Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

"Worthless trash. Stop Wasting our time."

by Paul Wells on Wednesday, August 25, 2010 5:25pm - 0 Comments

Stephen Gordon, a Quebec university professor (“What a surprise. End of comment,” writes one commenter), tries to demonstrate how the mandatory long-form census has often been a tool for demonstrating the futility of large interventionist government schemes. His commentary appears on the National Post website, where it is read by National Post readers, and hijinx ensue in the comment boards.

Tags: census, National Post, Stephen Gordon

More by Paul Wells

Mulletaur

Quoting from Statistics Canada in reference to income figures for 2008 :

"Just over 3 million Canadians lived in a low-income situation in 2008, virtually unchanged from 2007, using the after-tax low income cut-offs. This represents 9.4% of the population."

The welfare state has been in place now for what, 50 years ? And still, almost 1 in 10 Canadians lives in poverty. The horrible truth for the left is that the welfare state has utterly failed to eradicate poverty.

It's not a question of more or less resources, it is a question of making policy that helps people out of poverty rather than locks them into it. The 'Working Income Tax Benefit' is a perfect example of a policy which helps to break down the welfare wall and lifts people out of poverty. The Ontario Child Benefit, which is income rather than means tested, and is available not only to those receiving social assistance but all those on low incomes, is another example of a policy which breaks down the welfare wall. But we would be nowhere on this without the help of the long form census which allows for in-depth and longitudinal studies of poverty. And we won't be able to measure the results of these policies adequately without the long form census.

If you don't believe that such a thing as the welfare wall exists, you don't have to take my word for it – you can ask the C.D. Howe Institute instead. They point out that the marginal effective tax rates for those trying to leave social assistance through gainful employment is often above 70%, and can be as high as 100%.

It doesn't matter whether it's ideology on the left or right which is driving this dumbing down of government, it's just plain wrong, bad for Canada and bad for Canadians – all Canadians. But if the Harper government wants to be able to trumpet the success of its own policies, it had better reconsider its decision to drop the long form census.

Mulletaur

I wish the cowards who gave this post the thumbs down would take the trouble to post an argument.
Oliver

No one will ever erradicate poverty. I don't know if that's a good measure of how well a society is doing. 1 in 10 is pretty good.

Mulletaur

No matter whether you think 10% is good or bad, the question is, why hasn't it moved despite the existence of the welfare state ? Also, we can never get rid of poverty completely, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying.

MarionKl

It was unchanged from 2007 to 2008. Were there any radical changes in anti-poverty policies in those two years?

What about 2006? If the WITB started in 2007, you would see an improvement then, right?

Mulletaur

That's exactly my point. If you want to know what the trend line of poverty is, the real trend line, not the headline figure, you need to have the long form. Otherwise, you can't do longitudinal studies of poverty. People duck in and out of poverty. That is measured by the headline figures, how many are below LICO or LIM, for example. But only the longitudinal studies show who remains in poverty over time. And that information is only obtained through the long form.

Phil_King

Well Mulletaur, the problem seems to be that there are and have been no reliable measurements over time. So it's hard for me to understand how you come to the conclusion that poverty hasn't declined.

"…The measurement of poverty has been a challenge as there is no official government measure. There is an ongoing debate in Canada about whether a relative measure of poverty, or absolute measure of poverty, is more valid…"

In fact, ironically, the rightwing has in fact concluded that poverty has declined.

"…The Fraser Institute, a conservative think-tank, alleges that the federal Canadian government exaggerates poverty rates, and publishes their own measure, known as the basic needs poverty measure. According to this measure, poverty has declined significantly over the past 60 years and is 4.9% as of 2004…"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Canada

Mulletaur

You're absolutely right, Phil. So, should we try to make better measures, or should we abolish measurement altogether, as the Harper Conservative government is doing ? Any measure is better than no measure at all, isn't it ?

Bill Greenwood

The single biggest source of bad government is too much government. That's why some of us out here in the land of too much taxes just want less government. If we could set half of the civil service, and two-thirds of parliament adrift on Lake Superior in leaky canoes, and then send half of the remainder out looking for them in one-oared rowboats, that'd be a nice start. Too bad for the water quality, though.
Look, I'm 50 years old, and i see Bigfoot more often than I see examples of good government planning, and I find lousy government planning more often than I find my way to the men's room, and all of it was done with the best info all the tax money they could steal could buy. In that vein, I find arguing for a mandatory long census like trying to make the case that we need to neuter all the albino Sasquatch in Clearwater County.
chet

I see I attracted quite the negative reation to my statement above.

I'll put it in more simpler terms to our "progressive" friends out there: conservative rule is what Canada faces for the foresseable future.

And to our media elite freinds out there who desperately desires to utilize their positions of trusted "newspeople" to influence rather than to inform: the more you attempt to promote a particular outcome, the worse you're standing will be among the populace who have learned to think for themselves.

Progressive media: you cannot change the inevitable. Spare what little credibility you have left.
rainwatcher

Some cogent points made already.
However, using stats lingo lets differentiate between what is necessary, hard data, that is demographic information that census taking needs for all above mentioned useful purposes, and psychographic, or soft data, that census taking does not need. That soft data information is a useful tool for marketers, political analysts, and for more intrusive and manipulative purposes.
The long form combines both.
Oliver

Actually I'd also like to point out that what I just said is entirely irrelevant to the census issue And I feel like I should apologize.
I just wanted to say what crossed my mind about that welfare state comment.
Tony

The only group that argued that those in favor of a voluntary census were hardcore fascists, and those who support the involuntary census being true level-headed Canadians, were you and your glib pals in the media.

I strongly support the implementation of a voluntary census. I respect those whose opinion differ from mine, and even question my opinion on my chosen position – this isn't what you and your gang portrayed; it was the intelligent level-headed against the vile right-wing hicks . You fail as anything other than a Canadian journalist.

Tony

and could anyone in the media, or even within the wider academia that the media dotes upon, define the very important difference between voluntary and involuntary? Not just within traditional scientific samples i.e. fish, bacteria, rock, etc, but human beings? – is there no consideration for sentient beings? Or is sentience just fluff, some sort of byproduct -depending on its value?

Tony

Perhaps the Stats Canada can give us the formula for voluntary vs (unknown and impossible to build) non-voluntary formula for participation in scientific surveys by human beings – I am asking for the actual mathematical formula.

Why not end the debate here and now with this information – what is it? larger sample size? increased coercion? what?

Tony

Let's talk about the seamless transfer of the scientific method of observation from one area to another with particular emphasis on the study of the social systems of highly developed sentient beings.

This a worthy discussion. – I would love to read this.

Tony

or maybe I am reading this – but not in the your "paid" article/post, but in the comments.
Tony

I suggest that Munir Sheikh or some like-minded individual – maybe Paul Wells (its a shame you would have to actually run for office – but you can do away with that once elected) and you can run the country specifically on census data without compromise – thats the tough part, but you are both progressive, intelligent, and educated guys. You can increase the penalty for not filling out the census and we will be the greatest, most efficient, and representative society that the world has ever seen.
Tony

Junk science is as dangerous as fundamental religion, if not more.

Phil_King

Another thing to point out concerning poverty, is that we take in nearly 20 000 refugees every year, most of whom are poor.

As well, we take in over 250 000 immigrants every year, many of which are family members of existing poorer immigrants, such as children and the aging, which constantly adds to the numbers of poor people.

One should also consider that the fertility rate of the less affluent is considerably higher than the more affluent, which expands the number of poor relative to the affluent.

So frankly, I think we will always have the poor amongst us, in a relative sense.
Mulletaur

What evidence do you have for these statements ? Give us links to data. Otherwise, you're just like Harper, making up policy based on your prejudices, rather than facts.