3 ms·

> Nobody is claiming the study models inflation, it's about homelessness. Since most people are not homeless, I have no idea why you think this makes it reason

by pdonis 3y ago

> Nobody is claiming the study models inflation, it's about homelessness. Since most people are not homeless, I have no idea why you think this makes it reasonable to extrapolate anything from this study to the case of actual UBI. > Basic Income is part of Universal Basic Income Not if it's only given to the homeless.

itishappy 3y ago
> Since most people are not homeless, I have no idea why you think this makes it reasonable to extrapolate anything from this study to the case of actual UBI. Some people are. They were given a basic income. Under UBI they would also be given a basic income. It seems crazy to me to suggest these are entirely uncorrelated. > Not if it's only given to the homeless. So I'll ask again, how does Basic Income for the middle class invalidate Basic Income for the destitute?
- pdonis 3y ago
  > They were given a basic income. Under UBI they would also be given a basic income. It seems crazy to me to suggest these are entirely uncorrelated. I can't tell if you are trolling or are actually confused. The issue is not that the homeless people were given a basic income. The issue is that everybody who wasn't homeless was not given a basic income. So only a small fraction of people were given a basic income in this study. That is what makes it invalid as a study of universal basic income. > how does Basic Income for the middle class invalidate Basic Income for the destitute? This question is irrelevant since middle class people were not given a basic income in this study. Do a study where middle class people are given a basic income and then we can talk.
  - itishappy 3y ago
    > So only a small fraction of people were given a basic income in this study. That is what makes it invalid as a study of universal basic income. You're arguing with a strawman. It isn't a study of Universal Basic Income. This is a study of Basic Income and it's effects on homelessness, so the results of this study should reasonably apply to other situations where Basic Income is provided to homeless individuals (as it would with UBI). To be clear, "the results" are the effect of basic income on homelessness, and only the effect of basic income on homelessness. This is not a blanket endorsement of UBI. I've been very deliberate with my wording to avoid absolutes. You seem to be suggesting that we cannot model anything at all. Yeah, I think that's insane.
    - pdonis 3y ago
      > You're arguing with a strawman. No, I'm arguing with what you actually said at the start of this subthread. See below. > It isn't a study of Universal Basic Income. According to you, it is valid input to decisions about UBI. Here is the original post of yours (responding to Detrytus) that I responded to in this subthread: XXXX > I think someone, soon will try to use this project as an argument in favor of UBI, which is ridiculous. Why's that ridiculous? Testing a small scale trial on the people most likely to be effected by a larger scale program seems pretty reasonable to me. XXXX Your contention that the study is a valid "small scale trial" of UBI is what I and others are disagreeing with. Nothing you have said changes that disagreement in the slightest; you just keep repeating the same contention we have already disagreed with, without addressing the issues we have raised at all. > "the results" are the effect of basic income on homelessness, and only the effect of basic income on homelessness. Which has nothing whatever to do with UBI. Nor is it a "small scale trial" of UBI. It's a study of the effect of providing basic income to homeless people and only homeless people. You can't use the results of that to conclude anything useful about what would happen if you provided basic income to everybody. This has already been pointed out to you multiple times in this subthread.
      - itishappy 3y ago
        > Your contention that the study is a valid "small scale trial" of UBI is what I and others are disagreeing with. Nothing you have said changes that disagreement in the slightest; you just keep repeating the same contention we have already disagreed with, without addressing the issues we have raised at all. Sigh. I've been very deliberate with my wording, and I did not say Universal anywhere in my original comment. If this caused confusion, my follow-up comments should have made things abundantly clear, and I'm still waiting for a rebuttal. If you insist on putting words in my mouth, know that you are arguing with a strawman.

by pdonis 3y ago

itishappy 3y ago

> Since most people are not homeless, I have no idea why you think this makes it reasonable to extrapolate anything from this study to the case of actual UBI. Some people are. They were given a basic income. Under UBI they would also be given a basic income. It seems crazy to me to suggest these are entirely uncorrelated. > Not if it's only given to the homeless. So I'll ask again, how does Basic Income for the middle class invalidate Basic Income for the destitute?

pdonis 3y ago
> They were given a basic income. Under UBI they would also be given a basic income. It seems crazy to me to suggest these are entirely uncorrelated. I can't tell if you are trolling or are actually confused. The issue is not that the homeless people were given a basic income. The issue is that everybody who wasn't homeless was not given a basic income. So only a small fraction of people were given a basic income in this study. That is what makes it invalid as a study of universal basic income. > how does Basic Income for the middle class invalidate Basic Income for the destitute? This question is irrelevant since middle class people were not given a basic income in this study. Do a study where middle class people are given a basic income and then we can talk.
- itishappy 3y ago
  > So only a small fraction of people were given a basic income in this study. That is what makes it invalid as a study of universal basic income. You're arguing with a strawman. It isn't a study of Universal Basic Income. This is a study of Basic Income and it's effects on homelessness, so the results of this study should reasonably apply to other situations where Basic Income is provided to homeless individuals (as it would with UBI). To be clear, "the results" are the effect of basic income on homelessness, and only the effect of basic income on homelessness. This is not a blanket endorsement of UBI. I've been very deliberate with my wording to avoid absolutes. You seem to be suggesting that we cannot model anything at all. Yeah, I think that's insane.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > You're arguing with a strawman. No, I'm arguing with what you actually said at the start of this subthread. See below. > It isn't a study of Universal Basic Income. According to you, it is valid input to decisions about UBI. Here is the original post of yours (responding to Detrytus) that I responded to in this subthread: XXXX > I think someone, soon will try to use this project as an argument in favor of UBI, which is ridiculous. Why's that ridiculous? Testing a small scale trial on the people most likely to be effected by a larger scale program seems pretty reasonable to me. XXXX Your contention that the study is a valid "small scale trial" of UBI is what I and others are disagreeing with. Nothing you have said changes that disagreement in the slightest; you just keep repeating the same contention we have already disagreed with, without addressing the issues we have raised at all. > "the results" are the effect of basic income on homelessness, and only the effect of basic income on homelessness. Which has nothing whatever to do with UBI. Nor is it a "small scale trial" of UBI. It's a study of the effect of providing basic income to homeless people and only homeless people. You can't use the results of that to conclude anything useful about what would happen if you provided basic income to everybody. This has already been pointed out to you multiple times in this subthread.
    - itishappy 3y ago
      > Your contention that the study is a valid "small scale trial" of UBI is what I and others are disagreeing with. Nothing you have said changes that disagreement in the slightest; you just keep repeating the same contention we have already disagreed with, without addressing the issues we have raised at all. Sigh. I've been very deliberate with my wording, and I did not say Universal anywhere in my original comment. If this caused confusion, my follow-up comments should have made things abundantly clear, and I'm still waiting for a rebuttal. If you insist on putting words in my mouth, know that you are arguing with a strawman.