Zhao says having data on how people who did get the money actually spent it is something she thinks will help counteract stereotypes, increase empathy and potentially get skeptics and the public on board with the idea of providing cash transfers.

Now that the study is complete, the plan is to replicate it and expand it to other cities in Canada and the U.S.

    • SheeEttin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      1 year ago

      That link argues against your claim.

      In general, most Americans ages 16 to 59 who aren’t disabled must register with their state SNAP agency or employment office; meet any work, job search or job training requirements set by their state; accept a suitable job if one is offered to them; and work at least 30 hours a week. Failure to comply with those rules can disqualify people from getting SNAP benefits.

      In addition, nondisabled adults without dependents must either work or participate in a work program for 80 hours a month, or participate in a state workfare program. If they fail to do so, they can only receive SNAP benefits for three months out of any 36-month period.

      • Strangle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        We all know how this works out in reality. 40+ million people are on food stamps and the graduation rate is much lower than the 80-100% that everyone expects from programs like this

        • Neato@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          We all know how this works out in reality.

          LOL. You present evidence, someone quickly reads the citation and shows you it proves the obvious. So you throw your own evidence under the bus for an “everyone knows” argument. How pathetically transparent.

          • Strangle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not going to convince you that throwing money at things doesn’t solve any of the problems it promises to. That’s a journey you’ll make on your own as you grow up and start realizing this as you get into adulthood

    • Neato@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Reagan’s racist ghost, is that you? I haven’t heard a good “welfare queens” argument in a while.

    • jasondj@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The problems you mentioned are created by the welfare system itself.

      Welfare cliffs are what disincentivizes work. It’s not that “having welfare disincentivizes work”, its “getting a few more hours, or accepting a small promotion, makes them ineligible for thousands of dollars of benefits”.

      • Strangle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        23
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s ‘throwing money at the problem’ doesn’t work. It never does.

        Democrats only ever have one solution “throw money at it until it goes away”

        • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          1 year ago

          It never does.

          Did you miss up above where I asked you for a source for this?

          This whole interaction is hilarious.

          We did a study of what happens when you do X.
          No, that’s wrong. X never works.
          What is your study? Why do you say that? We did a study and it worked.
          Because it is known. X never works.

          Honestly, I would be 100% open to it if you made some kind of argument for why some specific social program is actually making things worse when you study it, because I do think that happens. But, just falling back on thought-terminating cliches like “Welfare never works” and “Democrats only ever have one solution” and refusing to examine them further is not going to bring you any better ability to understand the world, and now you’re over here trying to export those malfunctioning thought patterns to other people, and surprise surprise, they’re not being friendly to your efforts.

            • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              1 year ago

              Nice deflection to a different topic. This whole story is about Canada, nothing about the US Democratic party. If for some reason you do want to talk about the effectiveness of “Democratic” fiscal policy versus “Republican” fiscal policy, I’m happy to do that.

              Like I said, I’m actually fine having a good-faith discussion about either one of these topics if you’re into that, but if you’re just interested in tossing little one-sentence quips at me and ignoring relevant things I’m saying or questions that I’m asking, then IDK what the point would be. Surely you can see that, right?

            • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’ve read at least 8 of your posts on this topic. Not one time have you put out any ideas that you think would work. You keep saying that throwing money at it doesn’t work (without any citations) and that democrats are bad. Not once have you put out a different idea or said anything that WOULD help.

              I can tell you from very personal experience that the welfare system does help people and makes lives better. You aren’t interested in that, though. You just have an agenda and will dismiss any story as an anecdote and will dismiss any study as biased or incomplete. You won’t actually link to anything that supports your position or even state a position outside of “welfare bad.”

          • Strangle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            What kind of source do you need? Welfare was created to get people on their feet and off of welfare, not for a quasi-UBI program that it’s turned into.

            If welfare was working, you’d see less and less people receiving it. That’s not what’s happening though. There are more people on welfare now than there was 50 years ago.

            The war on poverty has been a failure. Time for a new approach

            Why would I put more than the minimal amount of effort into any post on lemmy, knowing that 100 communist teenagers are just going to reply “lol wrong, you fascist” and downvote?

            If you want to debate me, I’d rather do that in real time on another program like discord. But lemmy is just a left wing commie shithole

            • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              1 year ago

              Hey, substantive statements! Okay, I can rock with this.

              “Welfare” is a very broad term. It can refer to anything from unemployment benefits, to SNAP, to this story about one-time aid specifically for homeless people in Canada (which is very far removed from anything resembling “welfare” as it’s commonly implemented in the US), to section 8 housing or housing assistance, and lots more. There are so many goals and implementation details with varying levels of success that I don’t think it makes sense to apply any kind of blanket logic to the whole collection, let along to apply the logic of “this one-time homeless benefit is welfare -> welfare never works -> end of discussion.”

              Why would I put more than the minimal amount of effort into any post on lemmy, knowing that 100 communist teenagers are just going to reply “lol wrong, you fascist” and downvote?

              Yeah, I 100% agree with this, having been on the receiving end of it myself plenty of times. I don’t think I’m doing that to you in any regard, but I do get the frustration with the overall state of discourse here (including from “the left”) and reluctance to start any kind of real discussion. All I can say is if that bothers you, you gotta be part of the solution instead of starting to do the same thing yourself.

              If you want to debate me, I’d rather do that in real time on another program like discord.

              Lol not interested. You’re on Lemmy, and you said specific things on Lemmy, and I replied. If you’re suddenly not interested in having a discussion on Lemmy, then I won’t try to force you into it I guess.

              • Strangle@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                No, I love talking to you. I wish there were more people around here like you.

                I appreciate this discussion. You’ve been a bright spot on lemmy for me, thank you

                • Froyn@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Can you guys do a comparison between personal welfare and corporate welfare?
                  Specifically how Corporations are people, yet the welfare they receive is substantially disproportionate to that given to personal welfare (state/federal programs).

                  I’m interested to see the discussion when it comes to throwing money at companies to fix the problems of underpaid workers and profit-driven inflation.

                  • athos77@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Also how corporations intentionally have policies that make the taxpayers subsidize the workers? When you start at Walmart, the first thing they do is tell you how to apply for food stamps. There are a ton of places that arrange things so that you’re never a full-time employee who therefore gets benefits - permanent use of “temps” from “temp agencies”, repeatedly extending “initial probation periods”, setting impossible goals then downgrading hours when they’re not met, simply refusing to ever give 34 hours a week.

    • Hank@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      We have very few homeless people in Germany and we do have welfare. Where do you think the US failed?

    • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Huh, I looked through your article. It didn’t mention anything about people staying on food stamps in order to not work. Given that grocery costs have sky rocketed in recent years, I hardly think that the $300 some odd makes people want to not work, especially coupled with the fact that non-disabled people are required to take any reasonable job and work 30 hours a week. Interesting source for your comment.