Please be hookers…
“Counter to really harmful stereotypes, we saw that people made wise financial choices,” Claire Williams, the CEO of Foundations for Social Change, told me.
Well look at that.
this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
93 points (91.2% liked)
World News
48997 readers
2467 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
If you give someone $20, chances are that, yeah, they will spend it on some quick and cheap comfort to improve their lives in the short term (fast food, alcohol, drugs, etc.). But if you give someone a sizeable sum that will actually help them plan for a better future, the vast majority of people will do just that.
But that really goes against the whole "poverty is the result of a moral failing" concept that capitalist throught had been hammering into our heads for decades, so we certainly can't be promoting that fact.
Hm. Let's take the money from the people who put them in that situation and redistribute it to those who need it.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The newly published, peer reviewed PNAS study, conducted by the charity Foundations for Social Change in partnership with the University of British Columbia, was fairly simple.
They found that pointing out how cash transfers actually produce net savings for society, as well as showing how homeless people spend the money, are both effective ways to counter stereotypes among the public.
The general idea behind basic income — that the government should give every citizen a monthly infusion of free money with no strings attached — has gained momentum in the past few years, with several countries running pilot programs to test it.
The study only enrolled participants who’d been homeless for under two years, with the idea that early intervention most effectively reduces the risk of people incurring trauma as a result of living without a home.
In fact, Canadian lawmakers are currently considering a bill that would create a national framework for a guaranteed income to cover basic living expenses for people over age 17.
Twice a week, you’ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges: improving public health, decreasing human and animal suffering, easing catastrophic risks, and — to put it simply — getting better at doing good.
The original article contains 1,582 words, the summary contains 205 words. Saved 87%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
@TokenBoomer
@hoshikarakitaridia
unfortunately the study was rigged, if you read it you see the research people made being accepted for the money for selected people. This included no drugs, only within 2 years, 200 people only, not part with street culture of that area, etc. This is not good research, this is falsely research.
It wasn’t rigged it just didn’t match what the headline implied. It wanted to show that people who have recently been made homeless can recover from the bad situation if given the means to do so.
That's not been rigged. It's called to have a method. You need that for a study. You can disagree with their method, but doesn't mean it is "rigged".
I don't know what you've been smoking but no.
Did you catch the part in the article where the amount of money handed out in total was gained back (with dividends) in the difference between state aid required for the people being homeless versus housed? Of course you didn't, because you have a narrative in mind already.
Government Aid almost always comes with stipulations, that's not new, and it's not to be frowned upon. If my taxpayer money is going to help people I would like to ensure there's some guardrails in place as well. Desperate people will do anything for money and we need reasonable assurances that person chosen to participate in such programs, are ready to commit to changing life for the better.
you didn't read the real study, they were looking for people in shelters not people who are outside the streets. Your claim is false, as the government does need to intervene as the study is from Canada. Your american money was never spent in the first place.
Don't trust newspapers that hide facts.
why does the source of the less than fortunate person matter? The fact is, shelters have rules, and a program like this is definitely better off having culled the selection pool down to persons who have already demonstrated willingness to follow basic rules in atn attempt to reintegrate.
I think you depend on newspapers too much for facts.