal information to assist the government in making me live better or safer. My problem with Bill C-51 was objective oversight. That too will change. I believe that there is adequate oversight of the information I share through the Census.

Some other people do not - but without their cooperation, the process would not be valid.

It is a difference in our visions of how our society should be organized.

https://evidencefordemocracy.ca/en/census

http://www.cdhalton.ca/pdf/Census-Handout-Chong.pdf

Edited November 6, 2015 by Big Guy

[ToadBrother]

Bill C-51 infringes upon our privacy.

Accolades for the long form census, which you are required to fill out or go to jail.

The hypocrisy is strong.

There are reasonable infringements upon liberty. The long form census, with the critical demographic information it produces, is a reasonable, and very small infringement.

[drummindiver]

There are reasonable infringements upon liberty. The long form census, with the critical demographic information it produces, is a reasonable, and very small infringement.

I agree.

I also agree that Bill C51 was reasonable. To have trained federal agents doing their job to keep citizens safe does not seem much of an infringement IMO.

[ToadBrother]

I agree.

I also agree that Bill C51 was reasonable. To have trained federal agents doing their job to keep citizens safe does not seem much of an infringement IMO.

I'd say C-51 was a helluva more intrusive than the long form census, but I'd be happy if the Liberals amended it and brought it in line with our allies' legislative oversight.

[segnosaur]

Why make decisions based on data and statistics?

Nobody is saying that they don't need data and statistics to make better decisions.

The question is whether the mandatory long-form census was the best or only way to gather that information.

There are many sources of data... short form census, unemployment figures, government revenue/taxation, bankruptcy rates, building permits issued, etc. All of which give economic and demographic information that can be used for making policy decisions.

Which decisions, please explain in detail.

Too many to note on the federal, provincial and municipal levels.

Then just give one or two.

One or two cases where the additional accuracy of the long form census is critical in making decisions that affect significant numbers of people, where the short form is not accurate enough, and other sources won't work.

I'm not saying they don't exist. I just haven't seen any evidence for it (yet).