Letters and comments, Jan. 16

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 16/01/2017 (3194 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Mincome showed many benefits

Re: Dauphin project doesn’t apply now (Letters, Jan. 11)

John Feldsted is incorrect in his assertion that there has been no analysis of the Mincome program. There have been multiple assessments of the project by many academics and public servants.

One might look to Hum and Simpson (1991) on the labour market impact of Mincome, or Forget et al. (2011) on the program’s health effects. An extensive list of resources on Mincome can be found by using Google Scholar.

Mr. Feldsted calls into question the improvements in health found in recent analysis of Mincome, saying, “Dauphin residents had fewer health concerns than controls,” which is also incorrect. Hospital stays in Dauphin were higher in number than similar communities in Manitoba at the introduction of Mincome. By the end of the program, hospital stays in Dauphin were significantly below numbers from this group of similar communities. This was due to a reduction in the number of accidents and mental-health admissions to hospital.

He casts doubt on Mincome’s applicability, saying the rural location of Dauphin precludes us from drawing any conclusions to the wider province. Analysis of Dauphin based upon 1971 census data shows no major demographic differences between it and other similar rural communities except for the fact Dauphin was more Ukrainian and grew more canola. It seems unlikely that either of these factors would invalidate the results of Mincome.

Moreover, as part of the overarching Mincome experiment another, less well-publicized, experiment was conducted in Winnipeg. Although there are no available analyses on health outcomes for the Winnipeg arm of the experiment, there are economic analyses. Mincome is more widely applicable than Mr. Feldsted suggests.

Finally, Mr. Feldsted notes much has changed in the last 40 years since the end of Mincome. Manitoba has become more urban and less rural, and its demographics have changed. This may be so, but we can draw upon the track record of other welfare programs that are more contemporary. The earned-income tax credit in the United States has elements of basic income schemes, and its development was largely based upon basic-income experiments that occurred in the United States. It has been shown to reduce poverty and improve labour-market outcomes.

Debate on how to reduce poverty is important. Basic income is unlikely to be the silver bullet that ends poverty in our time. But debate requires evidence. Simply asserting that the Dauphin experiment is irrelevant to the current debate on poverty reduction is, to use Mr. Feldsted’s own words, “irrational and irresponsible.”

Stephenson Strobel

Toronto

 

Showing character

Re: We must do better on borders (Letters, Jan. 11)

We can have an open discussion on immigration policies and the administration thereof. That’s what you do in any free society. However, I heartily disagree with Len Dueck’s comment, “Are these the type of people Canada needs as future citizens?” Let’s see… they’re so eager to become Canadians that they’re risking death to get here. That’s exactly who we want as future citizens.

Dave Ferguson

Winnipeg

 

Terminal diagnosis

Re: 20-year takeoff (Jan. 12)

I honestly cannot say that the new airport has improved my life. We used to have metered parking a few yards from the front door that was ideal for picking up arrivals. Now, not so much. We used to not have an airport improvement fee to pay for the $600-million debt. Now, not so much. We used to have some significant public art and no advertising displays in the terminal. Now, not so much.

— user-7066627

▼

@user-7066627: The old terminal wasn’t that bad, and the new terminal isn’t a huge improvement. It was a massive expense for, from a traveller’s perspective, a not-much-better product.

Instead of airport authority empire-building by embarking on a massive new terminal project, the more prudent course of action would have been a renovation or perhaps minor expansion of the old terminal.

— lollipopsandsunshine

▼

@user-7066627: You can park in the parade to pick up a passenger for probably the same as what it had cost to park at a meter.

The old airport was built by the federal government, so we paid for it through taxes instead of the airport improvement fee. That advertising in the terminal is an attempt to raise money without going into the pockets of travellers or taxpayers. Things cost money, and they have to paid for somehow.

— user-6953583

▼

@user-7066627: In most other cities, you can wait in the cellphone waiting lot and wait for a text from your arriving traveller and then pull up and scoop them up. Many of the lots come equipped with outdoor reader boards displaying up-to-date flight information.

My recent experience was that it cost me $7.50 to pick up a passenger. I got there on time, but the plane sat on the tarmac for 20 minutes waiting for a gate to clear, then another plane arrived at the same time and customs was understaffed. I waited almost an hour and had to pay for the airport’s incompetence with my parking fee.

— 23717742