this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
909 points (97.0% liked)

World News

32363 readers
286 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Zippy@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

You can always find a way for things. Lol. Ya if there is a god or there materializing it for you.