tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8911497808501023122.post3250016637005818139..comments2023-03-25T07:08:52.576-06:00Comments on Bowling in the Dark: A Message from the Central BureaucracySome Guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02967967300869065633noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8911497808501023122.post-5014662253484477252010-03-23T19:50:18.789-06:002010-03-23T19:50:18.789-06:00I am somewhat confused by what you are railing aga...I am somewhat confused by what you are railing against. While I like to complain about the crappy job government is doing as much as anyone, why aren't we railing about this: why are we (plain ole Americans) such f$&&ing retards that we can't follow simple instructions like, "fill out and return this form." <br /><br />Or did you guys just skip past that obvious point?Turbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18274740298320709171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8911497808501023122.post-18540564940041145542010-03-22T17:39:54.279-06:002010-03-22T17:39:54.279-06:00Well, I think that using logical statements and fa...Well, I think that using logical statements and facts to back up a cogent argument is very contrary to the spirit of the internet, but there's nothing I can do to stop you.<br /><br />I'm totally on board with the Frosty idea, too.Some Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02967967300869065633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8911497808501023122.post-84225080306701544022010-03-22T13:03:06.936-06:002010-03-22T13:03:06.936-06:00Well, the theory of diminishing returns is going t...Well, the theory of diminishing returns is going to make the continued sending of notices less and less efficient. Four letters will not be twice as effective as two. When we factor both the cost AND the limited timeframe the census guys are given to complete the task, I'm sure there's a tipping point at which it makes more sense to just go out there and hunt people down rather than continuing to send reminders.<br /><br />If they're doing one letter before, and one after the actual census form, we're at two already. What I don't know is whether the 6-12% estimate is for just the advance letter, or represents the expected jump for the combination of the two letters. But if the first one gives them 6-12% more, and the second "reminder" one gives them a somewhat smaller bump, then I think we can assume that the two letters have given them between 10-20% more initial responses... which may be pretty close to as many as they could reasonably hope for, no matter how many extra letters they sent.<br /><br />My idea is this: include a free Wendy's frosty coupon with each census. Tell people "when you return the census, you get a free Frosty!" This will work, I guarantee it.Dr Brainsmarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11858910329391726513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8911497808501023122.post-16302147052665477802010-03-22T12:02:19.125-06:002010-03-22T12:02:19.125-06:00Okay, fair enough, sending out advance notices and...Okay, fair enough, sending out advance notices and/or after-the-fact reminders postcards isn’t as stupidly expensive as I figured it was at first grump, and it’s almost certainly way less expensive than sending out census workers from door-to-door. But if sending out additional notifications actually does have a positive effect, and doesn’t cost all that much money, that just highlights a <i>different</i> way in which the Census Bureau is being stupidly wasteful: by sending out census workers despite having an obvious and (by their own statistics, effective) way of cutting costs and increasing response.<br /><br />If sending multiple notifications is way cheaper than sending out actual live census workers and increases the number of responses, why not just send a second round of reminders, or even a second round of census forms? <br /><br />Clearly the Census Bureau can keep track of who hasn’t turned in their forms—otherwise they wouldn’t know where to send the census workers—and therefore it is also equipped to prevent duplicate forms from slipping through (in the same way that it would be able to track when census workers duplicate forms that are mailed in or received late), so they could either send out a whole extra 115 million forms or specifically mail to those folks who hadn’t sent their first forms in.<br /><br />If sending three pieces of mail to everybody in the country is much cheaper than sending out census workers to all the folks that don’t respond, doesn’t it stand to reason that sending a <i>fourth</i> piece of mail is probably going to be cheaper too? It seems to me that the Census Bureau is basically saying that once you’ve done the relatively efficient and inexpensive thing once, it’s okay to go ahead and go back to the expensive and inefficient option instead of trying to be smart twice in a single decade. <br /><br /><br />Excellent use of footnotes, by the way. I heartily approve. I'm a bit puzzled, though, that you seen to use them to pass along legitimate information. That's very strange to me.Some Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02967967300869065633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8911497808501023122.post-26427751345776233102010-03-20T16:05:21.237-06:002010-03-20T16:05:21.237-06:00Sorry, but I have to be critical here. The advance...Sorry, but I have to be critical here. The advance letter seems silly at first blush, but I think it's way too easy to put this in the "government waste my money" pile.<br /><br />Using your estimate of 115,000,000 households in the US, and assuming the government payed full price on 115 million $0.44 stamps (which I highly doubt), those letters cost about $51 million to send out. That's a lot of money.<br /><br />But, for every census form NOT returned, the census bureau must send out a person to that address to gather the census information (this may seem silly, too, but it's in the Constitution... so even though it may be silly, it's silly with some weight behind it). <br /><br />Naturally, these people who go out to all corners of the country knocking on people's doors must be trained; provided official census bureau IDs, pens, and paper; given vehicles and gas money; and paid for their time. Even without considering the number of repeat visits it will take to make contact with some households, we're talking about a massive amount of manpower required, just to take care of all the people who didn't send in the form the first time.<br /><br />Here's the kicker: the Census Bureau estimates that the advance letters increase the return rate of the census forms by 6-12% (*). (We can gripe about why we're so stupid that something like that works, but it does work. Anybody in sales will tell you that if you suggest something early, you'll get a better response later.) So we're looking at between 7 and 14 million households who, because of the advance letter, will send in their form promptly and will not require a home visit.<br /><br />Bottom line: for the advance letter to be a waste of money, we'd have to assume that the government could have gathered the information from 7-14 million people for less than 51 million dollars. Splitting the difference and going with 10 million homes, we're looking at $5.10 per household to get this job done. We couldn't even get illegal immigrants to work for that cheap.<br /><br />Let's assume the job can be done at a rate of $20 per household... a number I have completely pulled from my ass but I feel is probably way, way too low. For 10 million households, that $54 million saved us $200 million.<br /><br />Basically, there's no way these letters cost us money... in fact, they save us a TON of money. Thanks, government!<br /><br />*- I heard that number on the Daily Show the other night. Found it again online here, along with some different numbers than the ones I came up with:<br />http://www.upnorthlive.com/news/story.aspx?id=430468Dr Brainsmarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11858910329391726513noreply@blogger.com