[Newsbot]

Title: Scrapping of long-form census causing long-term issues for business
Category: Business
Posted By: N_Fiddledog
Date: 2015-02-07 12:21:43
Canadian

[Canadian_Mind]

Now that we are 5 years along since it was scrapped, how does everyone feel about the voluntary form? Do you want the mandatory form back? I'm not sure how I feel about it myself. From what I recall, the only reason it was scrapped was because it was inconvenient for people to fill out.

My thoughts revolve around privacy and the issues businesses are with the elimination of the mandatory long form as stated in the story. They do need to collect that sort of information for the reasons given. If they don't have access to it, they have to find it in other ways. The most prominent way is using social media. But, people get understandably upset about the way social media uses their information. Metadata collection isn't well moderated, and the limited laws in place that govern use of social media information seem to be stepped on frequently.

In my mind, as a government form, the long form census can be well moderated. It's also been successfully used by business and government organisations for a long time. With this thought it mind, I could justify scrapping social media metadata gathering entirely if the mandatory long form comes back.

[Xort]

If a business wants my information to make a profit they can pay me for it, not have the government hold a gun to my head and force me to tell them.

Some of the questions on the long form were wildly inappropriate, overly intrusive and personal.

Privacy is a right we have, I won't give it up to spies looking for 'terrorist' or to condo developers looking to make a buck.

[Canadian_Mind]

Well there's a thought. What if there were financial incentive to complete one?

What were some of those questions?

[Xort]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Well there's a thought. What if there were financial incentive to complete one?

What were some of those questions?

If you have a store reward card that's just one of the store's method of tracking your spending habits. A fair trade in my mind, and one I always opt out of.

Some of the questions to quote the National Post:

$1:

ethnicity, education level, sources of income, types of housing, number and ages of children and their activities, sexual orientation, family relationships, divisions of household labour, recreation

From the Fraser Institute:

$1:

Here the government forces Canadians to disclose a host of information about their private lives such as what languages they speak on a regular basis; whether they are White, Chinese, South Asian, Black, Filipino or a host of other ethnicities; where they work; how they get to work (i. e. bike, car, walk, taxi); what language they speak on the job; how much housework they do; how much time they spend playing with their kids or talking to their elders; whether or not they have any difficulty walking, climbing stairs, or bending; which member of the household pays the rent or mortgage; how many rooms their homes have (and how many are bedrooms); and whether or not their homes have any "missing or loose floor tiles," "defective steps" or more major deficiencies like "defective plumbing."

...

Suppose for a moment that no long-form census existed. On what merit would the academics argue that the government should force Canadians to disclose how much time each of us spends "bathing or playing with young children, driving children to sports activities, or helping them with homework."

~
The long form census was 40 pages long and just about every question was deeply private.
The argument that it's anonymous so it's not a violation of your right to privacy is one I reject. I reject it when spies claim they it's just a computer looking at my communication and not a violation because only flagged private communications are reviewed by a human. Or that the data collected is just 'meta data' and that's not a violation because they say it isn't and would be in jail if they didn't claim that. I reject it when lazy social engineers and businesses claim that it's anonymous so it's fine to demand that I tell them my sexual orientation, my ethnic background and how often I play with my children.

~

All of this also ignores that under the voluntary form, more people are filling it out, about 3% more of the population. But according to the stats people the wrong kinds of people fill out the forms. Although how they know this is a question given that the census is claimed to be anonymous without anyway to link back to people.

[Canadian_Mind]

Frankly, I don't see how any of those questions are wildly inappropriate. They might seem obscure to you, but to a statician they make sense. They are all geared towards avoiding bias on the part of the person filling out the form.

Let's look at the tile and plumbing question. Just because you think your home is in a state of good repair doesn't meant it really is. If you have 10 homes, your home has some loose tiles and a leaking hot water tank, the rest don't. You might consider it to be in generally good repair, but the reality is that, regarding those two things, yours is the one in the most state of disrepair. This isn't something the person filling out the form can objectively state, but they can objectively state the details, and the statician can objectively deduce the level of disrepair from those details.

As far as filling out the form goes, the moment you make it voluntary you are instituting a fundamental bias. Regardless of how diverse the volunteers are, you now have a category of people who, for some reason or another, have the same mindset that volunteering is a good thing. This means everyone else thinks it's a bad thing. There is know way of knowing what causes this, and it could be any one of a nearly infinite number of things. Perhaps you have more wealthy people filling it out than poor because the poor are ashamed of revealing that they are poor or one of the affects of it (a home in disrepair in my families example). Perhaps you have more senior citizens and single people filling it out because families don't have the time - you lose out on a huge number of statistics there. Perhaps only the unemployed because they have time for it, perhaps the liberal voters because they are pissed off the conservatives scrapped it, perhaps only monarchists.... P

Perhaps only who knows who is the point. It's no longer truly random, so there is no real way of knowing if the results are skewed by one (or more) category(ies) or not.

[Xort]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Frankly, I don't see how any of those questions are wildly inappropriate. They might seem obscure to you, but to a statician they make sense.

I'm not saying that the information they want to collect is obscure, I'm saying it's private and being forced by law to tell them is wrong.

If they want to collect that information then either offer me something or be happy with voluntary replies. None of the extended information collected is so critical as to violate the privacy of 20% of the population.

$1:

They are all geared towards avoiding bias on the part of the person filling out the form.

Explain that, what bias does someone answering the form have? How can the facts about your life be biased?

$1:

Let's look at the tile and plumbing question. Just because you think your home is in a state of good repair doesn't meant it really is. If you have 10 homes, your home has some loose tiles and a leaking hot water tank, the rest don't. You might consider it to be in generally good repair, but the reality is that, regarding those two things, yours is the one in the most state of disrepair.

What the fuck are you talking about? How does my feelings about my house change if their is a serious plumbing problem?

$1:

This isn't something the person filling out the form can objectively state, but they can objectively state the details, and the statician can objectively deduce the level of disrepair from those details.

A person is able to make an objective statement about the state of their home, that's within the realm of possibility.

What you are not explaining is why you should face fines or jail for not telling the government and then the private interests that buy the data about your home's plumbing issues. What it comes down to is that you must tell a for profit business about your life or go to jail so they can make money without having to pay for market research.

$1:

As far as filling out the form goes, the moment you make it voluntary you are instituting a fundamental bias. Regardless of how diverse the volunteers are, you now have a category of people who, for some reason or another, have the same mindset that volunteering is a good thing. This means everyone else thinks it's a bad thing. There is know way of knowing what causes this, and it could be any one of a nearly infinite number of things. Perhaps you have more wealthy people filling it out than poor because the poor are ashamed of revealing that they are poor or one of the affects of it (a home in disrepair in my families example). Perhaps you have more senior citizens and single people filling it out because families don't have the time - you lose out on a huge number of statistics there. Perhaps only the unemployed because they have time for it, perhaps the liberal voters because they are pissed off the conservatives scrapped it, perhaps only monarchists.... P

Your argument is based off the idea that because it's the law people don't half ass it anyway and that because it's law it's perfectly accurate.

The issue of (self) selection of a response pool is just part of the job of statistical interpretation. If anyone made the claim that all the data was perfectly accurate before because the government would send the police to drag people off to jail for not properly filling of the forms is comical and if true renders all the data invalid.

$1:

Perhaps only who knows who is the point. It's no longer truly random, so there is no real way of knowing if the results are skewed by one (or more) category(ies) or not.

Other than you know, taking the past data and looking at the new data and seeing where the trend has moved unexpectedly.

[Canadian_Mind]

Xort Xort:

I'm not saying that the information they want to collect is obscure, I'm saying it's private and being forced by law to tell them is wrong.

If they want to collect that information then either offer me something or be happy with voluntary replies. None of the extended information collected is so critical as to violate the privacy of 20% of the population.

I disagree. It may seem immaterial to you, but there are numerous government agencies that rely on this sort of information in order to make the most efficient use of resources possible. Same goes with the business community. That said, I do hope the business community is paying for this information. If not then they should be.

As for getting something for it, I do think it should be enforced, but I also think the folks who have to do it get something out of it; a significant income tax return would be nice.

$1:

Explain that, what bias does someone answering the form have? How can the facts about your life be biased?

What the fuck are you talking about? How does my feelings about my house change if their is a serious plumbing problem?

That's just it. Facts aren't biased. Saying you have 3 loose floor tiles and a cracked mirror in your bathroom are facts. Saying your bathroom is in disrepair is an interpretation of that fact. As soon as you are interpreting the facts before you express them you are injecting bias.

Your feelings about your house change how you express the problem. A hot water tank leak to you is a "serious plumbing problem." Cool. What is the problem and where is it? Saying it's a serious plumbing problem doesn't define what the problem truly is.

Further to that, to you a leaking hot water tank may be a serious plumbing problem. To a plumber or a competent DIYer, it could very well be an easy fix and therefore a minor problem. Either way, it's still a biased interpretation of the original fact, which is that the hot water tank is leaking.

$1:

A person is able to make an objective statement about the state of their home, that's within the realm of possibility.

What you are not explaining is why you should face fines or jail for not telling the government and then the private interests that buy the data about your home's plumbing issues. What it comes down to is that you must tell a for profit business about your life or go to jail so they can make money without having to pay for market research.

In short, yes. However, I do believe if the private interests are paying the government for this information, then the government should be passing on this wealth to you in the form of tax deductions or other form of payment. Frankly I'd sooner have to fill out one form for the government once every 5 years than have another market research analyst from whoeverthefuck knocking on my door and wasting 15 minutes of my time every 2 weeks.

And it isn't all market research. A Home Depot isn't going to decide to open an outlet in Wainwright, Alberta based on the number of Asians and Hispanics. The government needs that info for other purposes. The Home Depot going to judge whether or not it builds in Wainwright based on the specific information the government gives it about home repairs and constructions. Example, how many homes in a year need new bathroom tiles, and how many need new hot water tanks? Guess what, the average for Wainwright was a new hot water tank every seven years. They found that out through census data.

$1:

Your argument is based off the idea that because it's the law people don't half ass it anyway and that because it's law it's perfectly accurate.

The issue of (self) selection of a response pool is just part of the job of statistical interpretation. If anyone made the claim that all the data was perfectly accurate before because the government would send the police to drag people off to jail for not properly filling of the forms is comical and if true renders all the data invalid.

Other than you know, taking the past data and looking at the new data and seeing where the trend has moved unexpectedly.

You're correct, I bet plenty of people do half-ass it. But just as you state statician should be able to compensate for the "responsible pool," they've been working with people half-assing the data for how many years? That in itself is a constant that up until now probably has been known, expected, and possibly even relied upon.

I think that if it was a simple matter of looking for changes and accounting for them that it wouldn't be such an issue. But it is. I suspect it's a case of 1 + 2 does not in fact equal 3, where the observed changes aren't necessarily correlating with each other.

[Xort]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

I disagree. It may seem immaterial to you, but there are numerous government agencies that rely on this sort of information in order to make the most efficient use of resources possible. Same goes with the business community. That said, I do hope the business community is paying for this information. If not then they should be.

I think it's a gross exaggeration to claim that numerous government agencies are acting on the information, rather than from established policy and political direction, and further that the voluntary form with similar or identical questions can't be used to deliver similar or identical service outcomes to the population.

Further that these projects don't have their own polling they conduct, but rather wait years for the next census to help manage their programs.

$1:

As for getting something for it, I do think it should be enforced, but I also think the folks who have to do it get something out of it; a significant income tax return would be nice.

Well I respect the right we all have to privacy.

$1:

That's just it. Facts aren't biased. Saying you have 3 loose floor tiles and a cracked mirror in your bathroom are facts. Saying your bathroom is in disrepair is an interpretation of that fact. As soon as you are interpreting the facts before you express them you are injecting bias.

But when a statistician interprets facts they are not biased?

$1:

Your feelings about your house change how you express the problem. A hot water tank leak to you is a "serious plumbing problem." Cool. What is the problem and where is it? Saying it's a serious plumbing problem doesn't define what the problem truly is.

And the census didn't ask that detailed a question, the question depended on people to make their own judgements when answering the question.

$1:

Further to that, to you a leaking hot water tank may be a serious plumbing problem. To a plumber or a competent DIYer, it could very well be an easy fix and therefore a minor problem. Either way, it's still a biased interpretation of the original fact, which is that the hot water tank is leaking.

That's nice, but that's not what was asked and still requires personal judgement. So much for the census not being subject to the bias of the people filling it out.

$1:

In short, yes. However, I do believe if the private interests are paying the government for this information, then the government should be passing on this wealth to you in the form of tax deductions or other form of payment. Frankly I'd sooner have to fill out one form for the government once every 5 years than have another market research analyst from whoeverthefuck knocking on my door and wasting 15 minutes of my time every 2 weeks.

The government doesn't pass anything on and even if they did it would be a few cents, because the information isn't that wildly used, isn't very valuable and isn't sold for very much.

Also the census doesn't replace market polling, as that's still something that bothers people.

$1:

And it isn't all market research. A Home Depot isn't going to decide to open an outlet in Wainwright, Alberta based on the number of Asians and Hispanics. The government needs that info for other purposes.

What does it need it for? The only purpose that a government could need information about race or ethnic origin is for discrimination.

$1:

The Home Depot going to judge whether or not it builds in Wainwright based on the specific information the government gives it about home repairs and constructions.

No they are not. They are going to take population, and current business in the same field in the area, then other factors like construction costs, property costs and taxes to decide if they are going to build a new store.

I doubt in the strongest of terms if HD has ever asked the government for the census data on the number of broken floor tiles and used that as a major factor in it's plans.

$1:

Example, how many homes in a year need new bathroom tiles, and how many need new hot water tanks? Guess what, the average for Wainwright was a new hot water tank every seven years. They found that out through census data.

I bet Home Depot has better data on the number of hot water tanks sold and installed by looking at their sales data than our government has from it's census data.

In fact, if anything the census should be asking business for all their data, as they are the gateways of consumption.

$1:

You're correct, I bet plenty of people do half-ass it. But just as you state statician should be able to compensate for the "responsible pool," they've been working with people half-assing the data for how many years? That in itself is a constant that up until now probably has been known, expected, and possibly even relied upon.

But it is impossible to make a similar adjustment for the voluntary form. Despite having all the data they could need to do just that.

$1:

I think that if it was a simple matter of looking for changes and accounting for them that it wouldn't be such an issue. But it is. I suspect it's a case of 1 + 2 does not in fact equal 3, where the observed changes aren't necessarily correlating with each other.

I'd like to see the census do a compare and contrast of the data collected between the last long form and the current voluntary one, then I'd like them to explain how it's now impossible for anyone to ever have useful numbers.

~

Data collected under the threat of violence is rarely more accurate or better than data collected by willing participants.

[Canadian_Mind]

Firstly, breaking it down into small pieces is making it kind of hard for me to follow. Either way, thank you for the conversation, it's interesting and kind of fun. Now, back to it:

Xort Xort:

I think it's a gross exaggeration to claim that numerous government agencies are acting on the information, rather than from established policy and political direction, and further that the voluntary form with similar or identical questions can't be used to deliver similar or identical service outcomes to the population.

Further that these projects don't have their own polling they conduct, but rather wait years for the next census to help manage their programs.

I don't think it's a gross exaggeration. How is the government as a whole, or individual agencies of it supposed to make policy or political direction without knowing the nuances and needs of the population? I know you were in the CF, so you aught to have some idea of how a government agency works. At one point or another during the CoC's decision making process, census data was likely consulted. How the hell do you think they come up with the recruitment targets? Reference a later point of yours, yea it's kind of racist, but I still think it's necessary.

In another instance, the local municipality (Wainwright, where I live if it isn't obvious by now), relies heavily on census data from every level of government in order to determine everything from how they plan town growth and expansion over the next 25 years to what colour they want the bricks in the sidewalk to be. It's rather ridiculous when you think about it, but this is one town, with many different offices relying on census data. There are many towns, and many cities, all with the same needs. At the provincial level there is numerous numbers of small agencies who again rely on this info for their decision making process.

$1:

Well I respect the right we all have to privacy.

I respect privacy as well. What I think is clear at this point is that you and I have very different tolerance levels. I don't think either of us want a 1984 level of surveillance where there are cameras in our living rooms. But I do think that there is a social responsibility to let the government know what goes on in Canadian homes across the country.

$1:

But when a statistician interprets facts they are not biased?

I'm sure they would be biased if they weren't specifically trained to eliminate or otherwise account for their own bias. If a statician observes that 165 homes in Wainwright had replaced their hot water tanks in 2014, they wouldn't say a lot of homes had bad water tanks, they'd crunch the specific numbers and the result would be appropriately recorded.

$1:

And the census didn't ask that detailed a question, the question depended on people to make their own judgements when answering the question.

This is why I asked for an example of what was asked. I'm expressing my thoughts based on your examples.

$1:

That's nice, but that's not what was asked and still requires personal judgement. So much for the census not being subject to the bias of the people filling it out.

My interpretation is that I did answer your question, and then provided an example to back up my opinion. If your interpretation is that I didn't, then I can use this as an example of how bias can influence how a subjective question is answered, and why it is important that it is mitigated when doing a census.

$1:

The government doesn't pass anything on and even if they did it would be a few cents, because the information isn't that wildly used, isn't very valuable and isn't sold for very much.

Also the census doesn't replace market polling, as that's still something that bothers people.

It is widely used, and I'd argue for more than a few cents. I think suitable compensation for completing the census would be a 5% reduction on my income taxes.

I've received a lot more market polling since the change, some of it revolving around the very topics we are discussing here (home repair). Frankly I find it irritating. I'd rather just declare the state of my home once every 5 years and call it done.

$1:

What does it need it for? The only purpose that a government could need information about race or ethnic origin is for discrimination.

For the most part I agree. I think racism and discrimination are fundamental problems that we as a society need to address.

$1:

No they are not. They are going to take population, and current business in the same field in the area, then other factors like construction costs, property costs and taxes to decide if they are going to build a new store.

I doubt in the strongest of terms if HD has ever asked the government for the census data on the number of broken floor tiles and used that as a major factor in it's plans.

I don't think broken floor tiles alone would carry much weight in their decision. However, if it is a matter of a small population town like Wainwright which has a high incidence of home repair & construction, a high average wealth, and small amount of competition, it would be a better prospect than opening a store in a town twice as large which doesn't have as high an incident of home repairs and isn't as wealthy. It's one of many factors, but I'm damned sure that census data is taken into account when it comes to planning new store locations.

$1:

I bet Home Depot has better data on the number of hot water tanks sold and installed by looking at their sales data than our government has from it's census data.

In fact, if anything the census should be asking business for all their data, as they are the gateways of consumption.

When it comes to the total number sold, you are probably right. However, without filling out a survey when I bought it, how would Home Depot know what purpose my new hot water tank was for? Is it to replace an old one, is it for a new home, which town is the home of installation in, etc?

On that, I am pretty sure they do have to provide those numbers to the government to supplant the information the civilian population must give when filling out the census.

$1:

But it is impossible to make a similar adjustment for the voluntary form. Despite having all the data they could need to do just that.

I'm just going to repeat what I said before. I think that if it was a simple matter of looking for changes and accounting for them that it wouldn't be such an issue. But it is. I suspect it's a case of 1 + 2 does not in fact equal 3, where the observed changes aren't necessarily correlating with each other.

$1:

I'd like to see the census do a compare and contrast of the data collected between the last long form and the current voluntary one, then I'd like them to explain how it's now impossible for anyone to ever have useful numbers.

Me too. I'm only theorising what all the hubbub is about. Some specific examples would be nice.

$1:

Data collected under the threat of violence is rarely more accurate or better than data collected by willing participants.

I wouldn't call a fine or jail time "Threat of violence." maybe threat of consequence, but not threat of violence. But I'll play that game. There are lots of things done or not done under threat of violence that people don't even think about. Namely pretty much every law we abide by as a society where should the law be broken you'd end up in jail. Sometimes people need to do things for the good of society that they don't necessarily want to do. So the consequences are put in place so that these people abide by the rules. Usually it works, sometimes it doesn't. When it doesn't work it means it is time for change. I am not convinced that the mandatory long form was an example where change was required.

[Xort]

I don't mean to be rude or confrontational, and these long quoting back and forth can become a bit much. But I see the right to privacy as equal to any other right and I feel strongly about protecting all of them.

My simple view is that census data is required by the government to operate effectively. However the amount of detail a government needs has been greatly exceeded by the demand for 'wants'. They want data for any range of non essential government concerns, 'they' want data so that can attempt to shape society to how 'they' think it should be. Further most of the data they need and a lot of what they want could be collected from other government institutions but they can't because of privacy laws, and that's just too funny to me.

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

How is the government as a whole, or individual agencies of it supposed to make policy or political direction without knowing the nuances and needs of the population?

By picking politically acceptable targets, areas, numbers or other weighing factors, selected by no actual data based review.

Or to put it another way, some elected official gets a bug up their ass on something and that shapes the policy and implementation.

The second most likely reason is that reports internally are looked at and a new action is planned, or the program/system of government has a good idea what a population requires and can act on simple census data.

$1:

In another instance, the local municipality (Wainwright, where I live if it isn't obvious by now), relies heavily on census data from every level of government in order to determine everything from how they plan town growth and expansion over the next 25 years to what colour they want the bricks in the sidewalk to be.

Not to be a dick but just what data from the long form census was used to select brick colour?

If Wainwright is like any other city, the mayor and city council get ideas and then bumble their way into implementation.

What I'm saying is that I'd like some proof that wainwright relies heavily on the long form census data to decide what the town's plan is because I'm having a hard time believing what you are telling me.

To be clear I'm not talking census data like, you live somewhere and are X age. But data like how much you speak some language at home, and if you are homosexual or heterosexual.

$1:

It's rather ridiculous when you think about it, but this is one town, with many different offices relying on census data. There are many towns, and many cities, all with the same needs. At the provincial level there is numerous numbers of small agencies who again rely on this info for their decision making process.

And I haven't been convinced that what they are doing is impossible to do with the better represented voluntary form, or other means. Further that their work is worthy of a charter violation of our rights to do so.

$1:

What I think is clear at this point is that you and I have very different tolerance levels.

The government can know where I live, how much money I make. As well as any other registration program I have opted to be a part of. That's all I think they have a right to force me to tell them.

$1:

I'm sure they would be biased if they weren't specifically trained to eliminate or otherwise account for their own bias.

Science is filled with bias and error from bias, the only information you can estimate with honestly and accuracy from broken floor tiles census data is the number of broken floor tiles.

$1:

If a statician observes that 165 homes in Wainwright had replaced their hot water tanks in 2014, they wouldn't say a lot of homes had bad water tanks, they'd crunch the specific numbers and the result would be appropriately recorded.

To what end that justifies a charter rights violation? How is that data so critical that we would have to violate our right to privacy?

$1:

It is widely used, and I'd argue for more than a few cents. I think suitable compensation for completing the census would be a 5% reduction on my income taxes.

5% of 20% of the population's income.

That's like the worlds most expensive census ever conducted.

I think if they charged every user of the data a market rate for a for profit market data collecting and then distributed every last dollar of sales you might get a few quarters, maybe.

$1:

I've received a lot more market polling since the change, some of it revolving around the very topics we are discussing here (home repair). Frankly I find it irritating. I'd rather just declare the state of my home once every 5 years and call it done.

And I haven't got one. You likely just signed up for something and gave away you information and got stuck on a list. It sucks and we should have laws against commercial polling or sales calls.

$1:

For the most part I agree. I think racism and discrimination are fundamental problems that we as a society need to address.

And a good place to start is with the government being blind to these traits in the population.

$1:

...I'm damned sure that census data is taken into account when it comes to planning new store locations.

Census data like population and age, yes. Which family member pays the rent or mortgage no.

$1:

When it comes to the total number sold, you are probably right. However, without filling out a survey when I bought it, how would Home Depot know what purpose my new hot water tank was for? Is it to replace an old one, is it for a new home, which town is the home of installation in, etc?

Well they can guess the location in that people don't buy from stores farther away than they have to in general for most of their sales. As for new sales or replacements they can likely also estimate that number from the amount of building supplies they sell to contractors rather than to customers. That's likely one of the reasons they have their two tiered customer setup. If they wanted to get super fancy they also can likely estimate the number of new constructions being started from their sales numbers. More so if they talk to the city which issues permits for every single construction project.

I'm saying that HD and the cities can likely give much cleaner and more accurate and confident data on housing than you get from a census form asking questions about broken things in a house.

I'd say your city likely has a good number on the number of run down or near derelict buildings in the town, as well as the age of every building on every property.

If the census needed data on the quality of housing, it would likely be easier to just ask all the local governments to submit data.

$1:

I'm just going to repeat what I said before. I think that if it was a simple matter of looking for changes and accounting for them that it wouldn't be such an issue. But it is. I suspect it's a case of 1 + 2 does not in fact equal 3, where the observed changes aren't necessarily correlating with each other.

I'm saying it's not an issue it's just people crying because they can't do it the old way, and that their is little market pressure to do a better job in the new reality.

What I'm saying is that they are a bunch of entitled cry babies, trying to hide behind claims of science based policy and factual evidence driven planning, when in fact they are just unwilling to change from what they got used to.

$1:

I wouldn't call a fine or jail time "Threat of violence." maybe threat of consequence, but not threat of violence.

It's a short chain of logic, don't fill out the form, get fined, don't pay the find and get pulled into court and sentenced to jail, refuse to go to jail and it's a fight. I believe that at the core of every law with punishment is the threat of violence and the use of force.

Now I agree, you can say that's how it is for any law and the obedience to the law is more important than the law you are being punished for breaking. However that's logically weak given that you can simply make the failure to fill out the census have no penalty. People that will follow the law because it is the law even if they don't want to will. People that refuse to follow the law can be given a trial and found guilty and given no punishment.

$1:

But I'll play that game. There are lots of things done or not done under threat of violence that people don't even think about. Namely pretty much every law we abide by as a society where should the law be broken you'd end up in jail.

Which is why I think that no law should be passed that you are not willing to have the state kill it's citizens to enforce it.

I also believe the reverse is true, if you are not willing to be killed or to kill an agent of the state and end that life and make some family sad, you shouldn't be protesting laws by breaking them. Saying that you are willing to get arrested is too weak a belief to break the law over.

$1:

I am not convinced that the mandatory long form was an example where change was required.

Well I say that given more people fill out the new form, and it's a violation of our rights to be required to fill it out the old one, we now have better data and a new law that better respects our rights.