I really like how many people were helped with this pilot project, and how it’s really energized the conversation about how we help people and things like UBI.
I hate that it keeps being used as proof that people are wrong about homeless people though… The people in this study fit the technical definition of homeless sure, but not the colloquial one. In fact, those who fit the what many people think of when they think of homeless people where specifically disqualified from the study (likely because it wouldn’t give such a nice result) which actually reinforces the public perception instead of challenging it. There’s a huge difference between the “unhoused” and “homeless” (for lack of better differentiating the groups) and what these two groups need, and pretending like there’s no difference isn’t helping anyone.
Still, if it helps a portion of the people on the street get a roof over their heads, that ought to free up some of the existing resources to focus on the more challenging cases, shouldn’t it?
It’s probably entirely different resources to be honest, with little overlap. Regardless, this program is great and should be expanded ASAP. I just don’t like the spin being put on it is all.
Project participants were carefully screened for program eligibility to ensure the highest likelihood of success. Our goals in designing these criteria were to support participants to the highest degree possible, assess their readiness for change, and reduce any risk of harm.
Eligibility criteria included:
19+ years of age
Newly homeless and living in a temporary shelter situation
Canadian citizen or permanent resident
Low risk of mental health challenges and substance abuse "
Sorry, but what absolutely bullshit study that was designed to be successful, not realistic.
The entire methodology is based on confirmation bias, sampling bias, and selection bias at the very least!
It doesn’t surprise me that this study does not appear to be peer reviewed. What a disingenuous organization using junk science to get funding. 👎
For starters, neither groups is representative of the homeless demographic.
And when you take a group of people who have the best chance of success through your selection and sample biases, you are engineering a positive result.
It’s showing a marginal positive result. It doesn’t need to target the entire homeless demographic if this income isn’t provided to the entire homeless demographic.
Social security comes with screening. That’s not new.
What’s next is more studies. We know basic income works, we know the four-day work week is better for everyone, and many other things that improve life but run counter to the conservative “suffering is virtue” narrative. They won’t get implemented until we have real democracy.
We have a real democracy. A real democracy doesn’t force anyone to get involved, though, and most people – especially those who would welcome those kind of changes – don’t.
Yes, that’s what real democracy can look like when the people don’t get involved. The good news is that we still have a real democracy and the people can choose to become involved at any time to right the ship.
But do they want to? The answer is almost certainly no. That requires work and people don’t like work. We like being able to sit back and do nothing. We also like that, because we did nothing, “it’s not our fault” when we don’t like the outcome.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
I really like how many people were helped with this pilot project, and how it’s really energized the conversation about how we help people and things like UBI.
I hate that it keeps being used as proof that people are wrong about homeless people though… The people in this study fit the technical definition of homeless sure, but not the colloquial one. In fact, those who fit the what many people think of when they think of homeless people where specifically disqualified from the study (likely because it wouldn’t give such a nice result) which actually reinforces the public perception instead of challenging it. There’s a huge difference between the “unhoused” and “homeless” (for lack of better differentiating the groups) and what these two groups need, and pretending like there’s no difference isn’t helping anyone.
Still, if it helps a portion of the people on the street get a roof over their heads, that ought to free up some of the existing resources to focus on the more challenging cases, shouldn’t it?
It’s probably entirely different resources to be honest, with little overlap. Regardless, this program is great and should be expanded ASAP. I just don’t like the spin being put on it is all.
The way things are going, what’s next will be to outlaw giving the homeless money.
UBI should be implemented. Everyone will be lifted and the rich will only be slightly less richer.
" Eligibility
Project participants were carefully screened for program eligibility to ensure the highest likelihood of success. Our goals in designing these criteria were to support participants to the highest degree possible, assess their readiness for change, and reduce any risk of harm.
Eligibility criteria included:
19+ years of age
Newly homeless and living in a temporary shelter situation
Canadian citizen or permanent resident
Low risk of mental health challenges and substance abuse "
Sorry, but what absolutely bullshit study that was designed to be successful, not realistic.
The entire methodology is based on confirmation bias, sampling bias, and selection bias at the very least!
It doesn’t surprise me that this study does not appear to be peer reviewed. What a disingenuous organization using junk science to get funding. 👎
Both groups were drawn from the same set. What bias are you talking about?
For starters, neither groups is representative of the homeless demographic.
And when you take a group of people who have the best chance of success through your selection and sample biases, you are engineering a positive result.
Well designed studies don’t work that way.
It’s showing a marginal positive result. It doesn’t need to target the entire homeless demographic if this income isn’t provided to the entire homeless demographic.
Social security comes with screening. That’s not new.
What’s next is more studies. We know basic income works, we know the four-day work week is better for everyone, and many other things that improve life but run counter to the conservative “suffering is virtue” narrative. They won’t get implemented until we have real democracy.
We have a real democracy. A real democracy doesn’t force anyone to get involved, though, and most people – especially those who would welcome those kind of changes – don’t.
Ah yes, the real democracy where 30% of the vote gets a majority government. That real democracy?
Yes, that’s what real democracy can look like when the people don’t get involved. The good news is that we still have a real democracy and the people can choose to become involved at any time to right the ship.
But do they want to? The answer is almost certainly no. That requires work and people don’t like work. We like being able to sit back and do nothing. We also like that, because we did nothing, “it’s not our fault” when we don’t like the outcome.