Basic (aka Guaranteed) Income projects don't automatically lead to spending on booze or drugs, but what is the end game? FAMLI slouching toward readiness. Finally, coppicing and pollarding.
I'm reasonably convinced that basic income projects don't necessarily just turn money into drugs or alcohol, but that doesn't mean that I have no concerns.
Denver (with private funding) started a basic or guaranteed income project recently and I heard on the radio recently that Boulder is following suit. See the first link below.
Boulder's particular project will be funded initially by $3 million of leftover COVID largesse and, quoting Boulder's page, "... will provide 200 low-income Boulder households with $500 per month for two years. This assistance is unconditional and unrestricted; that means it can be used how participants choose, and they won’t have to do anything in return."
I have heard radio interviews with the founder of Denver's earlier guaranteed income project, as well as having read up on it (see the second link for an example).
I'm reasonably convinced that such efforts do not automatically shunt basic income to things like alcohol/drugs or even other foolish purchases like a stereo when you lack a house in which to put it.
Quoting from the second link below, "The approach has found success in other cities. Donovan [Mark Donovan, founder of the Denver Basic Income Project] points to the New Leaf Project in Vancouver, B.C. In 2018,the Vancouver project gave $7,500 to 50 individuals, and found that homelessness among participants dropped from 79% to 49% in the first month. Additionally, participants were 39% less likely to spend the money on 'temptation goods' such as alcohol."
But this still doesn't mean that I'm in support of efforts like these.
The reason I say that is pretty simple (and related to the picture I put at the start of this post--the crutches). When you give someone income with no strings attached, that is completely non-contingent, what are you teaching them? Anything? I think you're giving a fish instead of teaching someone how.
The other reason is a seeming lack of end game here. What happens when the Federal money runs out? Surely some folks (those motivated to do so) will have put their time with basic income to good use, but what about those that didn't?
With leg muscles atrophied by a couple years on crutches, will they be able to stand on their own? Have we really done anything to improve their situation?
The KUNC story (second link below), ends with the following so I will too:
"Donovan said the project is not just about money, but about hope. 'We believe that the hope that is created by saying to somebody, "We believe in you and we trust you and we're not going to tell you what you need in your life" … can possibly be as transformational as the cash,' he said. 'The way we treat the individuals in our community that are unhoused makes a difference.'”
I don't disagree. I have had direct personal experience with students where my expectations of them inform their expectations of themselves and their behavior. I'm also a big believer in a human's capacity to overcome, adapt, rebuild, and change.
Beyond some initial trust, however, continued outlay of resources on someone needs to be contingent on their effort; I'm more than happy to nudge a student toward success, but if he or she doesn't take up the rope themselves and start to pull, continuing to nudge doesn't make sense.
This is because I'm interesting in helping people stand on their own two feet, not become dependent.
https://bouldercolorado.gov/projects/guaranteed-income-pilot-project
https://www.kunc.org/regional-news/2022-09-26/denver-tests-direct-cash-assistance-for-people-experiencing-homelessness
Some "good news" to start the weekend with.
The Colorado Family and Medical Leave Insurance program (FAMLI) is gearing up to start having people be able to take leave in 2024. If you're worried about how much it will cost, don't be: they've already been taking money from your check for about a year now (unless your company is among those that have decided to go in on a qualifying private leave insurance thing).
I do have something else for you to think over when you're up in the night, however.
The stage we're at now is the rulemaking and the article linked below has some concerning bits.
Quoting the article,
"Those companies participating in the state insurance pool, for example, will not get to approve or deny requests by workers for leave, as that responsibility will lie with the newly created FAMLI division."
"But he [David Gartenberg, a shareholder and employment-law expert at Littler Mendelson] and clients are more concerned, he said, that such rules have yet to be finalized only two months before workers can begin taking leave. Some employees, particularly those expecting to give birth in the coming months, need to begin planning leave at the start of 2024, and the portal through which they will request leave isn’t expected to open until late November. 'Leaving aside the substance of the rules and what people think overall about the program, we’re sort of at the point where we need answers one way or the other,' Gartenberg said."
"The latest proposal requires private-plan operators to submit reports on their operations annually rather than quarterly with information such as applications received and benefits paid, reducing an administrative burden for companies. But the newest proposed rules also require more detailed information in those reports, including the race, ethnicity and preferred languages of individuals for whom leave both was approved and denied — information that one insurance executive said that third-party plan administrators won’t have."
and lastly, this is not a quote because a direct quote requires too much context to be added (see the article if you want), advocates are asking that the government be allowed to, in the case of employers on private plans, see employers' records even before a complaint has been made.
So let's review:
--We are going to leave the approval of leave to the government. The same government that can't finalize it's rules or get its websites running when we're two months from launch. I've said it before and I'll say it again: a trip to the DMV ought to be evidence enough to convince anyone that the government can make anything cumbersome, inefficient, and hard to do.
--We're also going to require companies to keep demographic information on who is taking leave and whether it's approved or denied. That way we can have more record keeping expense and burden while at the same time virtually guarantee that the usual machinery of calling every disparity racism can begin spinning up.
--Oh, and while we do all this, let's open wide the doors for more government monitoring and intrusion.
See what I mean about things to think over when you can't sleep?
https://tsscolorado.com/questions-surround-proposed-famli-rules-as-program-preps-for-january-launch/
Coppice and Pollard Trees ...
Last post til Sunday and so you know what that means. Time for something for fun, a curiosity.
Have you ever heard of a coppice tree? A pollard tree?
I hadn't until the video linked below came up in my suggested videos. The short answer is that they are both different ways of shaping trees.
Coppice trees are ones where you cut the trunk of the tree down pretty close to the crown to encourage a ton of vertical shoots. The gentleman in the video does this with the willows on his land to get more firewood apparently.
A pollard tree is similar, though the cutting happens higher up so that the vertical shoots are above the height of deer. That is, you get lots of shoots but they'll happen higher up so the succulent new growth is out of reach of the animals that would love to come and enjoy them.
See screenshots 1 and 2 for drawings taken from the internet.
As someone who enjoys learning about plants and pruning them to drive different behavior (I have a few shrubs I'm pruning to trees, I have a couple espalier pears, and I've written about using pruning and bending to boost my blackberry yield), I find this interesting in its own right. That is the cutting to drive shoots I find an interesting bit of plant lore.
That said, I have to admit I'm a little stuck (and couldn't find an answer--if you know please share) as to why a coppice tree would provide more firewood. I mean, wouldn't a regular tree give just as much weight of wood? Maybe the chunks would be thicker, but still ...
At any rate, I thought it was an interesting thing to watch and think over. If deer or other critters weren't a concern, I suppose an argument could be made for doing either for aesthetic reasons.
Back at it Sunday! Have a good Friday and Saturday!