Universal Basic Income Finally Came to Chicago

During the pandemic, something absolutely incredible happened. Universal basic income, a controversial policy that establishes a fixed income floor for all Americans, came to Chicago. Universal basic income’s previously mentioned controversy isn’t for no reason. However, to fully understand the controversy, one must understand American history. During the 80s, the concept of the “welfare queen” was introduced to the world. This concept destroyed any semblance of empathy for the poor and marginalized within America.

They were simply “living off of Uncle Sam” or “having kids to get more government money”. Along with the rise of individualism in America, this did not bode well for those who truly needed the funds. Those people tended to typically be more black and brown, or otherwise from marginalized identities. How this connects to the “UBI” policy is that this same anti-working class attitude is what is preventing this policy from catching on.

Class Politics

This attitude has everything to do with money, class, and class politics. Class politics are simply politics as an expression of one’s material interests. The material interests of the wealthy are to become even wealthier. The material interests of the poor are to survive by any means necessary. What happens is that these two groups form ideologies and political thought based on these interests.

From this, the entire discussion around UBI can be seen for what it really is. The poor want to survive and to survive they need to pay for the things they need to live. Outside of the literal fact that one has to pay to live this is very simple to understand. The policy of establishing a universal basic income is a policy of life. It simply aids the working class in this economic struggle to live. Water, food, shelter, and transportation are all things a person needs to live in the modern world.

Safety Nets

Despite that fact, they all cost money. Most Americans can’t even handle a $300 emergency. A significant portion of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. A universal basic income would give all these people a small safety net. Of course, depending on how much it is a month or year, that safety net could be made of string or it could be made of steel. However, any amount of money helps, because people are struggling to survive, and many of those people are black and brown or otherwise marginalized communities.

In the case of Chicago, the city has a very significant marginalized population so the fact that this policy was implemented for any period of time could be considered a good thing.

Chicago’s experiment with UBI was brief. “Ms. Lightfoot’s $31.5 million Resilient Communities Pilot selected 5,000 city residents in August to receive a guaranteed cash income for a year. The first $500 checks from a separate program, a $42 million county pilot, went out in December to 3,250 residents concentrated in the near-in Chicago suburbs.”

According to the New York Times. The main focus here then is the fact that around 5000 people were assisted in a meaningful way. However, sometimes, governments try to restrict how many people get help.

Means Testing

Sometimes UBI is “ means tested,” meaning that there are barriers and hoops that people have to jump through preventing them from accessing the benefits immediately. When governments means test, they restrict the number of people that could benefit from the policy or law. This leads to fewer people getting the things they need, which prolongs their unnecessary suffering. However, in Chicago’s experiment, it wasn’t means tested at all. They simply received their checks.

All in all, universal basic income is a very simple policy. The politics of it are simple, it is easy to understand, and it is easy to understand why it works. It is money, not through objects, but cold hard cash. It is the government giving people what they need for once. For its detractors, it’s supporting the supposed “welfare queens.” Yet, when looked at from a glance or even from a microscope, it is very clear why this policy is controversial. It helps the working class in a way that no other policy, except raising the minimum wage does. It puts money in the working man’s pocket.

Written by Kenneth Mazerat

Sources:

New York Times: $500 a Month, No Strings: Chicago Experiments With a Guaranteed Income

First Inset Image Courtesy of Pictures of Money’s Flickr Page – Creative Commons License