Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

BigBen · 04-21-2006, 09:13 AM

This is a classic example of the human need to quantify the unknown.

Politicians are the worst at this.

We statisticians run into a problem when we see that the equation is not divisable, or put into a round number such as the magical "PER PERSON".

Listen; I am spending a million dollars on the homeless problem. Advocates say that it isn't nearly enough. A drop in the ocean. How can I be so jaded and uncaring? Opponents say that the million bucks could be spent on a thousand other social programs that will raise the standard of living for everyone. Why piss away a million dollars on a problem that is not nearly as bad as a thousand other things?

Well, what good does this money do?
We don't know, sir. It helps a large population of homeless.
How many?
We don't know, sir.
You can't count them?
No sir. They are homeless. We have no way of tracking them.
You can't give me a rough idea?
Okay, let's say around a thousand.
AROUND a thousand? How solid are those figures?
Purely anecdotal, sir.
Fuck. Lets go out and count them.
That will cost $90,000 sir.

When you are a bean counter, the last thing you want to do is say "I don't know." It is a career-ender. It is your job to know, and not knowing puts a wrech in the gears.

If there is a thousand homeless people, and I am spending 1 million on the homeless problem, I can accurately say that I am trying to solve the problem with 10,000$ worth of effort for every homeless person. That PER CAPITA statistic is easily compared with a multitude of other government statistics, and the utility (or good) achieved can be marginalized, adjusted, and tracked. Statisticians and Economists love that shit.

If there are 2,000 homeless, I am suddenly spending half of what I thought. Can you understand the way a politician and a buraucrat think?

A normal person looks at a million bucks as a million bucks. They only think about the aggregate.

This can also lend itself to hyping the numbers:
If the advocates find that the numbers of homeless are less than predicted, they can scream that the counting process was flawed, and the homeless were hiding. The opponents will scream that funding is more than adequate, and the public should move their attention to more important issues.
If the numbers are larger, the shoe is on the different foot. Advocates can scream about being horrible underfunded and that the good work they do is finally coming to bare fruit. Opponents will talk about homeless being double-counted, statistical errors, and even call some of them "Suburbums".

Well. That's it. Counting things makes people happy. It makes the world of politics and public policy go round.

Big picture: Should we spend more money on the issue of homelessness? I think so. I think it is an important safety net. Then again, I am a Liberal, and would spend every single dime of your paycheck if only I could find a way to tax you that high.

04-21-2006, 09:13 AM	#7 (permalink)
BigBen Comedian Location: Use the search button	This is a classic example of the human need to quantify the unknown. Politicians are the worst at this. We statisticians run into a problem when we see that the equation is not divisable, or put into a round number such as the magical "PER PERSON". Listen; I am spending a million dollars on the homeless problem. Advocates say that it isn't nearly enough. A drop in the ocean. How can I be so jaded and uncaring? Opponents say that the million bucks could be spent on a thousand other social programs that will raise the standard of living for everyone. Why piss away a million dollars on a problem that is not nearly as bad as a thousand other things? Well, what good does this money do? We don't know, sir. It helps a large population of homeless. How many? We don't know, sir. You can't count them? No sir. They are homeless. We have no way of tracking them. You can't give me a rough idea? Okay, let's say around a thousand. AROUND a thousand? How solid are those figures? Purely anecdotal, sir. Fuck. Lets go out and count them. That will cost $90,000 sir. When you are a bean counter, the last thing you want to do is say "I don't know." It is a career-ender. It is your job to know, and not knowing puts a wrech in the gears. If there is a thousand homeless people, and I am spending 1 million on the homeless problem, I can accurately say that I am trying to solve the problem with 10,000$ worth of effort for every homeless person. That PER CAPITA statistic is easily compared with a multitude of other government statistics, and the utility (or good) achieved can be marginalized, adjusted, and tracked. Statisticians and Economists love that shit. If there are 2,000 homeless, I am suddenly spending half of what I thought. Can you understand the way a politician and a buraucrat think? A normal person looks at a million bucks as a million bucks. They only think about the aggregate. This can also lend itself to hyping the numbers: If the advocates find that the numbers of homeless are less than predicted, they can scream that the counting process was flawed, and the homeless were hiding. The opponents will scream that funding is more than adequate, and the public should move their attention to more important issues. If the numbers are larger, the shoe is on the different foot. Advocates can scream about being horrible underfunded and that the good work they do is finally coming to bare fruit. Opponents will talk about homeless being double-counted, statistical errors, and even call some of them "Suburbums". Well. That's it. Counting things makes people happy. It makes the world of politics and public policy go round. Big picture: Should we spend more money on the issue of homelessness? I think so. I think it is an important safety net. Then again, I am a Liberal, and would spend every single dime of your paycheck if only I could find a way to tax you that high. __________________ 3.141592654 Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.