If you go based off of surveys like the ACS, CPS ASEC, or SIPP, you might end up with the wrong answer.
If you use administrative records, you'll find that people usually underreport the welfare they receive🧵
If you look at receipt of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and unemployment insurance, a similar pattern shows up:
What we're seeing here is something that affects not only the estimated prevalence of benefits receipt, but also the magnitude of it. In other words, people underreport the size of their welfare checks.
If we take these facts together, then we'll notice something interesting: America's poverty rates are overestimated.
Poverty is, in fact, somewhat less common, less severe, and considerably less racialized than is generally understood:
An open question is Why do people misestimate? Well, go look back at the first two charts again.
Did you notice that misestimation of benefits receipt was greater for Blacks and Hispanics than for Asians and Whites? That's an important detail here.
When people respond to surveys, errors in their responses are predicted by tons of variables, from sex to race to education to height and so on.
One of my favorite examples is that people with low levels of educations misreport their heights more often.
What surveys show us about welfare usage is different from the reality, and that has unfortunate consequences, like misleading us about the extent to which Americans are poverty-stricken and underserved by their governments.
What this also tells us is that, somewhere, some bureaucrat could have probably assembled this data and contradicted a years-old literature, because all the researchers were using survey data that turned out to be, in some ways, wrong!
If we want to ensure this doesn't keep happening, we'll need the government to be more open with administrative data.
Amy Wax got in trouble for remarking that she'd not seen a Black student in the top quarter of a Penn Law class.
Thanks to hacked Columbia data, we can see that she was...
Probably right!
In the decade before her statement, there were just two top-25% Black students.
It is *totally* plausible that she never met these students. And it's also plausible that she rarely saw Black students in the top *half*, because each year, the number of them was just 1-4.
But, despite being 8% of the class, they were ~40% of the bottom 10%-ranked students:
Note: Penn is on-par/slightly less elite than Columbia, so it's likely that the Black students there were somewhat *worse*, as the article notes, making her claims more likely.
This all comes from @zagrebbi's latest article. It's well worth a read!
Big day if you think Roe v. Wade was correctly decided.
My favorite part (note that I've only read 150 pages so far) was Thomas explaining that, no, the Founding g Fathers did not adopt the English feudal system.
This fact was clearly lost on the other side.
The Court's reliance on a random remark from a case that ultimately didn't even produce lasting changes raises the question of whether that sort of thing even matters.
Why shouldn't I cite the Dred Scott case as the law of the land?
- His license is suspended
- He was once a soldier for a Mafia family
- He's telling me about his time in Rikers
- He's showing me YouTube videos
- He's telling me his theories about Jews
He's telling me about gang wars he was in ad a kid.
He's wondering why all the Chinese girls are lined up - for an audition?
He says to go to Mother's Ruin for latin prostitutes.
All of this entirely unprompted.
"Yeah, these African guys, yeesh"
"I couldn't fuck that whore because I got the erectile dysfunction."