With regard to the US cities facing serious financial difficulties, it is worth highlighting the one with the highest murder rate in the country, a gloomy climate, endemic corruption and financial mismanagement. It is also the city which knew the greatest daily exodus from the population in the United States (followed by New York and Los Angeles), losing 156 residents a day (strictly because of migration, no murder in case of confusion) per day in 2017. Of course we are talking about Chicago.
Chicago is also the city with the darkest future in retirement, as every Chicago resident would like. have to pony up to $ 140,000 to make the pension system of the city solvent.
As if that were not enough, Chicago resorts to ponzi schemes to finance itself, proposing the issuance of a $ 10 billion debt to "finance" the $ 28 billion deficit of the pension fund intended to police, firefighters and other municipal employees.
So, in this fortress of fiscal rectitude, what is Chicago's next plan? Why literally distribute money.
According to ABC 7 Chicago, some families in Chicago could start collecting a check for $ 1,000 each month, without any conditions, according to a new proposal from a working group created by Mayor Emanuel.
The purpose of the pilot program proposed by theWorking Group on Resilient Families in Chicago", which is the latest incarnation of the utopia" basic income "/ silver helicopter that has seized the American left, despite glaring examples on the world stage that basic income does not contribute anything simply not to improve the standard of living in general, is noble – break the cycle of poverty by giving 1,000 dollars a month to 1,000 inhabitants of Chicago in trouble, according to supporters of the program, thanks to the extra money they have to cover unexpected emergencies, increase their savings and improve their health.
According to the 50-page proposal, "guaranteed income can have powerful effects: significant reduction in poverty, ability to cope with an unexpected emergency, improved school attendance, increased savings and improved health and well-being. to be Chicagoan may be late. "
To justify this plan, the pilot program included a scatterplot illustrating the historical basic income programs in the world and their comparison with the Chicago proposal, which included, among others, those of Iran and Japan. Finland.
Which brings us to the key question: where will the money come from? In summary, the proposal states that the funds come from a mix of municipal funds and philanthropic organizations, although even in the pilot program there is a "crucial step":
Financial considerations are one of the most crucial aspects of conducting a pilot project. It is clear that the funding must be secure and prevented from being diverted elsewhere before the pilot project begins. The subjects must be informed well in advance of the minimum period of payment. Funding for policy pilot projects usually comes from two main sources: philanthropic organizations or a government budget. Other sources may include an "in-house" grant or funding (whereby the research organization can fund the pilot project itself). Policy pilot projects and other similar experimental projects tend to be funded by philanthropic sources, grants and internal sources. Of course, policy pilot projects tend to use multiple sources of funding to meet budgetary needs.
And the hitting line: "Determining who will take over the pilot project and running the fundraising is a crucial next step." This is a problem because, as we discussed a few hours ago, a recent basic income program in Finland ended up being an economic failure because no new jobs were created, even though, as one might expect, a hedonic success bursting, the participants being much happier, as one could expect by getting free money.
Unfortunately, with regard to the socio-economic consequences, it appears that the basic income, whether it is cashed in a MMT, in Helicopter Money or simply in a charitable envelope, is a failure:
"Beneficiaries of a basic income were neither better nor worse than the control group to find a job in the job market," said Ohto Kanninen, research coordinator at the University of Toronto. Institute of Labor for Economic Research, in a statement.
Give people money for nothing to do, without conditions, and they will be happier to sit all day in a non-productive utopia.
And good news for Chicago, which quickly evoked the case of the trial of basic income in Finland: the Finnish Minister of Social Affairs, Pirkko Mattila, acknowledged Friday that the government had no intention of deploy this project throughout the country. .
As a reminder, in 2017, Swiss voters rejected a universal income project in a referendum after critics had criticized the idea of rewarding lazy and reckless (and Finland has just abandoned its basic universal income experience). However, in Chicago, a city so much in ruins that she must issue New debt just to pay interest on his existing debt, and where it is difficult to see how an economic initiative could worsen the situation, it could work well. After all, Chicago really has nothing to lose.