Long Form Census

[Bryan]

You have statistics that suggest this?

As many as you have for your position.

[Bryan]

There was no long form census.

There was. 4.5 million people got them in the mail.

[Smallc]

There was. 4.5 million people got them in the mail.

That was not the long form census. It was the household survey.

[Bryan]

That was not the long form census. It was the household survey.

The "National Household Survey" was the name of the long form in 2011.

[Smallc]

The "National Household Survey" was the name of the long form in 2011.

There was no long form in 2011.

The point being, you didn't fill it out, even when there was no long form. You said you might if not for the long form. You didn't, proving that you're simply not willing to do it for some irrational reason. Fine.

Edited May 6, 2016 by Smallc

[Bryan]

There was no long form in 2011.

There was. I got one. So did 4.5 million other Canadians.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Filled out mine yesterday, no problem. In a world of mass surveillance, public and private, this is the least of my worries.

[dre]

Filled out mine yesterday, no problem. In a world of mass surveillance, public and private, this is the least of my worries.

Yeah its funny that some of the same people raising concerns regarding the census support parties that introduce bills allowing them to data-mine our email. ROFLMAO.

[Smallc]

I still didn't get mine so...

[jacee]

Statistics are neutral but statistics are often abused to provide psuedo-scientific justifications for ideology. That is why many people on the left get upset when people start using race related crime or IQ stats to draw conclusions which they don't like. The trouble with "liberals" is they don't have the self-awareness necessary to recognize when they abuse statistics in the same way to support their ideology. If some conservatives dislike the collection of statistics it is because the data is so frequently abused by liberals who like to pretend they are 'making science based policy' when all they are really doing is mining data until they find stats to support their preferred policy choices.

If you're not in the data, they're not going to find your choices.

They're going to find how many kids of various ages will need schools, doctors, rinks, etc., how many aging parents need senior care ...

Allocation of resources and services.

And your needs won't be counted.

.

[jacee]

There was. I got one. So did 4.5 million other Canadians.

The voluntary one.

That data is useless in looking at trends over time, can't connect to previous or future, and it's wonky.

.

[Bryan]

The voluntary one.

That data is useless in looking at trends over time, can't connect to previous or future, and it's wonky.

.

So only data obtained under duress is useful?

[jacee]

So only data obtained under duress is useful?

Hey you know what Bryan?

I don't care if you're not in the census.

Just don't whine about shortage of services & resources you need, k?

And stand at the back of the line ... with the other uncounted ones.

:-)

[Bryan]

Hey you know what Bryan?

I don't care if you're not in the census.

Just don't whine about shortage of services & resources you need, k?

And stand at the back of the line ... with the other uncounted ones.

:-)

If not filling out the census can lead to less government spending, that's a pretty good reason not to fill it out.

[segnosaur]

So only data obtained under duress is useful?

No, but it does make it more accurate.

If not filling out the census can lead to less government spending, that's a pretty good reason not to fill it out.

I think your biggest mistake is thinking that might actually be true.

Governments love to spend money... Liberals, conservatives, federal, provincial, municipal... (Some parties and politicians more than others, but all seem to like their social programs to some degree.) If you don't fill at least the short form census out, the government is unlikely to reduce the amount of spending. It will however change the way the spending is allocated... less money for your province or city (so you have fewer doctors, less money for roads, etc.) and more spending for others.

Granted, one census form isn't going to make a difference in the grand scheme of things. (And there are probably people who avoid filling out the form all across the country, so the problem evens itself out.) Still, you are better off to fill out at least the short form.

[cybercoma]

If not filling out the census can lead to less government spending, that's a pretty good reason not to fill it out.

Thats not how this works. Not filling out the census may lead to MORE spending, since they don't have an accurate picture of how well some people are doing. But hey, if you want the government making inaccurate decisions with your money, more power to you.

[jacee]

If not filling out the census can lead to less government spending, that's a pretty good reason not to fill it out.

That's fine as long as the uncounted ones are the ones who don't get service/resources.

Speaking of 'agencies' that massage data to influence public policy ...

/fraser_institute_thinks_sending_your_kid_to_university_counts_as_child_care

Edited May 6, 2016 by jacee

[Bryan]

No, but it does make it more accurate.

Get out of here. Confessions obtained under duress are notoriously unreliable.

[jacee]

Get out of here. Confessions obtained under duress are notoriously unreliable.

Are you claiming exemption because the census is 'cruel and unusual punishment'?

:-)

[Bryan]

Are you claiming exemption because the census is 'cruel and unusual punishment'?

:-)

I'm saying making the answers to anything mandatory degrades the data. People claiming the opposite in the case of the census are full of it.

[August1991]

Filled out mine yesterday, no problem. In a world of mass surveillance, public and private, this is the least of my worries.

I complete my tax form honestly in general because they already know what my numbers are. While I understand that our CRA/State tax collectors are largely incompetent in collecting taxes from a few people, they know my numbers already.

But Spanky, I'll be damned if I waste my time filling out another form for bureaucrats where I know damned well that most people just lie. The bureaucrats already know all this stuff.

And if the bureaucrats don't know, well, as I said - bureaucrats are incompetent.

In 2016, the Internet provides enough information. A lack of data is not the problem of the 21st century.

Accurate data/information will be the future problem and only a 19th century Leftist would believe that people in the 21st century answer honestly a State census.

Edited May 7, 2016 by August1991

[cybercoma]

Get out of here. Confessions obtained under duress are notoriously unreliable.

That word. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

[Guest]

That's fine as long as the uncounted ones are the ones who don't get service/resources.

Speaking of 'agencies' that massage data to influence public policy ...

/fraser_institute_thinks_sending_your_kid_to_university_counts_as_child_care

They probably got "child care" confused with "nannies".

[Bryan]

That word. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

Actually it does:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/duress

"force or threats meant to make someone do something"

[msj]

I complete my tax form honestly in general because they already know what my numbers are. While I understand that our CRA/State tax collectors are largely incompetent in collecting taxes from a few people, they know my numbers already.But Spanky, I'll be damned if I waste my time filling out another form for bureaucrats where I know damned well that most people just lie. The bureaucrats already know all this stuff.And if the bureaucrats don't know, well, as I said - bureaucrats are incompetent.In 2016, the Internet provides enough information. A lack of data is not the problem of the 21st century.

No they don't know this stuff.

1) they have taken the income questions off the long form census as it is obviously redundant and getting the information directly from the CRA is generally better (albeit subject to more lying).

2) how would they know that I am a BC'er still living in BC without asking me? Just ask rather than try to cross reference between different databases.

3) how would they know if I am specifically blind or deaf or have problems pooping without specifically asking me? My doctor isn't going to say unless I get him to fill out a disability tax credit form with the CRA and even then I may not be that keen on the information being shared in that much detail between the CRA and StatsCan.

4) Sure, when they ask about ethnicity it is annoying. So I simply put down "Canadian" and ignore the boxes asking if I'm "white" or "Chinese" or "Japanese" etc. Perfectly legal and accurate response to those questions.

5) education and skills attainment. What better way to get that information than by asking me rather than going through various databases at various schools to figure it out (especially for people who are from foreign countries)?

6) how else to find out how many hours in a week a person spends doing house work or looking after a dependent or working at paid labour? Oh, and to ask how they got to their job?

All of these questions are easy to answer in this format and provide a nice baseline every 5 years.

Most of them cannot be easily found through other means in a world with federal/provincial/municipal jurisdictions and privacy codes.

Most people are not going to be jerks about this so the small bits of noise added by the jerks will be overwhelmed by the responses of the decent people who answer as best they can.

Edited May 7, 2016 by msj