No, it's people giving you the benefit of the doubt instead of just accepting that you're making most if not all of your arguments in bad faith.
He states clearly that it is his own interpretation of what happened. Why do you feel the need to impose your interpretation over Mike's?
YOu do understand nuance, correct? We look at the video and we see what happened, but everyone interprets the exact same thing slightly differently. Mike is saying that even though he sees the same thing you see, he is interpreting that differently. and don't give us any shit about what the kid said later, cuz we all know humans would never lie or confuse things or ... whatever.
going back to not everyone has an equal start... the woman in this video was a friend 30+ years ago, and in the brief time I knew her a bit of an inspiration as she never gave up fighting for herself and others. She passed a few days back, aged 53.
To be clear, this is not a second study, but a 6 months later followup of the study in post 152. As I said previously, this study was poorly designed, with the organizers picking people personally known to them who they believed would be most likely to benefit from the program. We also now know the size of the study: 9 people. And we knew even then that the program couldn’t scale: This is actually… not that great. I don’t expect miracles out of $3000 over 6 months for just anybody, but that plus 9 months of 1 on 1 support of those pre-evaluated most likely to succeed, I’d have hoped that more than ⅔ of them would be able to get off the street.
Well, let's look at what the article suggests those who didn't get housing spent it on instead: In several of those cases, the money isn't vastly improving life for the recipient, but is uplifting others around them. The case could be made that, were this ACTUALLY universal, they wouldn't need to help others and could therefore spend it on themselves. Another chose to prioritize being able to maintain and build a career. And others seem to be working on reducing issues that might hamper their own efforts to improve their situation moreso than not having a roof over their head.
we have a similar program where I work, referred to as a trusteeship. They help manage peoples' money for them along with providing living supports like ensuring they get to appointments and advocacy when a client is likely to go unheard. 2/3 into stable housing is actually a pretty good rate given the PTSD inevitable with extended homelessness. Much like some vets, many unhoused people can't reacclimate to "normal" life, let alone maintain it without support.
I've posted before about Manitoba's 70s experiment with UBI, but this is article about that I haven't seen before that adds some valuable context. In total, the scheme ran for more than four years, with the primary goal of investigating whether a basic income reduced the incentive to work, one of the main public concerns at the time regarding such schemes. “As a health economist, you become aware very quickly that we use the healthcare system to treat the consequences of poverty, and we do it in an inefficient and expensive way,” she says. “We wait until people live horrible lives for many years, get sick as a consequence, and then we go in all guns blazing to make things better.” After several years of painstaking work, she was finally able to publish the results, many of which were eye-opening. In particular, Forget was struck by the improvements in health outcomes over the four years. There was an 8.5% decline in hospitalisations – primarily because there were fewer alcohol-related accidents and hospitalisations due to mental health issues – and a reduction in visits to family physicians. Forget believes this was a direct result of the added security in people’s lives provided by the basic income. “I wanted to see whether doing something about poverty has an impact on people’s health and these results are really interesting,” she says. “An 8.5% reduction over four years is pretty dramatic.” One of the things we do know from the Mincome experiment is that basic income does not appear to discourage the recipients from working – one of the major concerns politicians have always held about such schemes. Forget found that employment rates in Dauphin stayed the same throughout the four years of Mincome, while a recent trial in Finland – which provided more than 2,000 unemployment people with a monthly basic income of 560 euros ($630, £596) from 2017 to 2019 – found that this helped many of them to find work which provided greater economic security. “They recently released the final results, which showed the nature of the jobs that people got once they received a basic income was changing,” says Forget. “So instead of taking on precarious part-time work, they were much more likely to be moving into full-time jobs that would make them more independent. I see that as a great success.” There's plenty more in the article, including criticisms that can't be hand-waved away, but it's well worth reading for those who are really interested in the implications of such a program.
Why the fuck are they reporting it in dollars? Wales uses the pound. Either way, a good thing. Not needing it myself - the only fosters I've ever encountered is the Aussie lager, and it's piss fucking weak.
Ireland launches UBI for artists. https://twitter.com/cathmartingreen/status/1567815082687582208?s=46&t=MgvnhyoniMcotnzYVh3WYA
While I appreciate the intent, it seems like $500 a month UBI is not nearly high enough in the urban environments they are testing in.