14 Matching Annotations
  1. Apr 2022
    1. 1970’s found that participants of the trial were more likely to complete high school than counterparts not involved in the trial. [1]

      this was the 70's. we are currently in 2022, highschool dropout rates have decreased in the US without OBI

    2. inland, France, Italy, and the UK concluded that “rather than reducing the overall headcount of those in poverty, a BI [basic income] would change the composition of the income-poor population”

      EVEN FINLAND wher UBI was trialed, negates its benefits

      another model was donefrom Roosevelt institude. found economy would grow, emplyment, prices, and wages. APF increased purchasing power resulted in 10,000 + jobs for the state

    3. many people lack more than just cash. UBI does not cure addiction, poor health, lack of skills, or other factors that contribute to and exacerbate poverty.

      This is a HUGE reason why proverty and generational poverty exists. UBI may also lead people to use the funding to support their addictions since this legislation doesnt state what it can only be used for.

    4. Luke Martinelli, PhD, Research Associate at the University of Bath, created three models of UBI implementation and concluded that all three would lead to a significant number of individuals and households who are worse off.
    5. you’re redistributing income upward. That would increase poverty and inequality rather than reduce them.”

      USE THIS

    6. UBI could become like another American tipping system in which employers pay low wages and count on customers to fill in the gap with tips. [52]

      lower "minumum wage pay" 15 dollars an hour could go to 10,theyll still make the same amount with UBI

    7. The amount varies each year based on the stock market and other factors, and has ranged from $331.29 (1984) to $2,072 (2015).

      keep in mind this was only annually. Americans would be recieiving 12,000 per year. possibly more per household. would alaskans continue to get this allowence?

  2. Oct 2019
  3. Apr 2015
    1. There are several other important considerations related to LEB. First, there is a risk of capture of legislation by the domestic industry. Once an inefficient industry comes to rely on LEB for survival, the Ukrainian parliament might find it difficult to rescind the ban in the future. Second, LEB and other similar measures underscore that the Ukrainian parliament finds it acceptable to intervene in functioning of the markets based on empirically dubious rationale. The parliament substitutes the market by deciding how resources should be allocated. In doing so, the parliament teaches the businesses and the industry that they should compete through lobbying in the parliament, financial and informational, rather than through innovation and efficiency improvement in the market place.
    1. According to both Ukrainian Armed Forces and Russian Federation Armed Forces officers at the observation point, an unidentified “third party” was provoking the two sides.
    1. Интересно, что в познеровском монологе на путинском ТВ картина дебатов выглядела несколько иначе. Мэтр отечественного телевидения заявил, что дебаты закончились "почти вничью" (49% за "диалог", 51% — против), после чего пустился в рассуждения о невежественной канадской аудитории, будто бы ничего не знающей о России и находящейся во власти пропаганды. Простим господину Познеру, что он — случайно или по старой советской привычке — "подрезал" процентик у оппонентов. Гораздо важнее, что он скромно умолчал о том факте, что изначально аудитория гораздо больше симпатизировала именно его позиции, а изменение настроений аудитории — это результат дебатов, которые Познер с Коэном проиграли, а не мифической антироссийской пропаганды. Подобное поведение иначе как потерей лица не назовешь. В конце концов, нет ничего постыдного в том, чтобы проиграть в честном поединке, а вот заниматься передергиваниями — это действительно позор.