You are here: Home - rant
Edit 2, 12:30pm 12/5/15: lots of traffic to this post–welcome! You should also check out the comment thread on MarkMaynard.com’s discussion of this post; his readers offer a lot of good thoughts on what good reporting of these data *could* look like, and questions that could be asked. And, to be clear, my point in this post is not to state that things are hunky-dory in Michigan: comparing the Census’ 1-year data for 2014 (from ACS) to 1999 (from the y2k Census), we see that statewide poverty rates climbed from 10.5% to 16.2% in those 15 years. That 547,000 more Michigan residents were living in poverty last year than at the turn of the century is clearly cause for concern. My frustration comes because bad data reporting actually obscures and misleads us from the real picture, preventing us from actually digging in and figuring out what’s going on and how to address it. All of the following commentary doesn’t get into that work–it only serves to get us out of the data dead end and back to square 1, so that we have the chance to set off down the right path.
Yesterday was one of my favorite holidays of the year: New Census Data Day. Just as Black Friday follows Thanksgiving, though, Bad Data Headlines Day inevitably follows as one of my least favorite days.
Michigan’s poverty rate soars as income drops even in economic rebound, census shows! screams the MLive headline, with lead paragraphs reading,
Median income in three out of every four Michigan cities and villages declined in the past five years, according to new data from the U.S. Census Bureau. At the same time, the share of people living in poverty rose in two-thirds of the state’s communities.
Statewide, more than one out of every six people are living in poverty, a 17 percent increase from the previous 5-year period. The median household income in Michigan from 2010-2014 was $49,087 per year – up a few hundred bucks from the 2005-2009 period, but when adjusted for inflation it’s down 8.7 percent during that time.
Of that, only the last sentence on household income is a clear and accurate explanation of the data; the rest ranges from misleading to flat wrong.
First, the math issue that had people contacting me in some alarm. From the wording of the article, they were led to believe that a net 17% of Michigan residents had newly fallen into poverty between 2009 and 2014–that if the poverty rate was, say, 10% in 2009, it must be 27% in 2014, because that’s a 17% increase. (Of course, the statement “one out of every six” is actually only 16.7%, meaning this read of the 17% increase can’t possibly be right, unless the poverty rate was below zero in 2009–which suggests that “one out of every six” was not a useful way to state the current rate.)
In fact, the statewide poverty rate for the period 2010-2014 was only 16.9%, while the statewide poverty rate for the period 2005-2009 was 14.5%. Since 16.9 is 16.55% larger than 14.5, it’s reasonably accurate to round it up to 17%–but confusing. It’s like giving a weather report that, “It’s a chilly 35 degrees Fahrenheit out there right now, but the temperature is expected to rise by 7 degrees Celsius by lunchtime.”
Any place the numbers “2014” and “2009” are used in these reports, they’re wrong. The new Census data is the 5-Year American Community Survey data for the period 2010-2014. These numbers are the result of surveys given over a 5-year period and rolled up (with some weightings) to create a statistically representative sample.
The Census Bureau’s pre-release webinar for media users explicitly states that the data “describe the average characteristics over a specific period of time, not a single point in time”. (The webinar also states the 5-year data should be used when “No 1-year estimate is available”. More on that in a minute.)
So what the data actually show is that, during the period 2010-2014, Michigan’s poverty rate was 16.9%, 2.4 percentage points higher than Michigan’s poverty rate of 14.5% during the period 2005-2009.
Those are big blocks of time. In 2005, the housing boom was in turbo-mode and would be for sometime longer–and that’s averaged in with the 2009 depths of the recession. Similarly, the “new” data covers a period from 2010–still on the economic rocks–to 2014. This is not the right data to use to describe changes “in the past five years”, because that entire 5 year period is lumped together as a single data point.
Sure. Actually, much more useful data for this was released back in September, when the 1-year ACS numbers came out. While the 5-year ACS data covers areas down to the “block group” scale (around 1,000 people, as a rule of thumb), the 1-year data only covers areas of at least 60,000 people, in order to have statistically meaningful sample sizes. Fortunately, Michigan’s population is over 60,000 people, despite what decades of national press might lead one to believe.
Looking at the 1-year ACS numbers, Michigan’s poverty rate over time looks like this:
2005 - 13.2%
2006 - 13.5%
2007 - 14%
2008 - 14.4%
2009 - 16.2%
2010 - 16.8%
2011 - 17.5%
2012 - 17.4%
2013 - 17%
2014 - 16.2%
From these one-year numbers, you can see that Michigan’s poverty rate in 2014 was the same as in 2009, at 16.2%, and that the poverty rate peaked in 2011, dropping every year since. These numbers also clearly show why the five-year bundle of 2005-2009 is a bad data point to use for “the recession”, and 2010-2014 a bad data point for “the recovery”.
If you want to use the 5-year ACS poverty numbers that newspapers are publishing for local communities, think of them as an over/under comparison–how has my community fared over the last 10 years compared to the state?
For example, the state’s inflation-adjusted median household income dropped 8.7% from the 2005-2009 period to the 2010-2014 period. By contrast, the City of Ypsi’s inflation-adjusted median household income dropped 13.6% between those periods, while the City of Ann Arbor’s increased by 1%–another data point in our local tale of two cities.
edit, 12/5/15: Also, I didn’t get in to margin of error here–the Census Bureau does include that information in the ACS, and the DetNews’ database of poverty rates, the their credit, does include a column stating whether the change over time is significant or not.
It’s not common in parenting circles to brag about formula-feeding, disposable diapers, and sleep training, but: yep, we do those things (at least in part). And, hopefully I can save some new parents out there a lot of grief by assuring: yep, it’s totally okay for you to do them too, if that’s what works for you.
For context, I find there to be a big trend in hip-and/or-middle-class-parenting of pushing back against the “modern” parenting practices of our parents’ generation. By way of example, this article chastising the very question of “how’s your baby sleeping?” is what prompts my rant of the moment:
I’m going to start charging anybody who asks the parents of one of my patients “is your baby sleeping through the night yet? The answer to the question, while it seems polite enough, often leads to a judgment of how we’re doing as a new parent. We have enough judges. Plus, the answer is almost always “no” and physiologically, that’s the right answer. Most children don’t sleep through the night because they are built that way.
The “let them cry it out, is the nursery ready, put that baby down you’re spoiling him” culture can also undermine our parenting efforts. Our culture encourages independence from a very young age and says that normal babies were never meant to be held all the time, and were meant to sleep all by themselves.
I see things like this shared around by way of saying, “Hey, it’s okay–just because grandma thinks you need to do something a particular way with your baby doesn’t mean that’s your only choice.” (Or your co-workers, or Babies R Us, or random passerby on the street, or your pediatrician…) These pieces then tend to go into detail about (for example) the science of sleep cycles and brain activity, some evolutionary psychology theories, and discussions of indigenous/traditional cultures’ practices in order to illustrate the fact that today’s standard parenting practice is not the one and only way to do things.
And I’ve come to the realization that I’m not the target audience for this. The target audience is the parents who were themselves raised on day care, cartoons, formula, Huggies, and cribs, and who need every detail of the alternatives spelled out for them in order to get basic familiarity and comfort with trying it out. I and my younger siblings, though, were breastfed, cloth diap’ed, and no-“screen timed” by our at-home mom, so, yeah, sure, these things are totally within my experience.
And, further, I’ve kind of got a giant chip on my shoulder at this point about it. Something about a pair of type-A perfectionists trying to parent twins “right” and reading things like this while short half our brain capacities from sleep deprivation led us to absorb a lot of guilt out of this: the detail and justification and assertiveness that’s calibrated for chipping away at Western cultural norms to create an openness to new ideas has an entirely different effect on somebody who already holds those views, and is now being waterboarded with them in conjunction with chronic sleep deprivation.
The inevitable conclusion of these advice pieces–that “only you really know what’s best for your child and family”–is intended as a shield against nosy normative interlopers, to say, “Hey, look, those cultural norms may be totally fine for some babies, but if they’re not working for your baby, it’s really okay to try something else. Unfortunately, the level of hammering home of their points that most of these writers do has the effect of implying, “(…and what’s best for your baby is clearly this stuff, not the conventional stuff. How can you read all that stuff about millions of years of human evolution and tens of thousands of years of traditional practices, and possibly believe that suddenly after World War II we struck on something better?)”
Some of the more zealous writers out there intentionally play on this emotional vulnerability, rather than making any pretense of simply laying out options, for example,
Likewise, why do sleep-trained babies stop calling out? Perhaps because it is futile for them to continue crying. Why cry when nobody comes? This knowledge hurts your soul when you consider that a baby’s cry is their first attempt at communicating. Through it, the baby establishes his status as someone who deserves something. When the communication is answered, the baby’s sense of positive entitlement as a person becomes stronger. However when their cry is ignored, this sends the opposite message – that they are not worthwhile.
I fell for this parenting terrorism for quite a while, up until about the third or fourth incident of nearly drowsing off and driving into a bridge abutment on my way home from work, when I decided, you know what? Daddy making a trip to the morgue probably isn’t “what’s best for your baby.”
For others struggling with the same, I’ll offer up a bit of an antidote: when you’re feeling guilt about not co-sleeping, or not exclusively breastfeeding, or not holding your baby 24/7, open up the Dr. Sears Baby Book and find an anecdote of traditional societies’ practices of childrearing. Then grab Jared Diamond’s The World Until Yesterday: What Can We Learn From Traditional Societies? to the section on childrearing practices, and wonder at how different the two accounts are. Then remember that one of these two writers has spend 50 years doing field work in places like New Guinea, while the other charges tens of thousands of dollars for speaking engagements to tell parents how to feel good about themselves, after using his books to riddle them with guilt.
Then use that comparison to feel okay about ignoring the oh-so-clear-cut Right Way that Sears offers, and make your own decisions. Even if those decisions involve formula.