“The study did not include participants with severe substance use, alcohol use or mental health symptoms.”
24 Replies to “What Would We Do Without “Studies”?”
So you’re saying if we help then with those 3 issues their conditions could improve? What’s that? Instead we’re ENABLING abuse?
Yes Allan, if everything else in their lives is fixed by the government then everything will be good. Go eat your pudding in the corner like a good boy, and reflect on how draconian government officials will have to be to determine whether the other 3 issues relate the to current question.
And whether government officials who have a vested interest in their being broken people who need help will ever actual heal/cure broken people who need help, or if they’ll try to recruit more so that the bureaucrats have more “problems” to solve and get a promotion.
The takeaway from this is that UBC is hand-in-glove with “Foundations for Social Change” which does not mention where its money comes from on its website. It does seem to have a hefty representation of socialist tech-bros and Head Girls on its board, so there’s that.
Propaganda, is what this is. Straight up.
Also, excluding people with addiction and mental health symptoms? Because they’ll prove the “stereotype” is in fact just the way it is.
Not to mention, Jiaying Zhao appears to be a dude. Mental health issue?
$34,855 from the federal government
$545,161 from other charities
$31,596 in receipted donations
Now there is no way in the current reports that you can tell what “charities” laundered that money to this “charity”
“The study did not include participants with severe substance use, alcohol use or mental health symptoms. Most homeless people do not fit these common stereotypes, according to Zhao. Instead, they sleep in cars or on friends’ couches, and do not abuse substances or alcohol.”
Two issues here:
Firstly, Zhao needs to back up his statement that “most homeless people do not fit these common stereotypes.”
Secondly, if one tried to give out free cash to people with the condition that it not be spent on the mentally challenged or drugs or booze abusers he would be vilified and tarred and feathered by the professional do-gooders for discrimination. This won’t fly!
“Recipients of the one-time cash transfer spent almost 100 fewer days homeless over the course of a year”.
So, their success (!) was these select homeless spent only 2/3 of a year homeless, not all year on the streets, when they were given cash. What was NOT mentioned? How many people escaped the cycle of homelessness and went on to become normal citizens. Especially when he selected the study recipients.
A Success should be many people get off the streets and graduate to become normal working class people and better.
Otherwise known as “we need a roof for 5 months a year, living in Vancouver”.
To become normal working class you have to be able to find a job, and that job has to pay enough to supply rent, food, clothes and transportation. We have a problem, the problem is government.
When you hear the phrase “recent studies show”, you know you are about to be lied to.
That and “Scientists say”.
That means the scientist that said it had a PhD. in Feminist Glaciology (a real thing!) and was opining on the effects of LSD given to sea slugs. But by golly! A ‘scientist said’.
and the famous CBC line , critics say .
I suppose that translates to, ‘some crazy cat-lady off her meds” cal2?
Yeah….and the one you see ALL the time in “news”paper headlines……”Experts say…..”
Studies are apt to show what the people who designed the studies want to see. If you can’t get that kind of result you need to go back study some more on how to design a study, or your funding may not continue.
The goal should not be to maintain homeless on the streets as simply and as CHEAPLY as possible. It should be to eliminate homelessness.
Ever since the media suddenly “discovered” the problem of homelessness during the Reagan administration, we have thrown lots of visible liberal angst and lots of money, but mostly money at the “homeless crisis.” All we have done in the last forty years is exponentially expand homelessness. Homeless tent cities have expanded enormously, taking over the streets, parks, and vacant spaces of our kind, caring nonjudgmental liberal cities.
Homelessness is a lucrative business for some, and a huge political powerbase for others. They have a vested interests in never ending homelessness.
Soon our cities, especially LA, NYC, and San Francisco will be made up of the wealthy, privileged government workers, and masses of homeless drunks, drug addicts, crazies, and bums.
We are doing everything possible to manage (expand) the homeless problem and absolutely nothing to eliminate homelessness.
Well said, but you didn’t overtly state the razor-wire topped walls and attack dogs / armed guards needed to keep the wards of the state away from the leadership of the state.
There are a lot of bureaucrats being paid a lot of money to “solve” the homeless problem, therefore, it will never be solved. Government is the problem.
I have concluded that many of the problems in this country would be solved if we gave everyone as much free fentanyl as they want.
And hold back the Narcan.
“Recipients of the one-time cash transfer spent almost 100 fewer days homeless over the course of a year, saving an estimated $8,200 on social service costs, or a net $700 after accounting for the initial payment.”
since they are tracking 2 groups, they should have better than an “estimate” of the saving.
Additionally when they say “almost 100 fewer days” was it 99 or 95?
“Zhao said the misperception that unhoused people can’t be trusted to spend money responsibly was a major driver for the lack of support for universal basic incomes or other cash assistance policies.”
there seems to be a lot of mispercepting on the part of Zhao. I don’t care what someone who earns their own money on spends their money on, I care when the government thinks they can solve a problem by stealing my money using their monopoly on force to give it to people who don’t earn it in the name of “compassion”
We already tried this. It was called CERB, we gave them all cash….the homeless rate went down right? No? Wonder why?
they excluded politicians , was the easy way to account for it .
“Most homeless people do not fit these common stereotypes, according to Zhao. Instead, they sleep in cars or on friends’ couches, and do not abuse substances or alcohol.”
So you’re saying if we help then with those 3 issues their conditions could improve? What’s that? Instead we’re ENABLING abuse?
Yes Allan, if everything else in their lives is fixed by the government then everything will be good. Go eat your pudding in the corner like a good boy, and reflect on how draconian government officials will have to be to determine whether the other 3 issues relate the to current question.
And whether government officials who have a vested interest in their being broken people who need help will ever actual heal/cure broken people who need help, or if they’ll try to recruit more so that the bureaucrats have more “problems” to solve and get a promotion.
The takeaway from this is that UBC is hand-in-glove with “Foundations for Social Change” which does not mention where its money comes from on its website. It does seem to have a hefty representation of socialist tech-bros and Head Girls on its board, so there’s that.
Propaganda, is what this is. Straight up.
Also, excluding people with addiction and mental health symptoms? Because they’ll prove the “stereotype” is in fact just the way it is.
Not to mention, Jiaying Zhao appears to be a dude. Mental health issue?
$34,855 from the federal government
$545,161 from other charities
$31,596 in receipted donations
Now there is no way in the current reports that you can tell what “charities” laundered that money to this “charity”
“The study did not include participants with severe substance use, alcohol use or mental health symptoms. Most homeless people do not fit these common stereotypes, according to Zhao. Instead, they sleep in cars or on friends’ couches, and do not abuse substances or alcohol.”
Two issues here:
Firstly, Zhao needs to back up his statement that “most homeless people do not fit these common stereotypes.”
Secondly, if one tried to give out free cash to people with the condition that it not be spent on the mentally challenged or drugs or booze abusers he would be vilified and tarred and feathered by the professional do-gooders for discrimination. This won’t fly!
“Recipients of the one-time cash transfer spent almost 100 fewer days homeless over the course of a year”.
So, their success (!) was these select homeless spent only 2/3 of a year homeless, not all year on the streets, when they were given cash. What was NOT mentioned? How many people escaped the cycle of homelessness and went on to become normal citizens. Especially when he selected the study recipients.
A Success should be many people get off the streets and graduate to become normal working class people and better.
Otherwise known as “we need a roof for 5 months a year, living in Vancouver”.
To become normal working class you have to be able to find a job, and that job has to pay enough to supply rent, food, clothes and transportation. We have a problem, the problem is government.
When you hear the phrase “recent studies show”, you know you are about to be lied to.
That and “Scientists say”.
That means the scientist that said it had a PhD. in Feminist Glaciology (a real thing!) and was opining on the effects of LSD given to sea slugs. But by golly! A ‘scientist said’.
and the famous CBC line , critics say .
I suppose that translates to, ‘some crazy cat-lady off her meds” cal2?
Yeah….and the one you see ALL the time in “news”paper headlines……”Experts say…..”
Studies are apt to show what the people who designed the studies want to see. If you can’t get that kind of result you need to go back study some more on how to design a study, or your funding may not continue.
The goal should not be to maintain homeless on the streets as simply and as CHEAPLY as possible. It should be to eliminate homelessness.
Ever since the media suddenly “discovered” the problem of homelessness during the Reagan administration, we have thrown lots of visible liberal angst and lots of money, but mostly money at the “homeless crisis.” All we have done in the last forty years is exponentially expand homelessness. Homeless tent cities have expanded enormously, taking over the streets, parks, and vacant spaces of our kind, caring nonjudgmental liberal cities.
Homelessness is a lucrative business for some, and a huge political powerbase for others. They have a vested interests in never ending homelessness.
Soon our cities, especially LA, NYC, and San Francisco will be made up of the wealthy, privileged government workers, and masses of homeless drunks, drug addicts, crazies, and bums.
We are doing everything possible to manage (expand) the homeless problem and absolutely nothing to eliminate homelessness.
Well said, but you didn’t overtly state the razor-wire topped walls and attack dogs / armed guards needed to keep the wards of the state away from the leadership of the state.
There are a lot of bureaucrats being paid a lot of money to “solve” the homeless problem, therefore, it will never be solved. Government is the problem.
I have concluded that many of the problems in this country would be solved if we gave everyone as much free fentanyl as they want.
And hold back the Narcan.
“Recipients of the one-time cash transfer spent almost 100 fewer days homeless over the course of a year, saving an estimated $8,200 on social service costs, or a net $700 after accounting for the initial payment.”
since they are tracking 2 groups, they should have better than an “estimate” of the saving.
Additionally when they say “almost 100 fewer days” was it 99 or 95?
“Zhao said the misperception that unhoused people can’t be trusted to spend money responsibly was a major driver for the lack of support for universal basic incomes or other cash assistance policies.”
there seems to be a lot of mispercepting on the part of Zhao. I don’t care what someone who earns their own money on spends their money on, I care when the government thinks they can solve a problem by stealing my money using their monopoly on force to give it to people who don’t earn it in the name of “compassion”
We already tried this. It was called CERB, we gave them all cash….the homeless rate went down right? No? Wonder why?
they excluded politicians , was the easy way to account for it .
“Most homeless people do not fit these common stereotypes, according to Zhao. Instead, they sleep in cars or on friends’ couches, and do not abuse substances or alcohol.”
Citation needed.
Says Zhao