LogFAQs > #907749035

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, Database 4 ( 07.23.2018-12.31.2018 ), DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Looks like Basic Income failed again, this time in Canada.
Sephiroth1288 08/29/18 10:56:48 AM #141:	Balrog0 posted... program savings in other areas of public spending, through a combination of reductions in use and improved participant performance? if you had actually read the research with a neutral POV that would be one of the first things you would notice that those trying to do a CBA on mincome experiments use for example, labor force participation did drop in the treatment group (11% iirc) but also I like how you skim over that number like it's no big deal Balrog0 posted... This essay uses a quasi-experimental design and routinely collected health administration data to revisit outcomes for the saturation site. We found a significant reduction in hospitalization, especially for admissions related to mental health and to accidents and injuries, relative to the matched comparison group. Physician contacts for mental health diagnoses fell relative to the comparison group. A greater proportion of high school students continued on to grade 12. We found no increase in fertility, no increase in family dissolution rates and no improvement in birth outcomes. Our results document the value of health administration data for historical analysis, and demonstrate that a relatively modest GAI can improve population health suggesting the possibility of health system savings. "Suggesting the possibility of health system savings" is not the same thing as offsetting the cost of UBI to begin with. And yes reducing the labor market is kind of a big deal, considering that's where the money for UBI is coming from. meestermj posted... Firstly, why are you so caught up on the lowered labor market, and not the various posts before now purporting that studies concluded the positives of the system outweighed that? That's not what the study said. And I'm "hung up" on the labor market because that's where the government is getting its money in the first place. Labor is kinda how the government makes money. --- The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience. Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248 <cite>Sephiroth1288 posted [p:907749035] in Looks like... [t:76947176]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>program savings in other areas of public spending, through a combination of reductions in use and improved participant performance? if you had actually read the research with a neutral POV that would be one of the first things you would notice that those trying to do a CBA on mincome experiments use for example, labor force participation did drop in the treatment group (11% iirc) but also</quote> I like how you skim over that number like it's no big deal <cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>This essay uses a quasi-experimental design and routinely collected health administration data to revisit outcomes for the saturation site. We found a significant reduction in hospitalization, especially for admissions related to mental health and to accidents and injuries, relative to the matched comparison group. Physician contacts for mental health diagnoses fell relative to the comparison group. A greater proportion of high school students continued on to grade 12. We found no increase in fertility, no increase in family dissolution rates and no improvement in birth outcomes. Our results document the value of health administration data for historical analysis, and demonstrate that a relatively modest GAI can improve population health suggesting the possibility of health system savings.</quote> "Suggesting the possibility of health system savings" is not the same thing as offsetting the cost of UBI to begin with. And yes reducing the labor market is kind of a big deal, considering that's where the money for UBI is coming from. <cite>meestermj posted...</cite> <quote>Firstly, why are you so caught up on the lowered labor market, and not the various posts before now purporting that studies concluded the positives of the system outweighed that?</quote> That's not what the study said. And I'm "hung up" on the labor market because that's where the government is getting its money in the first place. Labor is kinda how the government makes money. --- The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience. Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1