Read on Twitter
Happy 2021!
I wrote about one of the best ideas of 2020. From the #YangGang to @mayorsforagi to stimulus checks to @MacSmiff's late-night faceoff with @tedwheeler, everybody was somehow talking about giving cash to poor people.
So...let's do some math! https://www.sightline.org/2020/12/31/do-we-already-have-the-money-for-a-guaranteed-income/
I wrote about one of the best ideas of 2020. From the #YangGang to @mayorsforagi to stimulus checks to @MacSmiff's late-night faceoff with @tedwheeler, everybody was somehow talking about giving cash to poor people.
So...let's do some math! https://www.sightline.org/2020/12/31/do-we-already-have-the-money-for-a-guaranteed-income/
This article builds on work I did with @MadDogMarge last spring, as the world was collapsing around us.
Margaret and I were housing policy researchers, but @Sightline gave us rein to look into a related issue: maybe the best way to deal with poverty is to, y'know, end it.
Margaret and I were housing policy researchers, but @Sightline gave us rein to look into a related issue: maybe the best way to deal with poverty is to, y'know, end it.
Poverty is a lack of money. The COVID crisis and its related voluntary & mandatory shutdowns were making it dramatically worse.
One way to deal with this is literally one of the oldest policy ideas in the world: give poor people money until they aren't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income
One way to deal with this is literally one of the oldest policy ideas in the world: give poor people money until they aren't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income
One of my bizarre pet peeves is the way we often confuse "giving poor people money every month" with "giving everyone money every month."
Guaranteed minimum income (that's the one that goes just to poor people) vs universal basic income (that's the one that goes to everybody).
Guaranteed minimum income (that's the one that goes just to poor people) vs universal basic income (that's the one that goes to everybody).
But in a sense, these are just two flavors of the same thing.
UBI costs way more because richer people get it too, but also you can pay for that extra cost by...surprise!...taxing richer people.
So the difference is mostly surface-level. Either way it's $$ to poor folks.
UBI costs way more because richer people get it too, but also you can pay for that extra cost by...surprise!...taxing richer people.
So the difference is mostly surface-level. Either way it's $$ to poor folks.
MLK called for a guaranteed income in 1967. The month after his death, 1,200 economists signed a letter in its support.
In 1969, President Nixon made it his signature domestic policy proposal. The story of who killed is wild & still disputed. https://thecorrespondent.com/4503/the-bizarre-tale-of-president-nixon-and-his-basic-income-bill/173117835-c34d6145
In 1969, President Nixon made it his signature domestic policy proposal. The story of who killed is wild & still disputed. https://thecorrespondent.com/4503/the-bizarre-tale-of-president-nixon-and-his-basic-income-bill/173117835-c34d6145
more fun/appalling dirt on the Nixon thing: https://books.google.com/books?id=OLBC9xLD0zYC&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=nixon+%22be+sure+it%27s+killed+by+democrats%22&source=bl&ots=xx7YjyY1rB&sig=ACfU3U21yOFwsvQgggnrGxBBftAaSZuAyw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiNuLL757bqAhUYHjQIHRuLCVgQ6AEwCnoECAwQAQ#v=onepage&q=nixon%20%22be%20sure%20it's%20killed%20by%20democrats%22&f=false
Anyway, my big question was this: what if we added up the cost of every program that we've created essentially because we're too disorganized, micromanagey & chickenshit to just give poor people money.
How much money would that be per poor person?
How much money would that be per poor person?
So crack Sightline research associate Zane Gustafson and I spent a couple weeks talking to the wonks at @OCPPnews, @budget_policy, @ccpa, Idaho Center for Fiscal Policy, etc.
Then we looked at lots and lots of PDFs.
Then we made this:
Then we looked at lots and lots of PDFs.
Then we made this:
Here's a simpler version of that chart:
Here's one that includes (and this was my favorite part of the project) the equivalent programs in British Columbia:
Caveats: this is a VERY rough measure with MANY assumptions.
Biggest is it doesn't include Medicaid. This is BY FAR the most expensive US program that goes mostly to poor folks.
Public share of health insurance costs ~$10k (Idaho) to ~$26k (Alaska) per poor person. (In part cuz it goes to some non-poor folks.)
Public share of health insurance costs ~$10k (Idaho) to ~$26k (Alaska) per poor person. (In part cuz it goes to some non-poor folks.)
This is what the chart for Oregon would look like if we'd included Medicaid.
In the US, we've dedicated virtually all our political will toward redistribution to helping poor people get medical care, not toward helping them not be poor.
No shade here! It's a tough call!
In the US, we've dedicated virtually all our political will toward redistribution to helping poor people get medical care, not toward helping them not be poor.
No shade here! It's a tough call!
So why leave out Medicaid? In part because I wanted to compare to Canada, and (I dunno if you ever heard this?) in Canada everybody gets Medicare from the government. Similar in many countries. So our biggest redistributive program is us doing for some what others do for all.
Also, I left out programs that are mostly forms of insurance: Social Security & Medicare are insurance for if you get old, SSI for if you have a disability. Medicaid is like those - for many Americans it functions as "insurance for if you get pregnant" - but w/ more subsidies.
Anyway, if you personally want to mentally insert Medicaid in these charts, do it.
Just know that if so, you've also gotta fit health care into the budgets of poor people, and if they don't buy health care (which I didn't when I was young & poor) old poor folks will pay more.
Just know that if so, you've also gotta fit health care into the budgets of poor people, and if they don't buy health care (which I didn't when I was young & poor) old poor folks will pay more.
Another caveat here is that for the denominator - the "per poor person" part - we used the national definitions of poverty ("low-income" in Canada) before taxes & transfers. This varies by country.
OK, now to share the single most interesting thing here: the last few charts.
OK, now to share the single most interesting thing here: the last few charts.
This is how we pay for our safety nets.
For those of us who work mostly in state policy, it's kinda depressing. We're begging for crumbs; Congress is tossing loaves off the back of a truck.
Semi-exception is Alaska. DO YOU KNOW WHY?
For those of us who work mostly in state policy, it's kinda depressing. We're begging for crumbs; Congress is tossing loaves off the back of a truck.
Semi-exception is Alaska. DO YOU KNOW WHY?
Yes that's right! - the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend, paid with fees on extracted fossil fuel.
For it & other near-universal cash programs, I divided program cost by total population & used that as the figure per poor person. (Alaska's figure for 2017 was $932.)
For it & other near-universal cash programs, I divided program cost by total population & used that as the figure per poor person. (Alaska's figure for 2017 was $932.)
Finally, this chart is maybe my most important realization from this whole project.
Green bars are the benefits poor folks get in cash from each jurisdiction.
Red bars are non-cash benefits & programs.
Woah.
I had no idea: Canada does almost everything in cash.
Green bars are the benefits poor folks get in cash from each jurisdiction.
Red bars are non-cash benefits & programs.
Woah.
I had no idea: Canada does almost everything in cash.
Here's what I wrote about this in the article.
Since I started this line of research, I've been telling people that there is essentially no chance the US will switch to giving poor people cash in the forseeable future.
Getting this to even be a serious debate is a 10-year mission, at BEST.
Getting this to even be a serious debate is a 10-year mission, at BEST.
