• 0 Posts
  • 27 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 10th, 2023

help-circle

  • NY has been riddled with crimes committed by illegal immigrants in the recent days, weeks, and months.

    One last thing, now that I’m back at my computer:

    • Continued declines across most major crime categories prevailed during January 2024, compared to the first month of last year, and included substantial drops in murder, rape, burglary, and felony assault.

    • Incidents of shootings, murder, and other bellwether crimes in New York City were markedly reduced again in February compared to the same month last year, while major offenses committed in the city’s subway system dropped more than 15 percent. Throughout the five boroughs, overall crime continued its downward trajectory, dipping another 1.1%.

    • New York City saw continued reductions in overall crime through the first quarter of 2024, both above ground, on streets throughout the five boroughs, and below ground, within the nation’s largest subway system. The single month of March 2024, compared to the same month last year, experienced even more drastic crime declines.

    • Overall index crime across New York City dropped another 4.9 percent in the month of April compared to the same month last year, as major crimes in the nation’s largest subway system plummeted another 23 percent, continuing a downward trend that saw previous transit system decreases

    • Overall index crime across New York City dropped another 2.4 percent in May 2024, compared to the same month last year, with the major crime categories of murder, burglary, grand larceny, and grand larceny—auto each seeing dramatic reductions. ‎‎
      ‎‎

    The point I was making with NY, is as of recent, like I mentioned before there’s crimes committed by illegals.

    So what? There are statistically a lot more crimes being committed by US citizens. Should we start deporting/exiling our own citizens? Should we keep increasing our prison population? Or should we not hold our own citizens to the same kind of standards that you want to apply to everyone else in the world?


  • 3 examples isn’t a great way to show nationwide trends.

    Over 2000 convicted criminals - illegals captured by ICE

    This is from 2015.

    In New York, a sanctuary city that has received the most immigrants from Republican-run border states, crime decreased in most major categories in 2023 compared to the year before, as confirmed by a January report from the New York City Police Department. This follows reductions in most crime categories in the city in 2022. New York City remains one of the safest big cities in the country despite sensational claims that it is being overwhelmed by crime.

    From the same article linked above, since you seem so obsessed with New York City.





  • ltxrtquq@lemmy.mltoMemes@lemmy.mlWhere did that lead you?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    If you’re in the US (as Obinice pointed out), type your zipcode in the box in the top left and you’ve got your hyper local forecast and any relevant warnings and watches. I don’t care for or want extra notifications, so that’s a bit of a blindspot for me.

    Also, if you’re using firefox on android you can hit the 3 dots and “install” the zipcode specific forecast, which just gives you a shortcut to that page on your homescreen.








  • None of those benefits came close to the cost of the program

    How do you measure the cost-to-benefit of longer maternity leave? Or higher high school graduation rates? Not everything the government does needs to directly make a profit. Just look at roads for an obvious example of that.

    once initiated productively decreased. Likely would have even decreased further but people knew the free money would eventually end.

    There was only about a 13% decrease in hours worked for the entire family on average, and most of that was women going back to work after a pregnancy later and teenagers not working (probably so they could keep going to school).

    How do you pay for a program when the local area taxes don’t cover it particularly when the tax income actually decreases once instituted?

    It’s not about Canada, but you can always find a way to pay for things if you really want to, even if they’re objectively bad for tax income.


  • It was determined the cost economically was far higher than the returns.

    Not quite.

    In the end the project ran for four years, concluding in 1979, but the data collection lasted for only two years and virtually no analysis was done by project staff. New governments at both federal and provincial levels reflected the changing intellectual and economic climate. Neither the Progressive Conservative government of Joe Clark in Ottawa nor Sterling Lyon’s Tories in Manitoba were interested in continuing the GAI experiments. The fate of the original data—boxes and boxes of paper files on families containing questionnaires related to all aspects of social and economic functioning—was unclear. They were stored in an unpublicized location by the Department of National Health and Welfare. In the end, only the Winnipeg sample, and only the labour market aspects of that sample, was ever made available. The Dauphin data, collected at great expense and some controversy from participants in the first large scale social experiment ever conducted in Canada, were never examined.

    This study involved using one small town, Dauphin, as a a test for what happens when everyone in the population qualifies for the basic income. The study ran out of money long before the researchers originally thought it would, and the majority of the data wasn’t analyzed until relatively recently.

    The general result found in all the experiments was that secondary earners tended to take some part of the increased family income in the form of more time for household production, particularly staying home with newborns. Effectively, married women used the GAI to finance longer maternity leaves. Tertiary earners, largely adolescent males, reduced their hours of work dramatically, but the largest decreases occurred because they began to enter the workforce later. This delay in taking a first job at an older age suggests that some of these adolescent males might be spending more years in school. The biggest effects, that is, could be seen as either an economic cost in the form of work disincentives or an economic benefit in the form of human capital accumulation.

    New mothers and teenagers weren’t required to spend as much time working

    Money flowed to Dauphin families from MINCOME between 1974 and 1978. During the experiment, Dauphin students in grade 11 seemed more likely to continue to grade 12 than their rural or urban counterparts, while both before and after the experiment they were less likely than their urban counterparts and not significantly more or less likely than their rural counterparts to complete highschool. Grade 11 enrolments as a percentage of the previous year grade 10 enrolments show a similar pattern.

    Highschool graduation rates went up

    Overall, the measured impact was larger than one might have expected when only about a third of families qualified for support at any one time and many of the supplements would have been small. …At the very least, the suggestive finding that hospitalization rates among Dauphin subjects fell by 8.5 percent relative to the comparison group is worth examining more closely in an era characterized by concern about the increasing burden of health care costs. In 1978, Canada spent $7.5 billion on hospital costs; in 2010 it was estimated to have spent $55 billion—8.5 percent of which adds up to more than $4.6 billion. While we recognize that one must be careful in generalizing potential health system savings, particularly because we use hospitals differently today than we did in 1978, the potential saving in hospital costs associated with a GAI seems worthy of consideration.

    And hospitalization rates went down. There were other effects, like small businesses opening during the period of MINCOME and shutting down after, a possible decline in women under 25 having children, but none of this was evaluated for whether it was worth the money or not.


  • From the source of link 3:

    Figure 17 Primary Reasons for Leaving Last Housing, All Participants

    • Lost or reduced income: 12%
    • Conflict among residents: 9%
    • Didn’t want to impose/wanted own space: 7%
    • Conflict with property owner: 7%
    • Someone else became sick, disabled, or died: 6%
    • Building was sold or foreclosed: 6%
    • Violence or abuse in the household: 5%
    • Breakup between residents: 4%
    • Participant’s substance use: 4%
    • Other needed more space: 4%

    and also:

    To understand what participants believed may have prevented their homelessness, we asked them to engage in a thought experiment about the likelihood that their homelessness could have been prevented had they received financial intervention. We provided all participants with three different scenarios and asked them whether each intervention would have prevented their becoming homeless for at least two years.29 The interventions were: (1) a monthly rental subsidy worth $300-$500; (2) a one-time payment of $5,000 to $10,000; or, (3) a voucher that limits rent contribution to 30% of their income (such as a Housing Choice Voucher).

    FIGURE 21 Participant Report of Effect of Hypothetical Homelessness Prevention Interventions by Family Structure

    All

    • $300-$500/month shallow subsidy: 70%
    • $5,000-$10,000 one-time payment: 82%
    • Housing voucher: 90%

    So while “not enough money” might not have been the most common cause for people being homeless, the vast majority of people think having more money or cheaper housing would have prevented them from becoming homeless.



  • Addiction Disorders: The relationship between addiction and homelessness is complex and controversial. While rates of alcohol and drug abuse are disproportionately high among the homeless population, the increase in homelessness over the past two decades cannot be explained by addiction alone. Many people who are addicted to alcohol and drugs never become homeless, but people who are poor and addicted are clearly at increased risk of homelessness. Addiction does increase the risk of displacement for the precariously housed; in the absence of appropriate treatment, it may doom one’s chances of getting housing once on the streets. Homeless people often face insurmountable barriers to obtaining health care, including addictive disorder treatment services and recovery supports. Source

    It is believed that only about 20 to 40 percent of homeless have a substance abuse issue. In fact, abuse is rarely the sole cause of homelessness and more often is a response to it because living on the street puts the person in frequent contact with users and dealers.

    The prevalence of mental illness and substance use among those experiencing homelessness is clear, but Kushel cautions that the vast majority of mental illness among the study participants is anxiety and depression. It’s likely the lack of resources exacerbates those conditions, rather than the illness causing the homelessness, she says.

    “I think that the driving issue is clearly the deep poverty, that the median [monthly] household income for everyone in the household in the six months before homelessness was $960, in a state with the highest housing costs in the country,” she says. Other studies have noted that the end of pandemic stimulus payments and rising inflation has led to rents outpacing wages. The study notes that in 2023, California had only 24 units of affordable housing available for every 100 extremely low-income households.Source

    Just because you know one or two people that were homeless and also had problems with addiction, doesn’t mean the addiction caused their homelessness.