• Eheran@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    3 years ago

    Those who received $500 a month or more had seen the biggest gains.

    God I hate such empty bullshit. Of course the only group that got less, only 1/10th of the next group, saw by far the smallest gains. What a completely empty sentence.

    • chepox@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 years ago

      It’s a finding. Not a statement. It’s an observation of the data. Opinions are not valid. If you feel that “of course that is obvious duuuhh” well you can’t actually make that claim unless you have data and the data reflects this. That’s how science works.

      • Eheran@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 years ago

        You are technically correct, but:

        1. When you already only compare 3 groups and 2 are fairly close to each other while one is far off, it is nonsensical to point out large differences between the 2 cohorts. They defined them to be that way.
        2. This is not a scientific paper, it is not even a STEM related newspaper. Leave such nonsense out of there. Nobody needs a study to find that more rain = more water.
    • snooggums@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 years ago

      It shows that giving people $50 is not nearly as effective as giving them more, so the program should shoot for a reasonable floor on the amount per month.