if payments were for 12 months, How can this statement be true:
‘To be sure, the rate of homelessness increased for both groups 18 months after the payments began, though the authors noted that the pilot was not designed to impact the homeless population.”
And yet this statement also be true (which is also 18 months after payments began):
“Housing cost burdens decreased among all study participants. Six months after the cash payments stopped, the recipients were slightly more likely to be able to afford rent, and fewer of them had to live with friends or family.”
Homelessness increased yet housing cost burdens decreased. I guess cause they became homeless? Is that math mathing?
if payments were for 12 months, How can this statement be true:
‘To be sure, the rate of homelessness increased for both groups 18 months after the payments began, though the authors noted that the pilot was not designed to impact the homeless population.”
And yet this statement also be true (which is also 18 months after payments began):
“Housing cost burdens decreased among all study participants. Six months after the cash payments stopped, the recipients were slightly more likely to be able to afford rent, and fewer of them had to live with friends or family.”
Homelessness increased yet housing cost burdens decreased. I guess cause they became homeless? Is that math mathing?
Well, if you're homeless because you can't afford rent (what can be), you then are "unburdened from what has been."
And now you have the true meaning of that Marxist incantation.
https://x.com/Athan_K/status/1819423883998458024
Thanks! I knew there was more to it.
Anon instincts