Pat
2007-07-02 14:11:32 UTC
The problem with all of the statistics that people cite in this group
is that (a) no statistic is totally accurate (except for tiny
populations) and (2) that they only measure what they measure, not
what YOU THINK they measure.
Some people find a published statistic and cherish it like gold. They
are right because they have "proof". But the proof isn't necessarily
good. The statistic measures something, but often it's hard to tell
what.
Take homelessness, for example. That's pretty straight forward,
right. Of course not. There are HUGE political debates as to what
"homeless" means and how to measure it.
So, William's parents throw him out for excessively high grades. He
goes to live with his favorite priest, Fr. Pius, PhD, OSF, ETC. Fr.
Pius has an large closet under the stairs at the friary and Willy can
stay there. William is not problem and he lives out the school year
there while waiting for his grades to go down so his family accepts
him back. William has no home, no money, no job and no place to live
except under the stairs at the friary. William is homeless, right?
Wrong. He has a place to live. Under the Federal definition of
homeless, William does not quality. He lives at the friary. Under
the Federal definition, you are only homeless if you are living in
some place that is not meant for habitation: a car, under a bridge, on
a sidewalk.
So if you husband beats the shit out of you so you take your 3 kids
and go live with your sister, her husband and their 2 kids over there
in her 2 bedroom apartment, you are NOT homeless.
Back to the debate. There's a huge debate on the definition of
homeless. Many argue that the definition is particularly
restrictive. In the north, there are VERY few homeless because the
early-spring date when the Census is taken. Homeless = dead in
extreme northern climates.
The same is try for all of the other statistics. It is awfully hard
to go and pull a statistic and try to figure out what it means. Often
it does not mean exactly what you think it does.
Even within the Census, it often takes an amount of expertese to
determine if "family" or "household" data is appropriate for any given
circumstance.
Census population projections are also to be taken with a grain of
salt. They are NOT projections based on the population trends
reported in the Census and they are NOT estimates based on re-sampling
geographic areas. They are formulamatic and based on other
demographic data that is nearly unrelated to the Census as you know
it.
So stop hiding in "data" and proof" and use some logic. After all,
42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
is that (a) no statistic is totally accurate (except for tiny
populations) and (2) that they only measure what they measure, not
what YOU THINK they measure.
Some people find a published statistic and cherish it like gold. They
are right because they have "proof". But the proof isn't necessarily
good. The statistic measures something, but often it's hard to tell
what.
Take homelessness, for example. That's pretty straight forward,
right. Of course not. There are HUGE political debates as to what
"homeless" means and how to measure it.
So, William's parents throw him out for excessively high grades. He
goes to live with his favorite priest, Fr. Pius, PhD, OSF, ETC. Fr.
Pius has an large closet under the stairs at the friary and Willy can
stay there. William is not problem and he lives out the school year
there while waiting for his grades to go down so his family accepts
him back. William has no home, no money, no job and no place to live
except under the stairs at the friary. William is homeless, right?
Wrong. He has a place to live. Under the Federal definition of
homeless, William does not quality. He lives at the friary. Under
the Federal definition, you are only homeless if you are living in
some place that is not meant for habitation: a car, under a bridge, on
a sidewalk.
So if you husband beats the shit out of you so you take your 3 kids
and go live with your sister, her husband and their 2 kids over there
in her 2 bedroom apartment, you are NOT homeless.
Back to the debate. There's a huge debate on the definition of
homeless. Many argue that the definition is particularly
restrictive. In the north, there are VERY few homeless because the
early-spring date when the Census is taken. Homeless = dead in
extreme northern climates.
The same is try for all of the other statistics. It is awfully hard
to go and pull a statistic and try to figure out what it means. Often
it does not mean exactly what you think it does.
Even within the Census, it often takes an amount of expertese to
determine if "family" or "household" data is appropriate for any given
circumstance.
Census population projections are also to be taken with a grain of
salt. They are NOT projections based on the population trends
reported in the Census and they are NOT estimates based on re-sampling
geographic areas. They are formulamatic and based on other
demographic data that is nearly unrelated to the Census as you know
it.
So stop hiding in "data" and proof" and use some logic. After all,
42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot.