1970’s found that participants of the trial were more likely to complete high school than counterparts not involved in the trial. [1]

inland, France, Italy, and the UK concluded that “rather than reducing the overall headcount of those in poverty, a BI [basic income] would change the composition of the income-poor population”

many people lack more than just cash. UBI does not cure addiction, poor health, lack of skills, or other factors that contribute to and exacerbate poverty.

Luke Martinelli, PhD, Research Associate at the University of Bath, created three models of UBI implementation and concluded that all three would lead to a significant number of individuals and households who are worse off.

you’re redistributing income upward. That would increase poverty and inequality rather than reduce them.”

UBI could become like another American tipping system in which employers pay low wages and count on customers to fill in the gap with tips. [52]

The amount varies each year based on the stock market and other factors, and has ranged from $331.29 (1984) to $2,072 (2015).

我對它很無感

我吃後完全無感

提不起勁

傻眼

There are several other important considerations related to LEB. First, there is a risk of capture of legislation by the domestic industry. Once an inefficient industry comes to rely on LEB for survival, the Ukrainian parliament might find it difficult to rescind the ban in the future. Second, LEB and other similar measures underscore that the Ukrainian parliament finds it acceptable to intervene in functioning of the markets based on empirically dubious rationale. The parliament substitutes the market by deciding how resources should be allocated. In doing so, the parliament teaches the businesses and the industry that they should compete through lobbying in the parliament, financial and informational, rather than through innovation and efficiency improvement in the market place.

According to both Ukrainian Armed Forces and Russian Federation Armed Forces officers at the observation point, an unidentified “third party” was provoking the two sides.

Интересно, что в познеровском монологе на путинском ТВ картина дебатов выглядела несколько иначе. Мэтр отечественного телевидения заявил, что дебаты закончились "почти вничью" (49% за "диалог", 51% — против), после чего пустился в рассуждения о невежественной канадской аудитории, будто бы ничего не знающей о России и находящейся во власти пропаганды. Простим господину Познеру, что он — случайно или по старой советской привычке — "подрезал" процентик у оппонентов. Гораздо важнее, что он скромно умолчал о том факте, что изначально аудитория гораздо больше симпатизировала именно его позиции, а изменение настроений аудитории — это результат дебатов, которые Познер с Коэном проиграли, а не мифической антироссийской пропаганды. Подобное поведение иначе как потерей лица не назовешь. В конце концов, нет ничего постыдного в том, чтобы проиграть в честном поединке, а вот заниматься передергиваниями — это действительно позор.