Are you a hater?
Society Universal Basic Income hng
- Thread starter Fat Hing Dinger
- Start date
Oh.
Look. I will reply to you.
I didn’t realise it meant so much. I feel awkward now,
M
member 1013
Guest
I disagree. If tax is 22 percent it should be 22 percent. Why should one man pay more?
In France they did this but even more than 40%
So everyone just fucked off to Monaco. Lewis Hamilton did too. Imagine giving up half your earnings for fuck all
Spain approves national minimum income scheme
‘Today this government is showing that its political choice is social justice,’ says deputy prime minister in announcing scheme
The Spanish are stupid. They have been on their arse money wise for a few years now. It's a nice idea designed to paper over the cracks of unemployment in the country.Spain approves national minimum income scheme
‘Today this government is showing that its political choice is social justice,’ says deputy prime minister in announcing schemewww.independent.co.uk
When a California city gave people a guaranteed income, they worked more — not less
www.vox.com
The results from the first year of the experiment, which spanned from February 2019 to February 2020, are now in. And they’re extremely encouraging for its participants, and for advocates who see unconditional cash transfers as an effective way to help people escape poverty.
The most eye-popping finding is that the people who received the cash managed to secure full-time jobs at more than twice the rate of people in a control group, who did not receive cash. Within a year, the proportion of cash recipients who had full-time jobs jumped from 28 percent to 40 percent. The control group saw only a 5 percent jump over the same period.
When a California city gave people a guaranteed income, they worked more — not less
Stockton’s experiment shows what $500 per month in "free money" can do for employment, mental health, and more.
www.vox.com
The most eye-popping finding is that the people who received the cash managed to secure full-time jobs at more than twice the rate of people in a control group, who did not receive cash. Within a year, the proportion of cash recipients who had full-time jobs jumped from 28 percent to 40 percent. The control group saw only a 5 percent jump over the same period.
lol stockton is a pretty crappy example it is like a slightly less dystopian version of Detroit. im guessing the jobs these people found were all minimum wage jobs they could have gotten anyway with out this financial help. I could probably go to stockton now apply at a restaurant and have a job by tomorrow.When a California city gave people a guaranteed income, they worked more — not less
The results from the first year of the experiment, which spanned from February 2019 to February 2020, are now in. And they’re extremely encouraging for its participants, and for advocates who see unconditional cash transfers as an effective way to help people escape poverty.When a California city gave people a guaranteed income, they worked more — not less
Stockton’s experiment shows what $500 per month in "free money" can do for employment, mental health, and more.
The most eye-popping finding is that the people who received the cash managed to secure full-time jobs at more than twice the rate of people in a control group, who did not receive cash. Within a year, the proportion of cash recipients who had full-time jobs jumped from 28 percent to 40 percent. The control group saw only a 5 percent jump over the same period.
But they didn’t, yet they did after the basic income payments... why?
Depends on who gathered the report data and what their objective was.
No it doesn’t.
Except it does.
Either they are employed or not.
More were employed post payments than pre payments... why?
Report results are about as reliable as poll data.
These aren't being done in a vacuum.
Have you read the report or looked into the authors of the study?
Or it’s just default to dismiss science and research that doesn’t fit the narrative?
What are you basing your skepticism off?Any reliable sources saying it’s bias... if we are just going to skip reading the report or discussing the authors of it?
Last edited:
I haven't.
The only narrative I have is to automatically look at all "results" with skepticism. Anyone can manipulate results to get a desired result on either end of the spectrum.
I am on a conf call right now. Someone just mentioned dollars saved thanks to an initiative they recently rolled out. Significant dollars - but they completely ignored the additional labor expense to achieve those results. The truth is closer to a net zero gain.
If Covid and the additional unemployment dollars have taught us anything it's that many people are quite content to sit on their asses and live off a handout.
There are very few companies here in the midwest that aren't struggling to find workers.
Willful ignorance is not knowledge.
You’re shit talking something you admittedly know nothing about and have taken no steps to form an educated opinion on.
I will circle back to my original question... why did more participants find work post payments vs those not receiving payments?