Current Events > Looks like Basic Income failed again, this time in Canada.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Mal_Fet unable to read once again
---

Government is a failure
---

EmeralDragon23 posted...

Mal_Fet unable to read once again

I'm seriously wondering that at this point
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Doom_Art posted...

Eat More Beef posted...

Seriously though, Mal. I think it's time you sought help for your deteriorating mental state. You've developed a problem over the years, and while I think the majority of what you spew is garbage, just know that I just want the best for you, so please, call someone and get your issues taken care of.

Yeah agreed

It's fun to make fun of Mal but this is pretty frightening

"It wasn't a failure, because it was cancelled before it could fail!"
- a mentally-stable person

You do understand what a pilot project is, correct? You do understand that these things need to run their full slated course before being determined whether it was a success or failure, right? Them cancelling it after only one year, and two full years early, does not provide enough data to judge said project one way or another.

And yeah, Mincome was determined to be more helpful than harmful from all those that studied it, so I'd rate that as a success.
---

regardless of how successful the program was, if they were led to believe they'd be on it for a few years then I hope their suit is successful
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Reminder that this is what happens when you get just a little too socialist. Everything will go to shit and the spoiled brats who were getting shit for free will complain after they stop getting things they never worked for to begin with.

Conversely, when you get "just a little too capitalist, everything will go to shit and the spoiled brats who were getting shit for free on top of their tremendous amount of shit they already have will complain"

extremes on either side of the spectrum are bad. balance is key to success.
---

bevan306 posted...

regardless of how successful the program was, if they were led to believe they'd be on it for a few years then I hope their suit is successful

They probably will be. The Ontario Conservatives are going to be losing a lot of lawsuits.
---

CyricZ posted...

So wait is this a case of:

1) Start thing
2) People who don't like thing come into power
3) Those in power undermine effectiveness of thing
4) Those in power say "See? Thing doesn't work!"

Sounds like the kind of politics TC can get behind
---

MarqueeSeries posted...

CyricZ posted...

So wait is this a case of:

1) Start thing
2) People who don't like thing come into power
3) Those in power undermine effectiveness of thing
4) Those in power say "See? Thing doesn't work!"

Sounds like the kind of politics TC can get behind

He literally does, as a Trump apologist

Eat More Beef posted...

You do understand what a pilot project is, correct? You do understand that these things need to run their full slated course before being determined whether it was a success or failure, right? Them cancelling it after only one year, and two full years early, does not provide enough data to judge said project one way or another.

The problem is that it's never "enough" data. If a program is failing, the reason is always chalked up to it not being given enough time to work.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Eat More Beef posted...

You do understand what a pilot project is, correct? You do understand that these things need to run their full slated course before being determined whether it was a success or failure, right? Them cancelling it after only one year, and two full years early, does not provide enough data to judge said project one way or another.

The problem is that it's never "enough" data. If a program is failing, the reason is always chalked up to it not being given enough time to work.

Not if it's outlined that it takes three years to see success in the project. Of course the first year will be getting used to it, the second year will be stabilization and the third would br growth. To can it after one year because it's not an immediate success does not equal failure.
---

BWing posted...

He literally does, as a Trump apologist

What are you talking about

Mal is a nonpartisan independent libertarian who hates both sides equally
---

Doom_Art posted...

BWing posted...

He literally does, as a Trump apologist

What are you talking about

Mal is a nonpartisan independent libertarian who hates both sides equally

I like how the guy who constantly accuses me of having meltdowns for arguing against progressive groupthink is the guy who does nothing but shitpost in every topic about politics.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

the guy who does nothing but shitpost in every topic about politics.

Sephiroth1288 posted...

BWing posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

the guy who does nothing but shitpost in every topic about politics.

Sephiroth1288 posted...

You can disagree with me all you want but disagreement != shitposting
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Eat More Beef posted...

You do understand what a pilot project is, correct? You do understand that these things need to run their full slated course before being determined whether it was a success or failure, right? Them cancelling it after only one year, and two full years early, does not provide enough data to judge said project one way or another.

The problem is that it's never "enough" data. If a program is failing, the reason is always chalked up to it not being given enough time to work.

You'd think someone pursuing a bachelor in physics would understand that sometimes linear extrapolation isn't suitable.
---

TC getting obliterated itt
---

scar the 1 posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Eat More Beef posted...

You do understand what a pilot project is, correct? You do understand that these things need to run their full slated course before being determined whether it was a success or failure, right? Them cancelling it after only one year, and two full years early, does not provide enough data to judge said project one way or another.

The problem is that it's never "enough" data. If a program is failing, the reason is always chalked up to it not being given enough time to work.

You'd think someone pursuing a bachelor in physics would understand that sometimes linear extrapolation isn't suitable.

You'd have more of a leg to stand on if you could point to one successful longstanding UBI system in history.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

BWing posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

the guy who does nothing but shitpost in every topic about politics.

Sephiroth1288 posted...

You can disagree with me all you want but disagreement != shitposting

You're practically the definition of a shitposter. Plus you resort to every fallacy in the book. It's why people who are actually politically intelligent have stopping talking to you. Notice how people like Darkman don't engage you? He got tired of beating your ass and you continuing to attack with fallacies.

Sephiroth1288 posted...

scar the 1 posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Eat More Beef posted...

You do understand what a pilot project is, correct? You do understand that these things need to run their full slated course before being determined whether it was a success or failure, right? Them cancelling it after only one year, and two full years early, does not provide enough data to judge said project one way or another.

The problem is that it's never "enough" data. If a program is failing, the reason is always chalked up to it not being given enough time to work.

You'd think someone pursuing a bachelor in physics would understand that sometimes linear extrapolation isn't suitable.

You'd have more of a leg to stand on if you could point to one successful longstanding UBI system in history.

It seems like you're not understanding what I'm saying. Or intentionally misunderstanding. Which is lacking, your intelligence or your honesty?
---

BWing posted...

You're practically the definition of a shitposter. Plus you resort to every fallacy in the book. It's why people who are actually politically intelligent have stopping talking to you. Notice how people like Darkman don't engage you? He got tired of beating your ass and you continuing to attack with fallacies.

Give me a break, darkman would complain that my responses to him were too long and then leave in a huff. That's not exactly winning an argument.

And what's the connection here ITT? That UBI didn't fail? That it's not projected to be cost-effective? Because the only posters who seem to be saying that have resorted to ad hominem 50 posts ago after they couldn't explain how it wasn't a failure.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Give me a break, darkman would complain that my responses to him were too long and then leave in a huff.

Keep telling yourself that. Everyone else knows the truth

scar the 1 posted...

It seems like you're not understanding what I'm saying. Or intentionally misunderstanding. Which is lacking, your intelligence or your honesty?

You're poo-pooing linear extrapolation as a form of gathering data in order to defend linear extrapolation over a longer period of time. Do you know what linear extrapolation even is, or did you just use those words to try to sound smart?
---

BWing posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Give me a break, darkman would complain that my responses to him were too long and then leave in a huff.

Keep telling yourself that. Everyone else knows the truth

Sephiroth1288 posted...

And what's the connection here ITT? That UBI didn't fail? That it's not projected to be cost-effective? Because the only posters who seem to be saying that have resorted to ad hominem 50 posts ago after they couldn't explain how it wasn't a failure.

---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

The problem is that it's never "enough" data. If a program is failing, the reason is always chalked up to it not being given enough time to work.

don't they say the same thing about "trickle down economics"?

"oh you guys just need to wait a little longer, the wealth will eventually trickle down"
---

Don't really care about UBI, just entered this topic for the Maltdown. Wasn't disappointed.

Sephiroth1288 posted...

scar the 1 posted...

It seems like you're not understanding what I'm saying. Or intentionally misunderstanding. Which is lacking, your intelligence or your honesty?

You're poo-pooing linear extrapolation as a form of gathering data in order to defend linear extrapolation over a longer period of time. Do you know what linear extrapolation even is, or did you just use those words to try to sound smart?

I do know what it is. For example, if I throw a ball upwards, it would be foolish to assume that it would keep going upwards just because it happened to be doing so at one point in time.
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

don't they say the same thing about "trickle down economics"?

Nah, "trickle down economics" is a term invented by the left wing as an invective. No one was actually a proponent of what they themselves called "trickle down economics".
---

scar the 1 posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

scar the 1 posted...

It seems like you're not understanding what I'm saying. Or intentionally misunderstanding. Which is lacking, your intelligence or your honesty?

You're poo-pooing linear extrapolation as a form of gathering data in order to defend linear extrapolation over a longer period of time. Do you know what linear extrapolation even is, or did you just use those words to try to sound smart?

I do know what it is. For example, if I throw a ball upwards, it would be foolish to assume that it would keep going upwards just because it happened to be doing so at one point in time.

What variable would make UBI cheaper in the long run in the way gravity would reverse a ball's trajectory

Because Mincome seemed to prove that it would reduce the labor market over time. How would that lead to more money in the economy? Much less enough to offset the cost of UBI in the first place, plus the worst-case scenario of businesses moving out of the country to avoid the higher taxes
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

What variable would make UBI cheaper in the long run in the way gravity would reverse a ball's trajectory

Because Mincome seemed to prove that it would reduce the labor market over time. How would that lead to more money in the economy? Much less enough to offset the cost of UBI in the first place, plus the worst-case scenario of businesses moving out of the country to avoid the higher taxes

I'm saying, as a matter of principle, that making an extrapolation based on an observation two years away from the experiment's end is something that anyone would agree is not smart.
But then again, you're at the level of scientific literacy where you think studies (heck, even just one study) can prove things. So maybe it is naive incompetence after all.
---

scar the 1 posted...

I'm saying, as a matter of principle, that making an extrapolation based on an observation two years away from the experiment's end is something that anyone would agree is not smart.

Well Mincome was brought up earlier and even after 4 years they showed the labor market went down.

Why then should we expect a UBI system to work after 3 years? What magical variable was present in here but nowhere else UBI had been tried?
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

scar the 1 posted...

I'm saying, as a matter of principle, that making an extrapolation based on an observation two years away from the experiment's end is something that anyone would agree is not smart.

Well Mincome was brought up earlier and even after 4 years they showed the labor market went down.

Why should we expect a UBI system to work after 3 years? What magical variable was present in here but nowhere else UBI had been tried?

jfc you're insufferable. Shut the fuck up already.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

What variable would make UBI cheaper in the long run in the way gravity would reverse a ball's trajectory

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

https://web.archive.org/web/20170126003728/http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea%20%282%29.pdf

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.


These results suggest that the design of the mincome experiment (targeting certain populations) may explain the large decrease in labor force participation, because they found that new mothers and teenagers were the two groups most likely to stop working in response to a mincome
to spend more time on care work and school work respectively

which interestingly is related to the program savings we see in health and education... WEIRD!
---

I don't know the lore here. What is wrong with TC and why does everyone call him Mal? He seems emotionally unstable.
---

ssjevot posted...

I don't know the lore here. What is wrong with TC and why does everyone call him Mal? He seems emotionally unstable.

His main is: https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/community/Mal_Fet
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

scar the 1 posted...

I'm saying, as a matter of principle, that making an extrapolation based on an observation two years away from the experiment's end is something that anyone would agree is not smart.

Well Mincome was brought up earlier and even after 4 years they showed the labor market went down.

Why then should we expect a UBI system to work after 3 years? What magical variable was present in here but nowhere else UBI had been tried?

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?

Second, you of all people should know that different trials of the same concept can have differing results dependent on several factors, including methodology.
---

thelovefist posted...

ssjevot posted...

I don't know the lore here. What is wrong with TC and why does everyone call him Mal? He seems emotionally unstable.

His main is: https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/community/Mal_Fet

And he is Sultan of the Strawman, Marquis of the Misquote, and Duke of the Derailing Argument

Edited for alliteration

Who's also hiding off his main right now because he's trying to clear the Mod history
---

ssjevot posted...

What is the purpose of him using this other account? Does he get suspended a lot?

Yes. He is usually warned or in purgatory.
---

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.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

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.

This.
When the takers outnumber the makers, societies tend to collapse quickly. It becomes a death-spiral of scrabbling for the last bits of wealth that haven't fled yet.

Wow he's still going
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

I like how you skim over that number like it's no big deal

How am I skimming over it? You already pointed it out and I agreed with you. I also expanded on it later, in order to discuss the potential cause of the effect. Feel free to respond to that.

Sephiroth1288 posted...

"Suggesting the possibility of health system savings" is not the same thing as offsetting the cost of UBI to begin with.

Right, which is why an experiment where the design was intended to investigate those things is very important to complete in good faith and without shuttering the experiment for ideological reasons.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.925.4521&rep=rep1&type=pdf

It would be very easy to spin on the results in either direction. A positive spin would
focus on the size of the work disincentive effects. The experiments clearly contradicted
two of the most common arguments against a basic income guarantee: The experiments
found no evidence that a negative income tax would cause some segment of the population
to withdraw from the labor force, and the experiments found no evidence that
the supply response would increase the cost of the program to the point that it would
be unaffordable (even ignoring the mitigating demand response). Certainly, some level
of G would make an NIT untenably, but the results implied that a guarantee level as
high as 150% of the official poverty level would be well within the bounds of financial
feasibility. Also, the experiments predicted that the full labor market response in
the work hours of primary income earners would fall into a range of about 05% or
07% and where in that range it fell would depend on the elasticity of demand for labor.
The reduction in work hours could be called small, and it could be mentioned that
it would have the side benefit of increasing wages, further reducing poverty and inequality.
A negative spin would require a focus on three facts: First, there was a statistically significant
work disincentive effect, allowing willing laypersons to draw the fallacious conclusion
that there was therefore a substantively significant work disincentive effect. Second, work
reductions of 57% among primary earners in two-parent families and reductions of up to
Even if the public had been made to understand more of the complexities of results,
as long as there is a significant political block believing that any work disincentive is
unacceptable, the NIT experiments were bound to give ammunition to NIT opponents.
To that extent it was a mistake for any guaranteed income supporters to agree to the experiments
in the first place. Reichauer (1986) asked what would have happened if the
introduction of Social Security had been preceded by a similar experiment? It would certainly
have shown that people saved less for their retirement, retired sooner than they
otherwise would have, and relied less on traditional feelings of family responsibility for
elders. Such findings would have challenged prevailing norms and would have given considerable
ammunition to Social Security opponents. But there is a danger in focusing too
much on the strategic value of the experiments to supporters and opponents. There is more
to scientific inquiry than political advantage. The experiments were not a propaganda
device, and although what we learned form them was tentative and limited, it is worth
knowing

tl;dr there are both upsides and downsides in the research literature and the fact that you are willing to rely on some head of government saying 'it isn't sustainable' and you are just as willing to attach yourself to the first negative statistic about it that you see is because you're a shill
---

Balrog0 posted...

tl;dr there are both upsides and downsides in the research literature and the fact that you are willing to rely on some head of government saying 'it isn't sustainable' and you are just as willing to attach yourself to the first negative statistic about it that you see is because you're a shill

Actually I'm relying on every effort so far to see if UBI would work, each one being ended because time concept wasn't deemed sustainable.

If this were the only time UBI was called unsustainable then you might have something like a point. But it isn't, not by a long shot.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Actually I'm relying on every effort so far to see if UBI would work, each one being ended because time concept wasn't deemed sustainable.

If this were the only time UBI was called unsustainable then you might have something like a point. But it isn't, not by a long shot.

yeah, I'll let you think about that
---

There is some social value in bribing societal failures into leaving the rest of us alone, as opposed to warehousing them in prisons, but it's just malicious welfare-statism with significant potiential to end up backfiring.

Sephiroth1288 posted...

scar the 1 posted...

I'm saying, as a matter of principle, that making an extrapolation based on an observation two years away from the experiment's end is something that anyone would agree is not smart.

Well Mincome was brought up earlier and even after 4 years they showed the labor market went down.

Why then should we expect a UBI system to work after 3 years? What magical variable was present in here but nowhere else UBI had been tried?

So is labor market the only variable they're measuring?
---

It was going to cost too much and not being any benefit so it was canceled.
---

scar the 1 posted...

So is labor market the only variable they're measuring?

No, but if UBI will reduce the labor market it's basically a guarantee that it can't continue for long since those taxes are how the government funds UBI in the first place

It's like thinking a game of Jenga can go on forever even though every move removes support for the whole structure. It's got to fall over eventually.

MangaFan462 posted...

It was going to cost too much and not being any benefit so it was canceled.

You would think this would be easy enough for LiberalFAQs to understand...
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

No, but if UBI will reduce the labor market it's basically a guarantee that it can't continue for long since those taxes are how the government funds UBI in the first place

It's like thinking a game of Jenga can go on forever even though every move removes support for the whole structure. It's got to fall over eventually.

So what if a decrease of 8.5% in health utilization was enough to offset the costs of a 11% drop in labor force participation, given that drop in participation occurs mostly in secondary and tertiary income earners (i.e., new mothers and teenage kids, as I indicated earlier)? What if that additional time with children early in life produces better educational outcomes? What if teenagers deferring work until after they're doing with high school improves their future labor market outcomes, even if it decreases labor force participation in the near term by causing them to defer work by a few years?

Why is it that you are more willing to listen to a politician than the preponderance of research which indicates it would be sustainable, at the very least over the near-term (i.e., 3 years)? If you want to know 'why it would be different' this time, it wouldn't be necessarily -- but the original experiments did not gather data granular enough on every potential cost saving to make a good analysis of the costs and benefits. Which is why the original studies only 'suggest' potential cost savings -- that is researchers being careful with their language and their findings.
---