7 ms·

UBI in Oakland is the first program only for people of color

20 points by garraeth 6y ago

PeekPoke 6y ago
Wow. Institutionalised racism makes a return to the USA.
- malcolmgreaves 6y ago
  A return? It's been present in America since the very first pilgrims arrived with enslaved Africans.
  - kop316 6y ago
    ??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mayflower_passengers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mayflower_passengers https://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/208249/ocn137336369-Mayflower-passengers.pdf https://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/20824... There were no Africans at all on the Mayflower. EDIT: The Massachusetts Body of Liberties seems to be the first body of legal code in Massachusetts https://www.mass.gov/service-details/massachusetts-body-of-liberties https://www.mass.gov/service-details/massachusetts-body-of-l... And it's stance on slavery: "There shall never be any bond slaverie, villinage or Captivitie amongst us unles it be lawfull Captives taken in just warres, and such strangers as willingly selle themselves or are sold to us. And these shall have all the liberties and Christian usages which the law of god established in Israel concerning such persons doeth morally require. This exempts none from servitude who shall be Judged thereto by Authoritie." The Constituion of Massachusetts (1780) also banned slavery. This is inconsistent with your characterization of the Puritans.
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      >and such strangers as willingly selle themselves or are sold to us. ?
djohnston 6y ago
I'm worried that this will just breed deeper resentment among a socially fractured lower class that would be stronger were it more unified. I'm white though, I know what my thoughts on these issues are worth.
- captainredbeard 6y ago
  Your views are not weighted by your race, that's silly. Your thoughts are 100% valid and worthy.
  - honkdaddy 6y ago
    Here on HN I believe this to be true. But the frighteningly common viewpoint today among progressives today is that white people are not allowed to have a voice when discussing topics of race. This isn't a fringe opinion, there's been bestselling books[1] on the topic. https://www.amazon.ca/Longer-Talking-White-People-About-ebook/dp/B06WWPX2YF https://www.amazon.ca/Longer-Talking-White-People-About-eboo...
    - captainredbeard 6y ago
      Oh, I'm well aware of the popular trend to discredit ideas based on the race of the originator (a disgusting proposition). We must push back.
- skyde 6y ago
  I 100% agree policy like this are likely to make the poor white people see the poor black people as privileged by the system. While the poor people of color will still feel that they are not privileged because 76% of millionaires are white.
- jfengel 6y ago
  It's not because you're white. It's because you're not poor, and you're not in Oakland. You have absolutely no facts about the situation, but you're here anyway, "just worried" about hypothetical people you don't know and haven't even gathered statistics on. You've got no idea why they're offering this to poor blacks in Oakland, and you're just gonna take a guess. And you're promptly validated in that by other non-poor non-Oaklanders who tell you -- and I'm quoting here -- that your lack of experience is "100%" equivalent to those who do have experience. That's the problem here: not your whiteness, but the outrage you feel at being excluded from a decision in which you've got no information and no stake. That stems from all of the things at once: your whiteness, your maleness (go ahead, tell me I'm wrong about that), and all the other dimensions along which people get excluded from things and simply never happen to you. And instead of saying, "Tell me more", you tell everybody that your opinion is devalued solely because of the color of your skin, so that all of the other people in this room full of middle-class white men will tell you that it's wrong to exclude you. I know you've long since stopped listening to me, but I'm nonetheless going to make a suggestion: the next time you're "just worried" about something, consider whether you've done anything to assuage that worry. Without that, it looks like you're just trying to inform the Oakland City Council of something that it already knows -- because it's literally the only thing you know about it.
throwaway210402 6y ago
The probability of this post being [flagged] is asymptotically approaching 1. As stated elsewhere, this is by definition institutional racism.
- Miner49er 6y ago
  It's not though. What definition are you using?
  - throwaway210402 6y ago
    >It's not though. It is though. Wikipedia: "Institutional racism, also known as systemic racism, is a form of racism that is embedded as normal practice within society or an organization. It can lead to such issues as discrimination in criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power, and education, among other issues." The Oakland municipal government (organization) is discriminating by race for benefits that will impact housing, access to healthier food, etc. It is 100% by definition institutional racism.
    - Miner49er 6y ago
      This is an attempt at undoing institutional racism. The average black family is 10x poorer then the average white family. I'm sure you would agree that is also systemic racism. The quickest/most simple way to fix that systemic racism is to directly give wealth to black families like this.
      - throwaway210402 6y ago
        >This is an attempt at undoing institutional racism. "We're achieving peace by expanding our global war." You're using scary 1984 logic here. >The average black family is 10x poorer then the average white family. Not sure what the actual numbers are but they don't matter. We'll assume it's true. >I'm sure you would agree that is also systemic racism Not necessarily. The existence of inequity does not mean the system is inherently unequal. This is the fatal flaw in your logic. >The quickest/most simple way to fix that systemic racism is to directly give wealth to black families like this. This is illogic based on a falsehood. Race should NEVER be a factor here, it should only be poverty level or class. The simplest way to get rid of systemic racism is... to get rid of systemic racism (enact legislation to remove Jim Crow as an example) which we have. Introducing systemic racism by definition does not fix the problem it only makes it worse. If we want to combat poverty (inequity), then the UBI should go to the poorest among us. If the bottom 10% of society ends up being 80% Black, that's okay.
ralusek 6y ago
Stupid people seem incapable of understanding how color-blind solutions are able to still address racial disparities. If you were to, say, implement a program to help poor people, rather than "people of color," then to the extent that "people of color" are overrepresented among the poor, then so, too, would the solution disproportionately assist "people of color." The benefits would be: 1.) we don't enter an infinite teeter totter of people arguing on behalf of the victimization of their identity groups 2.) we actually arrive at an equilibrium more rapidly 3.) we don't institutionalize the concept of race, and reinforce the idea that the color of your skin is a concept worthy of being categorized by 4.) we stop treating race as a proxy stand in for privilege, or competence (which is exactly what racists do), and instead target the direct thing that race was proxying 5.) by targeting the actual thing we're trying to remediate, we help all people affected by it, rather than limiting ourselves to the identity groups with the best PR. we also don't unnecessarily target people who belong to those identity groups and aren't actually in need of assistance, but are perceived to be simply by association through the color of their skin Just to reiterate: assume 1/6 people in a city were "people of color." Assume that 4/6 people who were poor in the city were "people of color." If you add a policy to help the poor, without considering race at all, 4/6 of the people that you help are going to be "people of color," despite them only being 1/6 of the population. It automatically targets the people who are affected disproportionately...
- thelock85 6y ago
  I understand your points and think they are fair in general. But leading with “stupid” makes you sound uninformed, and your theories are misaligned with longstanding sociopolitical climate in Oakland (not saying they don’t still apply). In fact, all participants must have a child minor, and be at or below 50% of median Bay Area income poverty line. 50% of participants must be 138% below federal poverty line. So the fact, not assumption, is 6/6 poor people of color are being targeted. And yes, that is unfair to poor white people in Oakland, and it’s unfortunate that the sociopolitical climate in Oakland allows for it. But color-blind policies still yield such inequities. Case in point, affluent SF and Marin county residents flocking to vaccination pop-ups in poor neighborhoods where there are no eligibility screens. We should keep debating these things (it’s healthy for addressing the problems) but I don’t think any idealistic approach will ever be politically or logistically successful. Update: another factor is that this is philanthropically supported, and my assumption is that they either required or signed off on race-based programming. So if you are the mayor, are you saying no to free money for your constituents?
fr2null 6y ago
I can understand that they hope to reduce the income gap between different races, but I don't understand why that means the selection criteria should include race. I would think that it makes more sense to select based on 'wealth' (income, capital, etc.) instead. Since people of colour are disproportionately represented in the poorer population, this would help to reduce the income gap between races (since more people of colour are accepted into the program), without excluding the few white families that could also really benefit from this.
- skyde 6y ago
  Exactly this is best example of reverse racism.
  - nailer 6y ago
    Just call it racism. It’s simpler.
iudqnolq 6y ago
Please don't do this to our language > Guaranteed income is often used interchangeably with Universal Basic Income (UBI) — the difference between the two is that *guaranteed income has qualifications* or requirements to participate.
- filoeleven 6y ago
  It should be noted that the parent quote comes from this very article, whose headline uses “Universal Basic Income” instead of “Guaranteed Income.” It’s an explicitly inflammatory and inaccurate title. (I’m not weighing in on the content here.)
  - iudqnolq 6y ago
    I wasn't expressing an opinion on the validity of UBI for specific groups. I think that's less crazy than some might think, after all most proponents of UBI suggest at least initially limiting it to a city/state/country. I can even understand wanting to call the Oakland progr UBI, as it is similar and that's a known term. I find inventing a new term "Guaranteed Income" when it plainly isn't to be absurd. (By the way, I didn't know it was necessary to note quotes came from TFA if not attributed)
    - filoeleven 6y ago
      I didn’t mean to imply that you were opining on the program itself, only that my reply was limited to noting the contradiction between the article title and the distinction it makes in the body. They are basically saying “our title is a misnomer.” “Guaranteed minimum income” is an existing term, and a more accurate one for what this currently is. UBI means “available to all citizens,” and while there’s some leniency for pilot programs, which this appears to be, it is unclear from the article if the goal is to transition to a true UBI. I generally assume the same thing about quotes, I only thought it was worth mentioning due to the title discrepancy, so I was surprised to see it in the article itself, and since this is a hot-button issue I think fewer people will read the full article before commenting.
throwawaysea 6y ago
This is explicitly racist. It discriminates based on race, which is the only acceptable definition of “racist”. The city of Oakland should not be involved in this program at all and I hope someone takes them to court over it.
cbm-vic-20 6y ago
"Universal" means just that. This isn't universal, nobody should be calling this UBI.
nailer 6y ago
Wouldn’t this be considered illegal? Governments shouldn’t distinguish between citizens based on race.
triceratops 6y ago
This sounds bad, I agree. But let's take a look at the program's website, a primary source, instead of relying on reporting alone. [1] Tl;dr It's funded by private donations, run by local organizations, and is a pilot to conduct research. It's not taxpayer money being handed out preferentially, and it's not UBI. "Oakland Resilient Families is 100% funded by philanthropic donations. To date we have raised $6.75 million, at least 80% of which will be distributed directly to families over the next 18 months." "Is this the same thing as a Universal Basic Income (UBI)? No. UBI is meant to go to everyone and provide enough of a payment to cover all basic needs, whereas a guaranteed income is meant to provide an income floor but not meant to be a replacement for wages and can also be targeted to those who most need it. UBI would provide everyone - regardless of income - with equal cash support (often instead of existing social benefits). Oakland Resilient Families is intended for low-income BIPOC families and therefore is by definition not “universal.” Additionally, a central research focus for this project is to determine how a guaranteed income can enhance and expand the existing social safety net rather than replace it." "The 600 randomly selected families will fall into two groups. Both groups will receive the same amount of money, participate in optional research surveys and interviews, and measure a similar set of outcomes related to economic and household wellbeing. The primary differences between the two groups lie in how they are structured in terms of location, income level, and research design." The headline is carefully crafted to generate maximum outrage. I don't agree about aid being based on anything other than need. But at the same time, it's not for me to say how other people spend their money. [1] https://oaklandresilientfamilies.org/about https://oaklandresilientfamilies.org/about
dehrmann 6y ago
Sidestepping the obviously controversial bit, a big problem with doing this is that UBI is relatively new and not well-understood, so so a program that targets a specific group is bad for both itself and the concept of UBI because it only collects very specific data that are easily dismissed because of selection bias.
mayormcmatt 6y ago
It distresses me that many of the comments here lament this UBI program because it targets POC and I think, perhaps, they are looking at this situation as if it were somewhere else in the country/world, or they don't live/haven't lived in a minority community. As a current and longtime resident of West Oakland, who grew up in the city next door, I find nothing wrong with targeting this towards POC in the city, because, as the mayor framed it, this is about promoting equity in the city: a city that has, historically, seen many awful things done to their minority communities (by all levels of government and private enterprise). What kinds of things am.I referring to? Here's a cursory list: 1) White flight take jobs and money out of the area, into towns and cities over the hills, and also into more affluent parts of the city 2) "Redevelopment" carves up the neighborhood: hwy 980 isolates West Oakland from downtown; 880 (former Cyprus Freeway) slices the neighborhood in half; BART lops off an additional portion near the port. (I can't emphasize how badly this messed up the neighborhood.) 3) The Black Panthers started a few blocks from here, on Peralta Street, as a way for the residents to defend themselves from police abuse and empower the community; they are all but destroyed by the Feds' COINTELPRO. 4) Not specific to the neighborhood, still The War on Drugs is worth mentioning. Need I say more about that? These things that happened a generation or two ago, they still resonate down through to the present in this community. I see it outside my window: my black and brown neighbors scrape to get by. This UBI program isn't supposed to fix it all, it's just a small step in the direction of balance.
- stickyricky 6y ago
  > It distresses me that many of the comments here lament this UBI program because it targets POC It shouldn't distress you. I am one person (of unknown quality) but I have found the comments to be perfectly fine. Aside from the pedantic arguments (universal versus guaranteed) which offer no viewpoint of the policy, every commenter wants to improve the lives of their poor, black and brown neighbors. They just also want to improve the lives of their poor, white neighbors as well. Is it so bad a thing to want to extend a good thing (which you support) to include more people? Isn't that the definition of inclusivity? Should it matter if a statistical measure (the racial wealth gap) changes more slowly so long as more people get the chance to live a dignified life? Edit: I want to clarify I'm not asking these questions rhetorically. I genuinely want to understand your perspective.
ev1 6y ago
I can't tell from the article, what is their definition? Are dark Indians or Bangladeshis covered? Is it quite literally based on skin colour?
TheMagicHorsey 6y ago
I feel like the Bay Area consistently has the resources and brainpower to do the right thing, yet it always does the exact wrong thing with the best intentions. A fundamental issue with UBI is getting broad support for it. The U part of UBI is universal for a reason. By making the income universal you get broader support. All human beings want the guarantee of some baseline support to fall back on in bad times ... even the wealthiest people can imagine losing everything. That's why they would support UBI. But if you make the U stand for "Us Only" as in some small chosen group ... then there will not be broad support. It will literally be seen as taking from Sean to pay Shanice. It won't be sign as a baseline right for everyone. Oakland has basically set back UBI by doing this nonsense. First of all, I'd like everyone to stop calling Oakland's program UBI. Its not UBI. Its just a bribe to shore up this particular politicians base in a city that is majority Black voters. I'm so glad I've moved away from the Bay.

20 points by garraeth 6y ago

PeekPoke 6y ago

Wow. Institutionalised racism makes a return to the USA.

malcolmgreaves 6y ago
A return? It's been present in America since the very first pilgrims arrived with enslaved Africans.
- kop316 6y ago
  ??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mayflower_passengers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mayflower_passengers https://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/208249/ocn137336369-Mayflower-passengers.pdf https://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/20824... There were no Africans at all on the Mayflower. EDIT: The Massachusetts Body of Liberties seems to be the first body of legal code in Massachusetts https://www.mass.gov/service-details/massachusetts-body-of-liberties https://www.mass.gov/service-details/massachusetts-body-of-l... And it's stance on slavery: "There shall never be any bond slaverie, villinage or Captivitie amongst us unles it be lawfull Captives taken in just warres, and such strangers as willingly selle themselves or are sold to us. And these shall have all the liberties and Christian usages which the law of god established in Israel concerning such persons doeth morally require. This exempts none from servitude who shall be Judged thereto by Authoritie." The Constituion of Massachusetts (1780) also banned slavery. This is inconsistent with your characterization of the Puritans.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    >and such strangers as willingly selle themselves or are sold to us. ?

djohnston 6y ago

I'm worried that this will just breed deeper resentment among a socially fractured lower class that would be stronger were it more unified. I'm white though, I know what my thoughts on these issues are worth.

captainredbeard 6y ago
Your views are not weighted by your race, that's silly. Your thoughts are 100% valid and worthy.
- honkdaddy 6y ago
  Here on HN I believe this to be true. But the frighteningly common viewpoint today among progressives today is that white people are not allowed to have a voice when discussing topics of race. This isn't a fringe opinion, there's been bestselling books[1] on the topic. https://www.amazon.ca/Longer-Talking-White-People-About-ebook/dp/B06WWPX2YF https://www.amazon.ca/Longer-Talking-White-People-About-eboo...
  - captainredbeard 6y ago
    Oh, I'm well aware of the popular trend to discredit ideas based on the race of the originator (a disgusting proposition). We must push back.
skyde 6y ago
I 100% agree policy like this are likely to make the poor white people see the poor black people as privileged by the system. While the poor people of color will still feel that they are not privileged because 76% of millionaires are white.
jfengel 6y ago
It's not because you're white. It's because you're not poor, and you're not in Oakland. You have absolutely no facts about the situation, but you're here anyway, "just worried" about hypothetical people you don't know and haven't even gathered statistics on. You've got no idea why they're offering this to poor blacks in Oakland, and you're just gonna take a guess. And you're promptly validated in that by other non-poor non-Oaklanders who tell you -- and I'm quoting here -- that your lack of experience is "100%" equivalent to those who do have experience. That's the problem here: not your whiteness, but the outrage you feel at being excluded from a decision in which you've got no information and no stake. That stems from all of the things at once: your whiteness, your maleness (go ahead, tell me I'm wrong about that), and all the other dimensions along which people get excluded from things and simply never happen to you. And instead of saying, "Tell me more", you tell everybody that your opinion is devalued solely because of the color of your skin, so that all of the other people in this room full of middle-class white men will tell you that it's wrong to exclude you. I know you've long since stopped listening to me, but I'm nonetheless going to make a suggestion: the next time you're "just worried" about something, consider whether you've done anything to assuage that worry. Without that, it looks like you're just trying to inform the Oakland City Council of something that it already knows -- because it's literally the only thing you know about it.

throwaway210402 6y ago

The probability of this post being [flagged] is asymptotically approaching 1. As stated elsewhere, this is by definition institutional racism.

Miner49er 6y ago
It's not though. What definition are you using?
- throwaway210402 6y ago
  >It's not though. It is though. Wikipedia: "Institutional racism, also known as systemic racism, is a form of racism that is embedded as normal practice within society or an organization. It can lead to such issues as discrimination in criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power, and education, among other issues." The Oakland municipal government (organization) is discriminating by race for benefits that will impact housing, access to healthier food, etc. It is 100% by definition institutional racism.
  - Miner49er 6y ago
    This is an attempt at undoing institutional racism. The average black family is 10x poorer then the average white family. I'm sure you would agree that is also systemic racism. The quickest/most simple way to fix that systemic racism is to directly give wealth to black families like this.
    - throwaway210402 6y ago
      >This is an attempt at undoing institutional racism. "We're achieving peace by expanding our global war." You're using scary 1984 logic here. >The average black family is 10x poorer then the average white family. Not sure what the actual numbers are but they don't matter. We'll assume it's true. >I'm sure you would agree that is also systemic racism Not necessarily. The existence of inequity does not mean the system is inherently unequal. This is the fatal flaw in your logic. >The quickest/most simple way to fix that systemic racism is to directly give wealth to black families like this. This is illogic based on a falsehood. Race should NEVER be a factor here, it should only be poverty level or class. The simplest way to get rid of systemic racism is... to get rid of systemic racism (enact legislation to remove Jim Crow as an example) which we have. Introducing systemic racism by definition does not fix the problem it only makes it worse. If we want to combat poverty (inequity), then the UBI should go to the poorest among us. If the bottom 10% of society ends up being 80% Black, that's okay.

ralusek 6y ago

Stupid people seem incapable of understanding how color-blind solutions are able to still address racial disparities. If you were to, say, implement a program to help poor people, rather than "people of color," then to the extent that "people of color" are overrepresented among the poor, then so, too, would the solution disproportionately assist "people of color." The benefits would be: 1.) we don't enter an infinite teeter totter of people arguing on behalf of the victimization of their identity groups 2.) we actually arrive at an equilibrium more rapidly 3.) we don't institutionalize the concept of race, and reinforce the idea that the color of your skin is a concept worthy of being categorized by 4.) we stop treating race as a proxy stand in for privilege, or competence (which is exactly what racists do), and instead target the direct thing that race was proxying 5.) by targeting the actual thing we're trying to remediate, we help all people affected by it, rather than limiting ourselves to the identity groups with the best PR. we also don't unnecessarily target people who belong to those identity groups and aren't actually in need of assistance, but are perceived to be simply by association through the color of their skin Just to reiterate: assume 1/6 people in a city were "people of color." Assume that 4/6 people who were poor in the city were "people of color." If you add a policy to help the poor, without considering race at all, 4/6 of the people that you help are going to be "people of color," despite them only being 1/6 of the population. It automatically targets the people who are affected disproportionately...

thelock85 6y ago
I understand your points and think they are fair in general. But leading with “stupid” makes you sound uninformed, and your theories are misaligned with longstanding sociopolitical climate in Oakland (not saying they don’t still apply). In fact, all participants must have a child minor, and be at or below 50% of median Bay Area income poverty line. 50% of participants must be 138% below federal poverty line. So the fact, not assumption, is 6/6 poor people of color are being targeted. And yes, that is unfair to poor white people in Oakland, and it’s unfortunate that the sociopolitical climate in Oakland allows for it. But color-blind policies still yield such inequities. Case in point, affluent SF and Marin county residents flocking to vaccination pop-ups in poor neighborhoods where there are no eligibility screens. We should keep debating these things (it’s healthy for addressing the problems) but I don’t think any idealistic approach will ever be politically or logistically successful. Update: another factor is that this is philanthropically supported, and my assumption is that they either required or signed off on race-based programming. So if you are the mayor, are you saying no to free money for your constituents?

fr2null 6y ago

I can understand that they hope to reduce the income gap between different races, but I don't understand why that means the selection criteria should include race. I would think that it makes more sense to select based on 'wealth' (income, capital, etc.) instead. Since people of colour are disproportionately represented in the poorer population, this would help to reduce the income gap between races (since more people of colour are accepted into the program), without excluding the few white families that could also really benefit from this.

skyde 6y ago
Exactly this is best example of reverse racism.
- nailer 6y ago
  Just call it racism. It’s simpler.

iudqnolq 6y ago

Please don't do this to our language > Guaranteed income is often used interchangeably with Universal Basic Income (UBI) — the difference between the two is that *guaranteed income has qualifications* or requirements to participate.

filoeleven 6y ago
It should be noted that the parent quote comes from this very article, whose headline uses “Universal Basic Income” instead of “Guaranteed Income.” It’s an explicitly inflammatory and inaccurate title. (I’m not weighing in on the content here.)
- iudqnolq 6y ago
  I wasn't expressing an opinion on the validity of UBI for specific groups. I think that's less crazy than some might think, after all most proponents of UBI suggest at least initially limiting it to a city/state/country. I can even understand wanting to call the Oakland progr UBI, as it is similar and that's a known term. I find inventing a new term "Guaranteed Income" when it plainly isn't to be absurd. (By the way, I didn't know it was necessary to note quotes came from TFA if not attributed)
  - filoeleven 6y ago
    I didn’t mean to imply that you were opining on the program itself, only that my reply was limited to noting the contradiction between the article title and the distinction it makes in the body. They are basically saying “our title is a misnomer.” “Guaranteed minimum income” is an existing term, and a more accurate one for what this currently is. UBI means “available to all citizens,” and while there’s some leniency for pilot programs, which this appears to be, it is unclear from the article if the goal is to transition to a true UBI. I generally assume the same thing about quotes, I only thought it was worth mentioning due to the title discrepancy, so I was surprised to see it in the article itself, and since this is a hot-button issue I think fewer people will read the full article before commenting.

throwawaysea 6y ago

This is explicitly racist. It discriminates based on race, which is the only acceptable definition of “racist”. The city of Oakland should not be involved in this program at all and I hope someone takes them to court over it.

cbm-vic-20 6y ago

"Universal" means just that. This isn't universal, nobody should be calling this UBI.

nailer 6y ago

Wouldn’t this be considered illegal? Governments shouldn’t distinguish between citizens based on race.

triceratops 6y ago

This sounds bad, I agree. But let's take a look at the program's website, a primary source, instead of relying on reporting alone. [1] Tl;dr It's funded by private donations, run by local organizations, and is a pilot to conduct research. It's not taxpayer money being handed out preferentially, and it's not UBI. "Oakland Resilient Families is 100% funded by philanthropic donations. To date we have raised $6.75 million, at least 80% of which will be distributed directly to families over the next 18 months." "Is this the same thing as a Universal Basic Income (UBI)? No. UBI is meant to go to everyone and provide enough of a payment to cover all basic needs, whereas a guaranteed income is meant to provide an income floor but not meant to be a replacement for wages and can also be targeted to those who most need it. UBI would provide everyone - regardless of income - with equal cash support (often instead of existing social benefits). Oakland Resilient Families is intended for low-income BIPOC families and therefore is by definition not “universal.” Additionally, a central research focus for this project is to determine how a guaranteed income can enhance and expand the existing social safety net rather than replace it." "The 600 randomly selected families will fall into two groups. Both groups will receive the same amount of money, participate in optional research surveys and interviews, and measure a similar set of outcomes related to economic and household wellbeing. The primary differences between the two groups lie in how they are structured in terms of location, income level, and research design." The headline is carefully crafted to generate maximum outrage. I don't agree about aid being based on anything other than need. But at the same time, it's not for me to say how other people spend their money. [1] https://oaklandresilientfamilies.org/about https://oaklandresilientfamilies.org/about

dehrmann 6y ago

Sidestepping the obviously controversial bit, a big problem with doing this is that UBI is relatively new and not well-understood, so so a program that targets a specific group is bad for both itself and the concept of UBI because it only collects very specific data that are easily dismissed because of selection bias.

mayormcmatt 6y ago

It distresses me that many of the comments here lament this UBI program because it targets POC and I think, perhaps, they are looking at this situation as if it were somewhere else in the country/world, or they don't live/haven't lived in a minority community. As a current and longtime resident of West Oakland, who grew up in the city next door, I find nothing wrong with targeting this towards POC in the city, because, as the mayor framed it, this is about promoting equity in the city: a city that has, historically, seen many awful things done to their minority communities (by all levels of government and private enterprise). What kinds of things am.I referring to? Here's a cursory list: 1) White flight take jobs and money out of the area, into towns and cities over the hills, and also into more affluent parts of the city 2) "Redevelopment" carves up the neighborhood: hwy 980 isolates West Oakland from downtown; 880 (former Cyprus Freeway) slices the neighborhood in half; BART lops off an additional portion near the port. (I can't emphasize how badly this messed up the neighborhood.) 3) The Black Panthers started a few blocks from here, on Peralta Street, as a way for the residents to defend themselves from police abuse and empower the community; they are all but destroyed by the Feds' COINTELPRO. 4) Not specific to the neighborhood, still The War on Drugs is worth mentioning. Need I say more about that? These things that happened a generation or two ago, they still resonate down through to the present in this community. I see it outside my window: my black and brown neighbors scrape to get by. This UBI program isn't supposed to fix it all, it's just a small step in the direction of balance.

stickyricky 6y ago
> It distresses me that many of the comments here lament this UBI program because it targets POC It shouldn't distress you. I am one person (of unknown quality) but I have found the comments to be perfectly fine. Aside from the pedantic arguments (universal versus guaranteed) which offer no viewpoint of the policy, every commenter wants to improve the lives of their poor, black and brown neighbors. They just also want to improve the lives of their poor, white neighbors as well. Is it so bad a thing to want to extend a good thing (which you support) to include more people? Isn't that the definition of inclusivity? Should it matter if a statistical measure (the racial wealth gap) changes more slowly so long as more people get the chance to live a dignified life? Edit: I want to clarify I'm not asking these questions rhetorically. I genuinely want to understand your perspective.

ev1 6y ago

I can't tell from the article, what is their definition? Are dark Indians or Bangladeshis covered? Is it quite literally based on skin colour?

TheMagicHorsey 6y ago

I feel like the Bay Area consistently has the resources and brainpower to do the right thing, yet it always does the exact wrong thing with the best intentions. A fundamental issue with UBI is getting broad support for it. The U part of UBI is universal for a reason. By making the income universal you get broader support. All human beings want the guarantee of some baseline support to fall back on in bad times ... even the wealthiest people can imagine losing everything. That's why they would support UBI. But if you make the U stand for "Us Only" as in some small chosen group ... then there will not be broad support. It will literally be seen as taking from Sean to pay Shanice. It won't be sign as a baseline right for everyone. Oakland has basically set back UBI by doing this nonsense. First of all, I'd like everyone to stop calling Oakland's program UBI. Its not UBI. Its just a bribe to shore up this particular politicians base in a city that is majority Black voters. I'm so glad I've moved away from the Bay.