Free Money: The Surprising Effects of a Basic Income Supplied by Government

[RavenSky]

In 2016, every tribal member received roughly $12,000. McCoy’s kids, and all children in the community, have been accruing payments since the day they were born. The tribe sets the money aside and invests it, so the children cash out a substantial nest egg when they’re 18. When Spencer’s 18th birthday came three years ago, his so-called “minor’s fund” amounted to $105,000 after taxes. His 12-year-old sister is projected to receive roughly twice that.

Harrah’s, which operates the casino, takes 3 percent of the $300 million annual profits. The bulk is funneled back into the community, covering infrastructure, health care for every tribal member, and the college education fund. Casino funds have paved roads and paid for a new $26 million wastewater treatment plant. Half of the profits go toward the per capita payments. The casino has become the tribe’s most precious resource.

Now the body of research that she and other academics have built has become a favorite point of reference for universal basic income advocates, providing some of the most compelling evidence yet of the positive effects of bestowing unconditional sums of cash on the poor.

Before the casino opened, Costello found that poor children scored twice as high as those who were not poor for symptoms of psychiatric disorders. But after the casino opened, the children whose families’ income rose above the poverty rate showed a 40 percent decrease in behavioral problems. Just four years after the casino opened, they were, behaviorally at least, no different from the kids who had never been poor at all. By the time the youngest cohort of children was at least 21, she found something else: The younger the Cherokee children were when the casino opened, the better they fared compared to the older Cherokee children and to rural whites. This was true for emotional and behavioral problems as well as drug and alcohol addiction.

One fear about basic income is that people will be content living on their subsidies and stop working. But a 2010 analysis of the data, led by Randall Akee, who researches public policy at UCLA's Luskin School of Public Affairs, found no impact on overall labor participation.

Akee also looked at the effects of the money on education and found that more money in the household meant children stayed in school longer. The impact on crime was just as profound: A $4,000 increase in household income reduced the poorest kids’ chances of committing a minor crime by 22 percent.

Even in Cherokee country, where the additional income is quite sizable, the payments are not enough to live on. That suggests a basic income may not be the life raft for working class adults that its proponents suggest it would be. But it could be something different: It could be an investment in their children’s future.

https://www.wired.com/story/free-mo...cts-of-a-basic-income-supplied-by-government/

 

[Horatio Parker]

I like the job guarantee, which could work in tandem with BIG.

http://theweek.com/articles/700117/why-america-needs-both-ubi-job-guarantee

 

[dismal]

Shouldn't the title of the thread be about "basic income supplied by casinos"?

 

[LordKiran]

Shouldn't the title of the thread be about "basic income supplied by casinos"?

Not really. The article is about the benefits of a basic income provided at the societal level. The fact that the Tribe has to earn its money rather than being able to print it is neither here nor there.

 

[RavenSky]

I like the job guarantee, which could work in tandem with BIG.

http://theweek.com/articles/700117/why-america-needs-both-ubi-job-guarantee

Whatever the job guarantee offers would become the minimum standard across the country. Private employers would have to beat it to hire anyone. So a job guarantee could enforce a national living wage, a national standard package of health benefits, a national work week, etc. Beyond that, a job guarantee would permanently tighten the labor market — employers would constantly be competing for workers, not workers competing for jobs. That would drive up wages, squash inequality, strengthen unions, and improve working conditions.

Where would the jobs come from?

Overall the concept makes sense, and I think the author makes an excellent point that we need BOTH job guarantees AND a universal basic income. In addition to my question of where these jobs will be coming from in an economy of shrinking job markets - I would be VERY concerned about UBI being tied to employment. I think part of the beauty of UBI is that it frees people to go to school and/or create... which in turn leads to a healthier economy and ultimately more jobs for others.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I like the job guarantee, which could work in tandem with BIG.

http://theweek.com/articles/700117/why-america-needs-both-ubi-job-guarantee

Whatever the job guarantee offers would become the minimum standard across the country. Private employers would have to beat it to hire anyone. So a job guarantee could enforce a national living wage, a national standard package of health benefits, a national work week, etc. Beyond that, a job guarantee would permanently tighten the labor market — employers would constantly be competing for workers, not workers competing for jobs. That would drive up wages, squash inequality, strengthen unions, and improve working conditions.

Where would the jobs come from?

Overall the concept makes sense, and I think the author makes an excellent point that we need BOTH job guarantees AND a universal basic income. In addition to my question of where these jobs will be coming from in an economy of shrinking job markets - I would be VERY concerned about UBI being tied to employment. I think part of the beauty of UBI is that it frees people to go to school and/or create... which in turn leads to a healthier economy and ultimately more jobs for others.

From the govt. Probably funded nationally but administered locally.

 

[RavenSky]

From the govt. Probably funded nationally but administered locally.

Doing what?

And won't that simply be taking jobs from the private sector rather than creating a jobs market?

 

[LordKiran]

I like the job guarantee, which could work in tandem with BIG.

http://theweek.com/articles/700117/why-america-needs-both-ubi-job-guarantee

Whatever the job guarantee offers would become the minimum standard across the country. Private employers would have to beat it to hire anyone. So a job guarantee could enforce a national living wage, a national standard package of health benefits, a national work week, etc. Beyond that, a job guarantee would permanently tighten the labor market — employers would constantly be competing for workers, not workers competing for jobs. That would drive up wages, squash inequality, strengthen unions, and improve working conditions.

Where would the jobs come from?

Overall the concept makes sense, and I think the author makes an excellent point that we need BOTH job guarantees AND a universal basic income. In addition to my question of where these jobs will be coming from in an economy of shrinking job markets - I would be VERY concerned about UBI being tied to employment. I think part of the beauty of UBI is that it frees people to go to school and/or create... which in turn leads to a healthier economy and ultimately more jobs for others.

Anything and everything. Rebuilding and maintaining our crumbling infrastructure, even just picking up garbage off the side of the road or in new Arcology projects. We can find something for them to do.

Also, Handmade consumer goods produced by small start ups. What could conceivably help in this endeavor would be an infrastructure program to create 'crafts districts' think of it as an industrial apartment with the layout of a mini mall.

 

[Horatio Parker]

From the govt. Probably funded nationally but administered locally.

Doing what?

And won't that simply be taking jobs from the private sector rather than creating a jobs market?

It will strengthen the jobs market, at least from the workers pov. The idea is a (decent)minimum wage job with benefits. The private sector would have to compete.

And it's not like there's nothing that needs doing.

Currently, we maintain a pool of unemployed. How's that working?

 

[dismal]

Shouldn't the title of the thread be about "basic income supplied by casinos"?

Not really. The article is about the benefits of a basic income provided at the societal level. The fact that the Tribe has to earn its money rather than being able to print it is neither here nor there.

Tip: In the real world there is a cost to society of providing the money.

 

[rousseau]

I follow a few prominent Canadian economists and none of them seem to be proponents of basic income, for the sole reason that the numbers don't really work out. One from my city even won a local debate when he argued against it (and he's a pretty reasonable, progressive guy).

Of course giving people money improves their life outcomes, but the argument against is that in many cases giving *everyone* free money isn't sustainable, and more progressive welfare programs are probably a better option.

 

[dismal]

Shouldn't the title of the thread be about "basic income supplied by casinos"?

Not really. The article is about the benefits of a basic income provided at the societal level. The fact that the Tribe has to earn its money rather than being able to print it is neither here nor there.

Tip: In the real world there is a cost to society of providing the money.

 

[LordKiran]

Shouldn't the title of the thread be about "basic income supplied by casinos"?

Not really. The article is about the benefits of a basic income provided at the societal level. The fact that the Tribe has to earn its money rather than being able to print it is neither here nor there.

Tip: In the real world there is a cost to society of providing the money.

Again, neither here nor there.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Why is Harrah's doing this for only a 3% cut of the profits?

 

[Derec]

That's what you get when you set up racially based monopolies with huge profit margins.

- - - Updated - - -

Why is Harrah's doing this for only a 3% cut of the profits?

Because the unconstitutional Indian gambling laws do not allow casinos otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

Shouldn't the title of the thread be about "basic income supplied by casinos"?

... supplied by racial monopoly casinos.

 

[LordKiran]

Delete

 

[LordKiran]

That's what you get when you set up racially based monopolies with huge profit margins.

- - - Updated - - -

Why is Harrah's doing this for only a 3% cut of the profits?

Because the unconstitutional Indian gambling laws do not allow casinos otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

Shouldn't the title of the thread be about "basic income supplied by casinos"?

... supplied by racial monopoly casinos.

Do you even know what a monopoly is?

 

[Derec]

Do you even know what a monopoly is?

Yes.

 

[LordKiran]

Do you even know what a monopoly is?

Yes.

I don't believe you.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I follow a few prominent Canadian economists and none of them seem to be proponents of basic income, for the sole reason that the numbers don't really work out. One from my city even won a local debate when he argued against it (and he's a pretty reasonable, progressive guy).

Of course giving people money improves their life outcomes, but the argument against is that in many cases giving *everyone* free money isn't sustainable, and more progressive welfare programs are probably a better option.

Do any of these prominent people have names? I'm just curious how progressive they are. Economically speaking.