For the first time in 27 years, the U.S. government is changing how it categorizes people by race and ethnicity, an effort that federal officials believe will more accurately count residents who identify as Hispanic and of Middle Eastern and North African heritage.
The revisions to the minimum categories on race and ethnicity, announced Thursday by the Office of Management and Budget, are the latest effort to label and define the people of the United States. This evolving process often reflects changes in social attitudes and immigration, as well as a wish for people in an increasingly diverse society to see themselves in the numbers produced by the federal government.
How do you help said ppl without knowing where they are, how many of them there are, and who is eligible (now and in the future) without long term catorgorization? It’s like claiming you can figure out a grocery stores inventory without ever writing anything down. Most countries don’t have this problem because they’re racially homogenous.
Im sorry about your slight inconvenience after circumventing the globe but if you have an issue with it blame Europe (mainly the English).
It’s funny because I’m scratching my head over their comment. I’m a European mutt, my wife is an south/se/eastern Asian mutt. I can recall a couple of times (maybe even only once) where when filling out a form I was stuck with a radio button when it comes to my kids’ ethnicities, and I was left scratching my head. . .but I can’t remember the last time this happened. We have travelled abroad with them a few times, and not once did I feel like it was difficult to fill out some form when we returned.
If you want to know where poverty is found in the US you can just ask the IRS. Effectively every adult is reporting their income and major property every year. Additionally, you could easily look at services for the marginal. How many empty beds are in the this particular homeless shelter, how many people in the area applied for food stamps, etc.
It really doesn’t matter that much. All you have to do is read a single bill that gets passed in Washington and it becomes clear that need of a population has no relationship with funding for that population.
I do blame Europe, and specifically the English for most things.
We do have specific eligibility for certain things based on ethnicity and origin, and it’s not a particularly hard thing to manage, honestly. I mean, what’s the difference between declaring it periodically on a census and declaring it at the time of requesting whatever it is you’re elligible for? It’s a self-identification question either way.
Because governments have a budget and keeping a detailed account of population makeup helps with budgeting.
Let’s set aside $2.5 million of aid for group X this year. There’s only like 10000 of them probably. We didn’t count. What do you do if there’s actually 33 million of them? Give them $10 and call it a day
Now the opposite. What if you set aside $5.6 billion but there’s only 1000 of them? Guess we’ll just axe money we were going to use for school lunches for kids to make them the richest race on the planet.
Alright, let me start by restating that I acknowledge socioeconomic reasons why the US may want to do this and that I’m not American and don’t feel about this strongly. Others have provided more detailed examples in this thread and I assume those make some sense. I wouldn’t know.
Now, that being said, either you’re underestimating my awareness of public affairs enough that you’ve reduced this response to absurdity or your view of the whole process is kind of skewed. You absolutely have tools to know how big a socioeconomic group is without needing strict categorization or census data. And I’m going to go ahead and assume the US doesn’t budget public aid based on handing out money to people based on race. That sounds more like a far right fever dream of how that works.
Unemployment / poverty rate / crime rate / homelessness?