The Census is invasive, says Michigan

[PiKA2001]

Just mailed mine out-

There are people from all over the country who feel that the census needs only to know the number of occupants in the residence and that's all. I didn't find the census intrusive but I did feel that the questions of how I am related to whom I live with And if I own or rent unnecessary. Also think it's stupid that they didn't ask if the person was a citizen, permanent resident or temp visitor. Any person on a temp visa renting a house or apt is going to be counted as a citizen.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Just mailed mine out-

There are people from all over the country who feel that the census needs only to know the number of occupants in the residence and that's all. I didn't find the census intrusive but I did feel that the questions of how I am related to whom I live with And if I own or rent unnecessary. Also think it's stupid that they didn't ask if the person was a citizen, permanent resident or temp visitor. Any person on a temp visa renting a house or apt is going to be counted as a citizen.

People also aren't thinking this through. There has to be a way to check the numbers reported against another database, ie SSN to make sure that no one claims fake citizens to keep congressional seats or federal money. Also, the census is an expensive process that gets done only once a decade so it gives us a rare opportunity to collect demographic information like race, home owner ship that gives us a "snapshot" of the nation in 2010. We've done it forever, and I hate to say it, but opposing the census IS unAmerican!

[summer_gphib]

I have a problem with all the mail that they send out that is unnecessary--
I got a letter telling me they were sending a packet... um ok, but wouldn't I know that when I got the packet?
I got the packet and found it rather annoying, especially all the race questions. But I filled it out and sent it in.
Then I got a letter telling me that they had sent me a packet and hopefully I sent it back in. Ok... was that necessary?

Why not send the packets and then only send follow ups to people who don't respond in a month?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Yeah, due to the federal governments regulation of our money, yes I have seen them.

Uh, yeah. 'Cause if the big banks have demonstrated anything, it's that if just left to their own devices, they'll do everything the right way and the market will keep it all under control. Sure.

edit: In my utopia, this sort of system I would prefer for many types of certification, including lawyers, surveyors, and other occupations where some sort of certification of learning is necessary for practice.

As a lawyer, I'm afraid that doesn't sound much like a utopia to me.

Originally Posted by ree-Xi

This thread has turned into this:

My favorite Far Side of all time. I have a co-worker we call "Ginger" for this very reason.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Uh, yeah. 'Cause if the big banks have demonstrated anything, it's that if just left to their own devices, they'll do everything the right way and the market will keep it all under control. Sure.

Uhm, the free-market would have prevented it. The government distorted the market so that the banks were able to do what they did. You do understand that, right?

The government is the enabler, not the preventer.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Uhm, the free-market would have prevented it.

How so? I'm interested in hearing your perspective on this.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Uhm, the free-market would have prevented it. The government distorted the market so that the banks were able to do what they did. You do understand that, right?

No, I don't. Feel free to explain, but please also include an explanation of how banks would always do the right (as in economically right) thing and the economy would be better off if there was no regulation.

ETA: But before you start, you might as well know that your characterization of the health care bill as "fascism" in the other thread has put you at the disadvantage of starting your explanation with a pretty big credibility deficit. Standard libertarian arguments I have no problem with, although I rarely find them convincing. But the fascism stuff pretty much indicates a disconnect with political reality as far as I'm concerned.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

No, I don't. Feel free to explain, but please also include an explanation of how banks would always do the right (as in economically right) thing and the economy would be better off if there was no regulation.

Let's see.

First off, banks are allowed fractional reserve banking. Do you know what fractional reserve banking is? That's when banks are allowed to only keep a certain percentage of your money reserved. I believe it's around 10% (I know it was in the 60's, I doubt it's changed much). So, if everyone went to the bank right now, the bank would only be able to give back 10% of your money. Well, this amounts to a Ponzi scheme. This is the sort of stuff that Madoff was convicted for. Now, that doesn't mean that the free-market would necessarily have prevented it. But this is the sort of crap the government does not apply to banks even though it does to humans. That said, in a true free-market system with no fiat money (this is from the Austrian theory, Chicagoans can disagree), the banks would no longer be able to lend money which they do not have.

Now, much of the argument against all what the Fed has done (because an Austrian would argue that the Fed shouldn't exist) lies in the previous statements. But even then, we can do a few critiques of the system. The Federal Reserve creates the boom-bust cycle (and is bad for the poor and the old, specifically).

The Federal Reserve (an anti-free market entity, as it is the regulation of our monetary system) kept interest rates artificially low (especially in order to aid government lending and Bush's economy). Well, when you keep interest rates artificially low (against the market rate), it makes it real easy for one to lend haphazardly without any cares in order to gain more money (problems with the fractional reserve, among other things).

Furthermore, the creation of a Federal Reserve in of itself (along with a willing federal government) has compounded the problems of the banks giving out willingly. Since the banks all pay into the FDIC, they're under the impression that they will be saved if they make crazy choices, no matter what happens.

I can go on, but the beer and melatonin is kicking in.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by summer_gphib

I have a problem with all the mail that they send out that is unnecessary--
I got a letter telling me they were sending a packet... um ok, but wouldn't I know that when I got the packet?
I got the packet and found it rather annoying, especially all the race questions. But I filled it out and sent it in.
Then I got a letter telling me that they had sent me a packet and hopefully I sent it back in. Ok... was that necessary?

Why not send the packets and then only send follow ups to people who don't respond in a month?

The methods they use are for a very good reason. This is like an Intro to Survey Methods class.

There is a lot invested in the Census so they'd rather annoy you than have some others try to excuse their lack of participation; or try to say that "certain groups of people" had more access to the Census than others. That's why they alert you of the Census mailing (so people will check their mail and not discard it for any reason); and send 2-3 bilingual follow-up postcards. It takes more time and money to narrow it down to those who didn't mail it back than it takes to just alert everyone who received it in the first place.

I mailed back my Census the same day. It took about 5-10 minutes to complete. There was nothing invasive about it (since when are race questions invasive?). I didn't like "Negro," but I made a note of it for the Census people and moved on. GOOOOOOO CENSUS!

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

It takes more time and money to narrow it down to those who didn't mail it back than it takes to just alert everyone who received it in the first place.

I was watching a news story on the Census follow up letters and how it cost $64 million to send them out.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

I was watching a news story on the Census follow up letters and how it cost $64 million to send them out.

Are you surprised?

Now how much time and money would it take to wait for everyone to send it back...whenever they sent it back, allow a grace period, figure out who didn't return it and THEN send follow-up postcards?

Small-time survey researchers sometimes wait to check addresses off of a list before following-up with a postcard. I wouldn't expect the Census massive survey researchers and employees to do that.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Are you surprised?

Not at all, but $64 mil just for one set of follow up letters...damn. I'm familiar with how the typical U.S. Government agency works and efficiency isn't exactly a high priority.