No Strings Attached
In the latest free money experiment, Oakland to Give Low-Income Residents $500 a Month, No Strings Attached.
The mayor of Oakland, California, on Tuesday announced a privately funded program that will give low-income families of color in the city $500 per month with no rules on how they can spend it.
The program is the latest experiment with a “guaranteed income,” the idea that giving low-income individuals a regular, monthly stipend helps ease the stresses of poverty and results in better health and upward economic mobility.
The idea isn’t new, but it’s having a revival across the U.S. after some mayors launched smaller scale pilot programs across the country in a coordinated campaign to convince Congress to adopt a national guaranteed income program.
The first program launched in 2019 in Stockton, California, led by former Mayor Michael Tubbs. Tubbs, who later founded the group Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, expects six other cities to launch similar programs by this summer.
The “Oakland Resilient Families” program has so far raised $6.75 million from private donors including Blue Meridian Partners, a national philanthropy group.
Who Gets the Money
- To be eligible, individuals must have at least one child under the age 18 and an income that is at or below 50% of the area median income — about $59,000 per year for a family of three.
- Half the spots are reserved for people who earn less than 138% of the federal poverty level, or about $30,000 per year for a family of three.
- Participants will be randomly selected from a pool of applicants who meet the eligibility requirements.
- The program is strictly limited to Black, Indigenous and people of color communities.
Black Panther and Free Money History
- It’s a nod to the legacy of the Black Panther Party, the political movement that was founded in Oakland in the 1960s.
- “Guaranteed income has been a goal of the Black Panther platform since its founding,” said Jesús Gerena, CEO of Family Independence Initiative, a partner of Oakland’s program.
- Former Democratic presidential candidate and current New York City Mayoral candidate Andrew Yang has also long advocated for a version of a basic income for every American adult.
- In California, a proposal by Assemblyman Evan Low to give low-income adults $1,000 a month could cost up to $129 billion annually — more than half the state’s total budget — paid for by a new 1% tax on incomes above $2 million.
Key Census Stats
Stats are according to the Census Department.
How Universal Basic Income Program Work
That’s a trick headline. These programs do not work because they do not scale.
These trial balloon programs always limit the target group in an attempt to get a foot in the door for expanded socialist redistribution schemes.
In this case money comes from a private group, with strict requirements, excluding whites.
It is is household based. Individuals are not eligible. Add an additional requirement that the household has at least one child.
There are 162,419 households. If 50% of them are people of color, the starting point is 81,210 households. Some number of them have no kids. But let’s assume they all do. The poverty ratio is 16.7%.
That’s about 13,500 households. But wait. There is an additional requirement that income is 50% of the poverty level. I will take a stab that well under half those households are eligible, but call it half.
Out of 433,000 people about 7,000 will get free money.
7,000 * $500 * 12 = $42 million. The program raised $6.75 million.
Let’s work in reverse. $6.75 million / $500 / 12 = 1,125.
Out of 433,000 Oakland residents, about 1,125 will get free money.
But wait, the article actually states it will target “up to 600 families“.
Andrew Yang Defend Universal Free Money
Would it Help?
Of course it will help those who get the money. They tried this in Stockton and it supposedly worked (for the 125 household that got the money).
The problem, as always, is scaling up the program.
Scaling Issue
Let’s do the Oakland math if the program was universal as Yang proposed.
433,000 * $500 * 12 = $2,598,000,000.
If you only give the free money to those below the poverty line, then the number is still $433,866,000 and everyone just above the cutoff will be more than a little upset.
If you make it household based, the free money is 162,419 * $500 * 12 = $974,514,000.
If you give it to households below the poverty line then Oakland would need to come up with $162,743,838 annually.
Universal free money is not free. Indeed, free money of any kind is never free.
Tax hikes would be immense, and not just on the wealthy.
That is why these programs always start with an extremely tiny percent of the population to make it look like it’s possible when it isn’t.
Racist Distribution
The distribution is racist but it’s private, not taxpayer funded. Imagine the stink if it was only for whites.
The flawed rationale was white have higher income. So what? Are there no whites below the poverty line in Oakland.
Mish
I wonder if the low income whiteys should start burning down cities like the other races do when they don’t get their way?
Ok if it was the opposite way around and blacks could not get into this program, shit there would be houses on fire and people getting pulled out of there vehicles and beat to death, and so on. Blacks have no respect and no morals, they would kill a store clerk for $50.00 and oh I forgot no common since they are not as smart as you may think, but pulling a trigger on a gun doesn’t require a BA Degree.
Although it is privately funded, it will be a tax write off. And so the claim that it is not funded by the taxpayers is deceiving.
Scott Adams has now decided he’s black, for the benefits.
https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1375798856923799552
I identify as a white man of color… would I be eligible?
The optics are horrible. The mayor openly supports a private entity that is acting racist.
The basic idea of the welfare state is to take from the haves and give to the have-nots. It never seems to work though.
Unless there is some kind of strict oversight, a good part of the money, public or private, will be skimmed off by those who dreamed up this scam. Wait and see. Follow the money.
If poor people get free money, how will the military ever find new recruits?
Is it really “private money” ? If benefactors are foundations that have tax reductions, or organizations that have some public financial support, is is really completely “private money” ?
It’s not my money, so I don’t care. These programs never take off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUwWcoIlHwM
Ok folks, this is a well done psyops program right down to the faux outrage that the poor whites aren’t getting any “free money”.
What’s happened is that some rich people want the ghetto to stay in Oakland instead of spreading throughout the rest of the Bat area. So they are paying them Money to stay in Oakland.
I hope we have another recession in 2021 that can do as well as 2020. All things considered, 2020 was a great year for 90% of businesses. Bankruptcies in 2020 are down 29% from 2019. Lowest number of bankruptcies in the last 5 years.
https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2021/01/28/annual-bankruptcy-filings-fall-297-percent
I have never seen this type of return in my 401k before and my rental houses have never appreciated this much in one year either.
Hopefully we have a recession in 2021 that is just as good as 2020.
As far as investment returns….I can only hope this year is a good as last. There are a lot of funds in my 401k that were over 50% in 2020. One growth fund was up 70%. Of course it had all the big FAANGS in it.
And to think a widely respected leader Martin Luther King dreamed of a colorblind society…and this is his legacy.
The one benefit of these UBI payments is you are supposed to be able to improve your life without losing the checks. This idea doesn’t even have that: get a job or otherwise lift yourself out of poverty and you lose the money.
If it is private money given to one group and not others then it is no problem for me. Looking at the amount I would say it would run out quickly. Still not my problem. If you want it to become like Yang’s guaranteed income the there I see it as a problem but one that should be discussed because there are many different variations not all of them bad.
Totally racist. The apologists here for this racially dividing act are just feeding Civil War v.2.0
Liberals are the most racist people I have seen. There’s millions of stories of people rising above their circumstances which does make America great, but these imbeciles continue to denigrate people and tell them “they can’t do it.” Should there be help with learning needed skills-yes. California already has enough freebies and this just contributes to the victim mentality and lack of will to change.
Is it any wonder poor and lower class white people turned to Trump when the left embraces this sort of racist programming? And it’s not because Trump promised them any specific favors either.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wuddqFrqRqI
This post seems to have generated the whites are being treated unfairly against blacks meme and I think unfortunate in that it appeals to racist leanings. I echo the sentiment that tax payer money isn’t being used. We need to tackle poverty in this country. This is one way. I’d prefer work scholarships and apprenticeships along the lines that its better to teach a man to fish sort of logic. Seems a program that seeks to end or reduce black poverty is upsetting to some. It should not.
You say poverty and then you point out race groups. Why not just stop at ending poverty? Only some are poor if they’re the “right” race?
“This post seems to have generated the whites are being treated unfairly against blacks”
I haven’t seen any comments suggesting that. I have seen comments suggesting that choosing only poor black people is racist.
If people keep grouping people by their skin colour and treating the groups differently you’ll never get rid of racism.
Exactly. Racism is treating skin color etc as important. It isn’t. Skin color tells you nothing important about an individual.
Another truth this culture needs to accept is that “race” isn’t even a valid concept. There are no essential biological features or distinctions by which such groupings can be objectively defined. It’s all gray areas and borderline cases. Thus the ridiculous state we find ourselves in, where some people with very light skin call themselves “Black”, or some claim to be 1/64th this or that.
We live in a society where one can “identify” as something one is not, and expect others to treat them as their delusion dictates.
Thus, my question is, how do you quantify what a “Black, Indigenous, or people of color” is?
when do I get my check?
Just use this handy chart to determine the arrival date and amount of your disbursement.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLJyglKW4AA4i1B?format=jpg&name=small
100% pure racism in action.
We continue to tip-toe towards accepting a two tiered society with some racial groups favored and some not. An imperfect racial-neutral society is being pushed aside by creeping de-jure racial hierarchies.
Ridiculous that in 2021 we have a major metro area in the U.S. directing overtly racist policies.
What’s your solution? Surely you would be against prohibiting a private company from deciding what to do with its own money. So what else is there to fix this?
This is not the case of a private company deciding to give money to people it selects on its own. You are right that I would not seek to prohibit that.
The City of Oakland designed the program and went out and solicited donations from private donors to accomplish it, then announced it at a press conference. Racism is morally repugnant and government should play no part in designing and/or implementing a program that discriminates based on the color of a person’s skin. Any person who believes racism is wrong would find this abhorrent. Unprincipled people who believe ‘it is OK to be racist if it helps the race I favor’ will of course view it otherwise.
[Mish didn’t include this part of the article he cited:
“ Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf said of her city’s new initiative: “We have designed this demonstration project…the “Oakland Resilient Families” program has so far raised $6.75 million from private donors…”]
I’m fine with this one being (presumably) privately funded. What gives me pause is it being announced and (possibly?) administered by the mayor and city of Oakland? I don’t care much for these public/private partnerships as they are one more aspect of a modern incarnation of fascism with revolving doors between government officials and big money. Government should simply not get in the way if a private entity wants to do such a thing but should otherwise recuse itself from participating – clearly this entity wants to make the current administration in Oakland look good for whatever reason.
Would it Help?
Of course it will help
That’s all I needed. Alternatively people can statve?
Freedom!
Not a dime for purple people. Not. One. Dime.
Aww!
At least Trump is not President. Things are going so much better.
Sarcasm by the way…
It’s private money. Did they get the idea from here?
https://www.scholarships.com/financial-aid/college-scholarships/scholarships-by-type/religious-scholarships/christian-scholarships/
I applaud your respect for private freedom. Can we assume your support for private companies and landlords selecting employees and tenants on any basis they choose, including racial or sex or orientation?
That’s stupid
People are people. Any selection on basis of race is just plain wrong be it private money or not. This is sending an awful signal.
Those African-Americans in Oakland who do not get into the program even if they are poor must be very happy to be excluded. How do they chose who gets the money and who doesn’t? Could it be by who you know?
there’s always a certain degree of winning the lottery with any program. Like applying for subsidized housing.
Do you know how they are chosen?