Talk:Mincome

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)

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)

Size of benefit?

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

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)

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)

Teenagers or children

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.

External links modified (January 2018)

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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)

Unclear writing

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)

"in the 70's"

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