this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
140 points (96.7% liked)

Canada

10225 readers
429 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

No reason not to do this across the board

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 20 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Those who got the payment did not spend more money on "temptation goods," spent 99 fewer days homeless, increased their savings and spent less time in shelters which "saved society" $777 per person, according to a news release from UBC.

Is that gross or net savings? That is, is the $7500 included and there was a net savings, or was there a net cost of $6723?

[–] Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

From the linked study:

generated societal net savings of $777 per recipient via reduced time in shelter

So giving them $7500 reduced shelter costs by $8277. I would guess the total "societal cost" reduction is even higher, due to the harder to calculate indirect costs; but those are difficult to validate.

Also, there's 99 shelter days saved per person, $777 for that period would be incredible. If you've got a secret to run a shelter for < $8/bed/day, you're going to solve homelessness and the housing shortage.