A better argument is that this is how the government gets a sense for what the population is. For example, a growing percentage of “non-religious” or (to a lesser extent) non-Christian religious makes it harder for the government to continue justifying subsidies for religious schools and special status for religious organisations. A higher percentage of people saying they travel to work by bike or public transport helps justify increasing funding for those methods over continued motornormativity.
If you care so much you should swap answers with someone less secure than you.
I won’t paint a target on my head to make it easier for pollies to avoid leaving their office and meeting people. Entire branches of my family tree are missing because of censuses being used for evil.
So uh, good luck with guilting people about it. Maybe target the surveillance state and fash instead
harder for the government to continue justifying subsidies
I don’t think political parties will rely on census data for that. Once reference groups demonstrate that a policy of reducing those concessions has broad support it will be a policy. It doesn’t matter what the census says.
people saying they travel to work by bike
They measure this with direct observations - how many cyclists use pathways et cetera. There’s no city in Australia that’s going to look at census data and decide to invest in bike infrastructure.
Demand for public transport is measured by… the numbers of people using public transport.
The funding thing is a common argument but in almost all cases it seems that direct observations would be more useful.
That’s not really an argument in favor of the census though.
If they already have the information then they don’t need the census.
I agree that that isn’t a good argument.
A better argument is that this is how the government gets a sense for what the population is. For example, a growing percentage of “non-religious” or (to a lesser extent) non-Christian religious makes it harder for the government to continue justifying subsidies for religious schools and special status for religious organisations. A higher percentage of people saying they travel to work by bike or public transport helps justify increasing funding for those methods over continued motornormativity.
If you care so much you should swap answers with someone less secure than you.
I won’t paint a target on my head to make it easier for pollies to avoid leaving their office and meeting people. Entire branches of my family tree are missing because of censuses being used for evil.
So uh, good luck with guilting people about it. Maybe target the surveillance state and fash instead
You’re conspiracy bullshit doesn’t work on non-cookers.
Why not use your secure position to boost services for minorities if you think it works
wtf are you talking about?
I don’t think political parties will rely on census data for that. Once reference groups demonstrate that a policy of reducing those concessions has broad support it will be a policy. It doesn’t matter what the census says.
They measure this with direct observations - how many cyclists use pathways et cetera. There’s no city in Australia that’s going to look at census data and decide to invest in bike infrastructure.
Demand for public transport is measured by… the numbers of people using public transport.
The funding thing is a common argument but in almost all cases it seems that direct observations would be more useful.