Questions about groups of people can be vague to fallacious -- the fallacy being that a group can be treated as an individual...
Consider: Are religious people happier?
What does this mean: Who is happier than who?
Happier on average? What is the "average" happiness of a group? Does it make sense to average happiness? If a few people are elated, that balances out one who is tortured? Does it even make sense to average income of individuals to say things about a group? Pareto had some ideas opposing such notions.
Happier than similar unreligious people? This is problematic, when are two people otherwise similar and apt for comparison?
Could it mean that if you pull out a person from the control group and the test group at random, that they would agree, or even a 3rd party could determine, who is happier?
Happier than they were before they found religion? What about religious people who were indoctrinated from birth? In the first case, restricting the sample, and knowing that those who made a 'rational' choice weighed benefits (social, etc...) against costs (tithing...), would this be a surprise?
Treating groups as anthropomorphic is either a 'legal fiction', or done for convenience. The convenience can lure one into fallacy. We can say that Google Inc. dislikes spam, or that the United States has declared war on drugs and terrorism. These usages are ordinary, and when done correctly mean that a named body adopted a policy or made an announcement of some kind through its official channels. To say that Americans are "tired of corruption" sounds safe (who wouldn't oppose corruption?), but isn't (some Americans might argue as "lesser evil" to something else). It is a generalization, and a few steps from a prejudice. And great for endless discussion, but not so great for finding correct answers.
Should we close questions about groups of people that involve an over-generalization?