this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
149 points (96.9% liked)

Canada

7185 readers
635 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

No reason not to do this across the board

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ramjambamalam@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, the article mentions the control group, too. What they don't mention (and I'm curious about) is whether the savings figure quoted was gross or net? I'll quote another comment in this post since I'm not sure how to properly link it.

Those who got the payment did not spend more money on "temptation goods," spent 99 fewer days homeless, increased their savings and spent less time in shelters which "saved society" $777 per person, according to a news release from UBC.

"Is that gross or net savings? That is, is the $7500 included and there was a net savings, or was there a net cost of $6723?"

Any idea, from skimming the actual study?

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2222103120

The societal cost of a shelter stay in Vancouver is estimated at $93 per night (6), so fewer nights in shelters generated a societal cost savings of $8,277. After accounting for the cost of the cash transfer, the reduced shelter use led to societal net savings of $777 per person a year.