Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
All posts Charlie's posts Post Back to profile
Top-level
dingodog

@hunkyscotsman @whalecoiner I see you didn't read it before commenting. Figures.

Let me know when you are up on the literature

1 April at 1:33 | Wall-to-wall | Open on sfba.social
13 comments
DELETED replied to dingodog

@dingodog19 @whalecoiner

I read their website, hence why I know how they conducted their studies. I just don't know what paper you are specifically referring to.

But initially I find it amusing that the conditions of the "research" they did, somehow doesn't invalidate what their "research paper" concluded, or is it really just an opinion piece?

1 April at 1:55 | Open on mastodon.social
dingodog replied to DELETED

@hunkyscotsman @whalecoiner

I'd suggest having a closer look at the PDF I linked. As it says in the title, it is a synthesis of reviews.

As I'm sure you know, a review article summarizes recent peer-reviewed, published literature on a topic. For a topic like UBIs, many such reviews are published, and this paper tries to synthesize all of their resuts.

So, they didn't "conduct studies" in this research. They are summarizing the results of the 22 studies that can be found on page 21, the References section.

This paper does the following: "First, it provides an overview of the reviews. Then it synthesizes the basis of evidence (e.g., experiments, policies, and programs) that has been used to arrive at conclusions about UBI as well as the types of outcomes that
have been of interest to researchers and the evidence that exists for these outcomes. The final section highlights gaps in the current state of the evidence and where future research is required."

1/

@hunkyscotsman @whalecoiner

I'd suggest having a closer look at the PDF I linked. As it says in the title, it is a synthesis of reviews.

As I'm sure you know, a review article summarizes recent peer-reviewed, published literature on a topic. For a topic like UBIs, many such reviews are published, and this paper tries to synthesize all of their resuts.

1 April at 3:12 | Open on sfba.social
dingodog replied to dingodog

@hunkyscotsman @whalecoiner

Such papers are open to criticism on two fronts:
1. The (accurate) summaries of the research done do not actually support the conclusions of the paper
2. The References considered are either misrepresented, or are missing critical research that would support a different conclusion.

Which of these critiques are you making?

/end

1 April at 3:13 | Open on sfba.social
DELETED replied to dingodog

@dingodog19 @whalecoiner

Why don't you just give the name and author of the paper?

1 April at 3:17 | Open on mastodon.social
dingodog replied to DELETED

@hunkyscotsman

Sorry, I gave you the direct link, I thought that would be easier for you. But if you prefer:

"What we know about Universal Basic Income: A Cross-Synthesis of Reviews," Rebecca Hasdell, Stanford Basic Income Lab.

Here's the link again. It's a PDF.
basicincome.stanford.edu/uploa

1 April at 3:21 | Open on sfba.social
DELETED replied to dingodog
dingodog replied to DELETED

@hunkyscotsman

Um, #2 is a category. What exactly is your critique? Are there references you think should be included but aren't? What are they?

1 April at 3:22 | Open on sfba.social
DELETED replied to dingodog

@dingodog19

...I already stated it. The studies are not comprehensive enough or representative of what universal basic income would do in the economy. They are studies of micro economic situation that may or may not work in a macro economic environment.

1 April at 3:29 | Open on mastodon.social
dingodog replied to DELETED

@hunkyscotsman

And thus, given the success on small scales, the wise choice of action would be to try some well designed experiments on larger scales, no?

1 April at 3:32 | Open on sfba.social
NosirrahSec 🏴‍☠️ replied to dingodog

@dingodog19 @hunkyscotsman he's just moving the goalposts.

He's a brainless manlet hiding behind a faux-high ground of "centrism." (if not outright some poor third-world troll in a cubicle with no real opinion of their own)

1 April at 3:49 | Open on infosec.exchange
DELETED replied to dingodog

@dingodog19

The risks and downsides are only going to show in a universally applied system once universally applied. That's a terrible experiment to conduct on a country and one that cannot be researched at small scale to guarantee any outcome. Look at how "scientific" the fed is, its calculated guesswork. That's what happens when you move from micro to macro.

1 April at 4:23 | Open on mastodon.social
dingodog replied to DELETED

@hunkyscotsman

It's a terrible experiment, if the status quo is fine for everyone. But that's certainly not the case in our current system.

Many times drug trials have been stopped early because it's unethical to leave people in the control group.

When study after study shows that UBI helps people, and that the ill effects expected by some do not occur, it becomes unethical to just leave the status quo in place because "something bad might happen."

By this reasoning, no new national policy could ever be rolled out. Every new technology should be restricted.

If poor results for UBI mean we shouldn't do it, and good results for UBI mean we shouldn't do it, aren't we presupposing the outcome?

@hunkyscotsman

It's a terrible experiment, if the status quo is fine for everyone. But that's certainly not the case in our current system.

Many times drug trials have been stopped early because it's unethical to leave people in the control group.

When study after study shows that UBI helps people, and that the ill effects expected by some do not occur, it becomes unethical to just leave the status quo in place because "something bad might happen."

1 April at 4:43 | Open on sfba.social
DELETED replied to dingodog

@dingodog19

Let me sleep on that and get back to you.

In the meantime since you brought up an external example.

Would you put UBI or universal healthcare first in a list of priorities?

1 April at 4:52 | Open on mastodon.social
Go Up