- These are boom times — for my friends. Like me, they work hard, and boy, is it paying off. They're getting rich. Their lives are becoming more and more perfect. They're shopping, eating and sleeping in places where I can't go. They've vanished behind a curtain and sailed over the rainbow — and life is easier in that other world, because the future is secured.
The only thing that makes me interested in a "basic income" is that there are people saying that providing a basic income saves money in the long run. I've turned off my emotions when reading these articles and am still in the processing phase. The general idea is that the basic income program replaces food stamps, EIC, WIC, Section 8 programs, Child care credits, and the other scattered social programs that are spread over the whole of the federal and state governments. That gets into what should the "basic income" be? and how enabled? Do we give it to everyone, or just families? This is sort of like the programs out west where they put functional homeless persons and families into abandoned/foreclosed homes because it is less expensive than running homeless shelters. link There are several issues that need to be worked out; homeless men, on average, have more mental and drug issues that need to be taken care of along with the other health issues from living on the streets. It is an interesting idea, and I'd like to see some more people thinking about the if/should arguments.
That's certainly an argument that gets used, but I don't think it's the real idea. It would be a bad idea if it were. Some of those programs do more than just dispersing money. For example, housing authorities try to place section 8 tenants outside of areas of concentrated poverty, because so they have more opportunities to become self sufficient. To do that they need to be doing the placing and, in some cities, need to be able to force landlords to take their tenants. Housing finance agencies might be able to pick up some of the slack if they stopped doing that, but they're limited by the amount of housing being built or renovated and can't ask too much or their grants won't be worth taking.The general idea is that the basic income program replaces food stamps, EIC, WIC, Section 8 programs, Child care credits, and the other scattered social programs that are spread over the whole of the federal and state governments. That gets into what should the "basic income" be? and how enabled? Do we give it to everyone, or just families?
I haven't seen this in the real world yet. (and I'm not trying to be argumentative). The flip side to "sending poor people to the burbs" is that, at least in Denver, guess where all of the decent public transit is? Guess where the offices for other services - Medicaid, Social Security, Housing Authority, Food Banks, Clothing donation clearing houses, "Medicaid friendly" Hospitals are? They're all in the city. This could be a Denver phenomenon - just the DNA and evolution of the city. But all of the services that a person in crisis needs are in or near downtown. Not to mention the housing options available to them are mostly in "poor" neighborhoods. I'm working with one woman - single mom of four. Limited education and prospects. Her kids are getting bullied at the urban school they're in. I keep encouraging her to move further out of town. Her answer? It will take her an hour to get back into the city to get any of the services she now accesses with a 10 minute walk or bus ride. ugh.... yes... but MURCA. I wish more landlords would just accept it without being forced. Don't get me wrong - as I look at building a rental property - I see both sides of this. On the one side - a Landlord has a guaranteed check every month for an account that will always go through. On the other side - that lady I mentioned? She's sweet and wonderful... but holy hell - her kids destroy EVERY place the live. As the father of a brood myself, I can tell you - that's just what kids do. But you know what? When my kids piss on the carpet or vomit kool-aid, I have not only the cleaning supplies to immediately work on the problem - but when it gets too much my me and some carpet cleaner - I also have the resources to hire a pro. The same goes for broken windows, light fixtures, roof shingles, trees, lawns, and so on. I don't think forcing landlords to take housing vouchers is the best idea. Maybe some form of incentives? I don't know. There would have to be some kind of partnership or something. This is a tough one for sure.For example, housing authorities try to place section 8 tenants outside of areas of concentrated poverty, because so they have more opportunities to become self sufficient.
in some cities, need to be able to force landlords to take their tenants.
I don't know much about Denver, but it is something other cities try to do. The availability of services are also one of the criteria they use. Generally it's not moving people from the city into the suburbs, but from less affluent parts of the city to more. If all the services are also concentrated then that's tough. I don't think it's common, at least there are very few places I hear about it happening. Chicago was the first I ever heard about and it sounded really heavy handed to me too, but no one wants to take vouchers in Chicago because why take the risk, make your other tenants uncomfortable, and be rewarded with housing authority people pestering you with paperwork when you have prospective tenants lining up?I haven't seen this in the real world yet. (and I'm not trying to be argumentative). The flip side to "sending poor people to the burbs" is that, at least in Denver, guess where all of the decent public transit is? Guess where the offices for other services - Medicaid, Social Security, Housing Authority, Food Banks, Clothing donation clearing houses, "Medicaid friendly" Hospitals are? They're all in the city.
I don't think forcing landlords to take housing vouchers is the best idea. Maybe some form of incentives? I don't know. There would have to be some kind of partnership or something. This is a tough one for sure.
Here is something that I have been thinking about, and will admit up front that I have no answer to. What would be better for a community? For a kid to grow up in a community that had a decent investment in making the place not suck, seeing progress year over year when abandoned buildings became functional, broken windows became a thing of the past and a noticeable dropping crime rate... Or moving them to a place that already had those things? If we are going to spend the money to 'help' people, which is better for all of us in the long run? And is it better for the people we are talking about? Guaranteeing a family income, IMO, is not going to do anything if that family is completely dysfunctional, and that goes for the inner-city nightly gun shots ghetto as well as the trashy trailer park. This is one of those things I work on in my head so that if I get the chance to talk to someone in a position to do something, I can at least have an intelligible question. For example, housing authorities try to place section 8 tenants outside of areas of concentrated poverty, because so they have more opportunities to become self sufficient.
The problem with having all the poor people in one place is that then the poor people are only associating with other poor people. The other folks in the trailer park don't know anyone who can give you a good job. Public institutions are staffed by the middle class, and are hard to navigate if you don't speak fluent suburbanite. If you want to get out of poverty, it's helpful if your circle includes people who aren't there with you, and that's much more likely if some of them are your neighbors. That's the theory, anyway. There are implementation issues (is actually talking about constructing neighborhoods to have a mix of incomes, which is a different way of attempting the same thing).
This is why busing was proposed, and why racists love segregation. It is also why I have a hard time coming to a solid philosophy of how to deal with poverty. Looking at how busing was a noble idea but destructive in practice at least here in Kentucky makes me wary of relocations, forced or otherwise. What worked for me is not going to work to anyone with kids, won't work for women, and won't work for anyone who is afraid of taking risks (I went into a resource extraction job that allowed me to save a ton of cash that got me out of poverty). So, if we are going to use government money to reduce poverty, or at least rebuild the social mobility ladder, how do we spend scarce resources most effectively?The problem with having all the poor people in one place is that then the poor people are only associating with other poor people.
I think busing was a different beast. Segregated schools weren't actually equivalent, so we were denying people the education they were entitled to. It was unpopular [because racism and] because you had kids taking 2-3 hour bus rides and teachers spending more time teaching things their students should have already been taught than new things. It didn't make all schools good schools, it made all schools bad schools but maybe not quite as bad as the worst of the segregated schools had been. Just having neighbors of a different social class isn't nearly that much of an imposition.
He's doing well in the life he's chosen. He's won a Guggenheim Fellowship, PEN Prize, O. Henry award, is a teacher at a college, and has the respect of people he admires. That comes with some benefits and not others. The total cash value of those awards is somewhere between 100-150k, by the way. He drifted around the country for years and wrote like he wanted to. His friends chose more lucrative professions and put in the hours. He got what he asked for, and more than most who ask for it. They got what they worked for, and have jealousy problems too. This just seems whiny and self-indulgent.
Well I don't think it's not worth reading, but I can't say as I feel much sympathy for the writer. The whole thing seems whiny because he is just talking about how much he vacillates between loving and hating his life as a writer. Yet, objectively, his life as a paid writer, his engagement, his success, is all pretty good. But instead of being able to enjoy it he complains about how much his friends make. If someone did that in talking with me I would dislike it. I don't see much difference here. And I'm not saying there couldn't be a different use of written form to say something more profound. If he would have presented the feelings in a more complex way then I would have at least seen the point, but it's very factual (at least from his point of view). This entire piece could be countered with, "Well, the grass is always greener..." So I don't really get much out of it. As well, and this might be me projecting, I feel like the main reason that this has any traction at all is because he paints all his friends as wealthy plutocrats who buy Yachts and pine over Lear jets. And that is a popular sentiment right now. Everyone wants to hate on the wealthy lately. So maybe I don't feel his intended way because not only should he be happy for his own achieved goals in life, but that he seems to be pandering to what he knows his readers want to hear about. How much the wealthy pine for their long lost dreams of creativity, and how he's underpaid even though he ostensibly gives so much more in his artistic endeavor. I'm not saying he's not genuine in his feelings, but I know that if I met someone like this writer has written about himself, it would not be someone whose company I would long for.
I think it's important to note that this piece is from 1998. He's a success now, but my google searches reveal most of his major awards/grants/etc came after this article. As such, at the time he was a person who'd put all this work and toil into something and had little to show for it. At least when he compared himself to his peers. He was jealous of the monetary successes of his friends, whilst juxtaposing that with a feeling of relief that he's not in their shoes, doing their jobs and professions. All the while, these same people were jealous of the life he was so discontent with. It's no wonder he painted a picture of disillusionment. I guess it's the cliché of the 'grass is always greener.' I think considering these facts puts this piece in a different light than the one you project on it.