Talk:Mincome

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: Manitoba Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Manitoba. Universal Basic Income (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universal Basic Income, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Universal Basic IncomeWikipedia:WikiProject Universal Basic IncomeTemplate:WikiProject Universal Basic IncomeUniversal Basic Income articles

Whitney Light: "Researchers Examine the Town With No Poverty". The Uniter 13, 1 December 2005 is a broken link. I couldn't find the article again. Phenophexadin (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the Web Archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20091106004643/http://archive.uniter.ca/view.php?aid=38460 208.80.80.223 (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So how much money did the get? AxelBoldt (talk) 04:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have varied person to person. You had to be under the poverty line to get anything at all. From the report "a family with no income from other sources would receive 60% of Statistics Canada low-income cut-off (LICO), which varied by family size. Every dollar received from other sources would reduce benefits by fifty cents. All benefits were indexed to the cost of living."--Auric talk 22:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some numbers need to be put into the article. As it reads now, it might have been $20 or $2,000 a month.Kdammers (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The research states that 16 year olds were more likely to stay in education. Obscuring with the word teenagers implies that they could be adults - can we clear that up.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mincome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170126003728/http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea%20%282%29.pdf to http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea%20%282%29.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170126003728/http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea%20%282%29.pdf to http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea%20(2).pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170126003728/http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea%20%282%29.pdf to http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea%20(2).pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the person who wrote the article was an academic used to jargon, but I find sentences like: "Indeed, the largest impact appeared to be changes in family composition not the experimental treatments, as preschool children increased the labour supply of husbands and reduced the labour supply of wives by roughly the same modest amount" to be incomprehensible. Did the minimum wage cause a change in family composition? How does the presence of preschool children increase the labour supply of husbands? Perhaps this section could be made more clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.174.136.62 (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is too vague, isn't it? 2001:8A0:F6D0:AC00:287E:1E8D:F60A:9C32 (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]