Dara, Sarah, and Matt talk about a new "baby bonds" proposal and new research that explores perceptions of illegal immigrants. References and further reading: Sarah’s piece on Sen. Cory Booker’s (D-NJ) plan for baby bonds A report on the racial wealth gap An article on unclaimed cash from baby bonds in the United Kingdom Ira Katznelson on racial inequality in “When Affirmative Action Was White” A white paper on the social construction of illegality
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Yeah. This is Marquez Brownie Acre and Cuba HD, and this is Andrew Manga Nellie. We will introduce you to our podcast way, form the new sedition to the Vocs media podcast network, so I've spent over ten years reviewing tech products and consumer electronics for millions of people,
on the empty Beastie Youtube Channel and now on the way form podcast Andrew and I use that experience to dig even deeper into latest tech for smartphones too. I max to electric cars. So if you're gadget lover or attack head or if you just want to figure out whether the latest gadget is worth your harder in cash, give us a lesson say can find way form the empty beefy pie cast on your favorite Pakistan every Friday see over there. Let's Ike's hawk about what this policy is of acting
break- and then I want to complain about politics, it hello welcome to another episode of the weeds on the box media. I test network I met your place, is here today, but Sarah Cliff and dare land were really excited, have their presence here on Tuesday back on Tuesdays, as it is a white paper that she's been dying to tie
about its white paper deprived over on Friday and
You know. I've found a sociology article about immigrants about an experimental like designed to test immigrant stereotypes. So it's great it's it's fantastic, but first we want a bad sorry. You had a great piece about a big, so the new idea that Senator Corey Booker is putting forward
By that I mean it's interesting on its own terms, but also I mean, I think, is pretty obvious. This dislike Corey Booker is weighing in on the ideas primary. He would like to run for president and he's trying to me
his mark here? So I think we should talk about what the bill says and then also like what does it say about Corey
so, I think we're deftly India, like I d, is primary part of the EU twenty twenty resident or election like starting with Bernie Sanders Medicare for all. We have calmly Harris with her cash assistance plan the camera
last week and then carry Booker is kind of getting into the space
I'm a program that he's kind offer.
the accounts are baby bonds and he is kind of framing
as know something to deal with the racial wealth gap in the United States. So just a drawback forget to the poor,
see the thing he wants us to be talking about. The thing he's thinking about is the fact that way:
families have a lot more wealth than minority families that are either. One reason
daddy found that the median white family has ten.
More equity, a hundred and seventy thousand dollars. Then
median black family, which has seventeen thousand dollars, it's really stark difference. It's been growing and
you make it really hard to get ahead
Do you know it means that white children and higher and Control Turner, starting off with
what more advantages than you know. Children, you don't have that equity. To do things like go to college by a house
gather a down payment, it's kind of going beyond the idea of an earnings gap to owe a wealth gap that kind of builds over generations and generations.
And if you want to learn more about this, there is actually an excellent episode of our Netflix show explore
and that are absent. Host Ezra worked on that interviewed Korea Bucker about this particular issue and where he talked about what's going on and what drives the wealth gap
and a lot of the wealth gap has been driven by federal policies. Things like not writing mortgages, two black families in certain neighborhoods. So you know
through this policy, that coy Booker is putting out there where what he wants to
you is gave every child born in America, something he calls an opportunity account and when they are born,
thousand dollars on it. That would be every baby, regardless of income and then every
of their life up until eighteen, they could get as much as
two thousand dollars deposited in that account either at someone a baby who's that
in a family below the poverty line would be getting two thousand dollars kid born.
to a family that earns more than five hundred percent of the poverty line, which is, I think, around like a hundred and forty two
Fifty thousand dollars for a family of four would not get
anything they have that original thousand dollars and
Essentially, the idea is that every kid by time they get to eighteen would have
have some kind of NASDAQ that they could invest. You know a higher income. Kid would have that now stag from their pay,
a lower income. Kid would have that
from their opportunity. A counter. It often gets called a baby bond as well so
kid who lives their entire life below the poverty line Booker's office estimates that they'd have about four?
seven thousand dollars in their account when they turn a tea
in and that sooner assuming, I think, a three percent growth rates.
You know it's being managed by Treasury and some have low risk find and one of the thing
They think is notable that the politics here is quite Booker's,
really explicit about either the racial dimension to this policy that he has been really.
I said this is a benefit that is going to accrue to African him
Kids till eighteen, o kids. You note in his office at me, charts that show, even though white
there are the majority in this programme at actually latino and african american kids, who are reaping most the benefits of this programme.
and up with larger savings accounts, because they're coming from families with
with a lower earning, so so wait. What can you do with this account? So young eighteen here God, whether it's me
dad or Uncle SAM are whoever I've got. My forty fifty
and what murmured add some tomorrow dad? But if it's your opportunity had count zoo,
you can spend it. I'm college tuition, you could put it towards a down payment on your house. You would say
until you are sixty five and spend it on retirement monetarism. Some tax benefits, yes,
if I use of his retirement account yeah yeah. So one of the things you they haven't fully figured out and they will say you know what. Even if this past today, we have eighteen years two figures.
How are things like? Could you spend it,
A car like, on the one hand you don't want any, it seems like it could be a bit of a frivolous purchase. On the other hand, a car can be really important to getting to a job.
We're getting to your college, so they envision some kind of
a commission that would help sort out like what is there? Isn't a qualified expands
just like we have like dependent care office.
is our healthcare emphasise that you'd have to have someone come up at the west, but the idea is everything that there's account can be spent on is something that would go towards asset,
building, I think also one of the really notable features is that their number
thinking of a way for people to pull this out before you turn. Eighteen with a foreign k you can pull
out of it. You get a huge tax it but, like, let's say, you're having some kind of emergency and that,
really not a purpose of this account, and it seems like a pretty interesting important choice to me that in this
only be used by the child. Even if you know your,
trouble making ran during travel, ban, groceries like this account is off limits until the trial.
Turns eighteen, and even then it's pretty strictly limited to assert and like you,
Can't you might glitter. Sixty m you.
Your mom and your two siblings are homeless and you have forty three thousand dollars in your account.
In two years, you could use to get a down payment for a house, except you knock and able to qualify for a mortgage, but you can't use the money for ran
while you're out on the street, and this is risky I've. I mean this.
something I talk to Senator Bucker about and his you no response to me was you know why support programmes
that family. You know, I would say at the end of the day, he's talking about raising
avenue for this
no through some changes to the tax code. There primarily had higher earners
and, at the end of the day, that you have to make a practical decision like where does that more revenue, your raising go? Does it you don't go towards programmes are gonna help with that situation, that you're outlining
go into these opportunity accounts and I think it is a notable
decision and one with tradeoffs to say you know this is off limits even to people who might be able to eat a really benefit from you
sing at either before its of S dead. This
Why? I think that, even though, usually it's hard to distinguish policy from politics, its especially hard to disentangle the to here, because this is pretty pure redistributive politics, like the ideas that Booker and his team have to pay for this. Are things like the capital gains tax
the estate tax, things that are
known, tax benefits that accrue mostly to wealthy families, getting rid of those.
To accrue more wealth for lower income families. That means that the question of who is this
war and who is it on the backs of which is, as you know, the
He political question is also the key policy question and so, like Booker is
really made a decision here that he's going for a pure equality of opportunity agenda. Here that he's saying you know this is not about giving your parents more money to support you and to make sure that you have the conditions for a in a healthy and thriving home. It's to make sure that no
Adult starts out a mere independent life without some kind of nest at that has a serious political upside in a world where one of the most common attacks on welfare
grams is that, no matter whether you say you're trying to help children out or not, you are essentially because money is fungible, helping their parents. So if politicians disapprove of the life choices that parents make
are going to be upset about any attempt to tell children. I barely okay, so you don't
have concerns about what? If the parents used the baby bond to by drugs and that kind of thing- or you know less egregious fearmongering,
that is still kind of based in this. Well, you we shouldn't be rewarding you for your bad decisions.
but on the other hand, your right there's a lot of stuff, the kids go through before they turn a teen, and I think one of the big questions that this policy raises is how much does a progressive agenda right now even neatly is even talking about adulthood, or are we talking about levels of inequality right that are baked into that cake pretty? Well by the time you turn a team, but I should think if you, if you thinking about policy right everything my leg, the intention here is that it would be a mistake to it
eighteen year olds with just like a giant unrestricted check Wade. So the ideas of this fairly narrowly circumscribed things you can use it for any particular like the two things they seem to actually have in mind are a college education and a kind of starter home, and I think we should ask ourselves whether, if our desire is to equip
eighteen year olds with a college education, and it appears to be disjunction of a college education or a start or home aid like. Why is that destructive, right and be
Is this an effective way to pursue that, like we already have a program that gives ungenerous terms, loans to kids, if they want to go to college on the presumption is very much an asset. Building presumption right that, like going to college, will pay off for you a lot. So if the government gives you a discount loan to attend like, ultimately, that will be win, win right, like society will benefit from you
better educated, you'll be better off with the degree and the debt the government will get paid back Babar. So now we all know that, like in practice, there are a lot of problems associated
C loan programme in particular, there's a lot of kids take out loans and then dont complete school and wind up with a huge debt burden.
there's, also a lot of middle class people who do complete school and who, at the end,
they really are better off than people who never went to college, but they have these big debts hanging over them and there's a sense that, like education, should be a public good. That's provided and there's been a big movement of a democratic state.
to pre college, and I think reasonable people could disagree like,
should we spend money on making college free, or should we spend money on what you know like medicine for poor children or lower taxes or whatever? But if the goal is to get
but to go to college spending money on making their college free seems a lot better than giving them this upfront check that they can then go use intuition, which, if anything, images led schools,
raise prices, and so then, with all this complicated mechanic of like the account in the annual deposited in the three percent in,
like all you're really doing, is like padding out the ability of community colleges
charge were so. This is something I have talked with Booker's office about. This is something there cognizant of, because I asked them. You know how did you decide on the amount? And here they want the p
went to be sizeable enough that you could actually do something with it.
Then you kind of like worry about these inflationary effects where obviously like, if we're injecting
of money into very specific sectors. Nuke worry about this in the housing sector as well like people just have a bunch of money to spend like, of course
I'm community college. I am
to raise my intuition. You know to capture those dollars into its definitely either something that they are
thinking about breaking the kids at attention. A lot of these policies that we're seeing come out,
You saw play out in the twenties external action of
whether we should target these policies. Nathan Booker, wants to target them because he's trying to
narrow a gap verses like Sanders, ask anything for all college problem. How to care for our. I, like you, know, hit the entire popular
and I think it's an interesting divide that we're
They show up and progressive politics. I think it's driven by a kind of veto.
It is your, what does your motivated? I don't mean targeting versus not targeting it's like providing verses, subsidize right, like we could hire people to build houses like little houses, and then we could give those houses away for free to qualifying. Eighteen,
odds or put them on some kind of payment plane. Ride like we could do a Social House Building programme, and I dont know that that would be a good idea
but there's a real sense in which, like the government, would be more effective at like building lots of cheap houses and giving them to eighteen year olds, then
would be at giving eighteen year olds lump sums that they could use as a down payment. But then, who is gonna
look who's, gonna alone loan, this eighteen year old, from below the poverty line who,
say he has a low in job and that we, as this check from the government for the down payment, like how you gonna get the mortgage neglect Booker has this narrative which, as you know well,
from the academic, literature about red lining and any sort of the Post WAR loan subsidies and how those excluded african, american families
but this agenda doesnt addressed that in any way rightly,
a point of their narrative. Is that it's not that middle class black families didn't have the money for a down payment? Is it the federal government made a programme that would eliminate the need for a down payment for
turning soldiers, but then you weren't allowed to use that programme in black neighbourhoods and black families weren't allowed by houses in white neighborhood. So like that.
That was a terrible problem of racial discrimination and now, I think, to a large extent
red lining has been alleviated, though not eliminated, and now we have a programme that doesn't address it
like there's a real disconnect me here and like like. Why does this programme do? What is supposed to do? I think that the answer
That question also raises another kind of can of worms, because it seems to me that the
you meant for we,
agnostic between college starter, home and retirement, but we want you to do one of those things is the idea that there is something important about intergenerational wealth transfer, that that, in particular, is something that is accessible to white families, not accessible to them,
of color and should be and so yeah. It makes a certain amount of sense that lake its kind,
ok, if you decide to just save that money for retirement rather than going to college, or if you do something that is going to like more likely to boost your wealth but
as you were getting into with the red line and the difference between wealth in income. It's not
super clear that boosting wealth at the beginning of summit
life is necessarily going to keep them from getting into the kind of,
that is going to ruin their wealth profile in over. There
if their lives like that one of the ways we expressly
the generational wealth gap is that college educated.
For Americans have lower net wealth than white Americans who, like didn't complete Highschool like that's, not good. That
also may very well have something to do with the fact that middle class debt is a thing, and I
to think that the housing and discrimination angle of the wealth gap
It was often misinterpreted by liberals right, so one problem that black families have accumulated wealth to day right is it
America's does. A lot of subsidies for middle class homebuyers by the home asset does not perform as well. If you are an african american homebuyers as if you are a white homebuyers, because there is discrimination in the real estate market, so you as a black homebuyers moving into the neighbourhood, exerts a negative impact on the price of your neighbors homes, which increases the odds that the next people who move into the neighbourhood will themselves be african American and you have a downward spiral
of white flight and block bursting, and so your asset under performs. So that's bad and we can, as a society, address like racism
if we want to do something with just money right. Making the homeownership subsidies more widely available doesn't addressed the fact that white homebuyers investment will outperform back homebuyers. But if you look at every other financial class right leg, it does not have that dynamic right if a black person by some shares of Microsoft Stock, there's no like white
light from Microsoft. An end, so would you want to address, it seems to me, is the incredibly unequal ownership of financial assets rather than through, like endlessly circling the drain around the like interlocking housing discrimination, sort of bread lining cluster like you're, not gonna, pull out by doing this, not to mention the fact that after the housing bubble collapse, there was a certain amount of reconsideration of. Was it perhaps a problem
that culturally and in policy, we inscribed the idea that the house is the primary found rather well framing inlaid policy right, I think you're taking this thing ready has historically not worked for black families too.
lie on housing as like these soul, pillar of middle class, wealth building and now
like every solution, is to select push that lever harder beyond the kind of outperforming thing. It also creates the opportune
eighty four predatory lenders to come out and say we know that the thing you
most in this world is a home to call your own. We already seeing the kind of rebirth of a lot of the low entry cost Morgan.
Practices that are alarming alot of people during the housing crisis. It's pretty clear that we haven't really broken the fever of. If I could have a home, everything will be all right when in fact, that's often a thing that
puts people over the edge in terms of their liabilities outstripping their assets.
It's ok, let's break down, and then let's talk about this, this framing question.
If you like, basically anyone listening to this right now, I'm willing to bet that you are you're dealing with stress. Maybe there's it
of it like an overwhelming amount, or maybe it's more like a low but steady, drumbeat background stress, no matter how you are experiencing stress, it's likely effect
who'd, you energy in so many other areas of your life. You feel, like stress, is starting to take over strain your relationships and shorten your temper probably tend to unload and better help is perfect, for that better help is customized online therapy that offers video phony
live chat. Sessions with your therapists should hope to see anyone on camera. If you don't want you it's much more affordable than in person therapy and you could start communicating with a therapist none forty eight hours and distressing it's an unbiased feedback. You be pretty surprise when you can gain for it see it's for you. The weeds sponsored by better help and listeners get ten percent off the first month, better help dot com such weeds, that's, b, e t, T, R, H, E lp, dot com, slash weeds, this episode,
brought to you by Fender Football is back and the best bet you can make is downloading the fan Dual Sports Bookshop. It doesn't matter if
new to gambling or an old pro fan. Dual has something for everyone and as an official,
sports betting partner of the NFL. You know you're, better, safe, there's also, never been a better time to use. Fan do because right now
You'll get up to one thousand dollars back. If your first bet doesn't win, you can even turn
small wager into a big payday with the same game, parlay that just sign up with a promo code
Spotify to place. Your first bet risk free on fan, dual sports book download Vanderpool. Today, twenty
when plus and present in Pennsylvania, first online real money wager only refund
She does not withdrawal site credit that expires in fourteen days. Restrictions apply, see terms at sports booked outfit.
It will not come gambling problem call one eight hundred gambler.
to me, one of the most fastening things about this era is how explicitly Booker's team sort of framed. This is bout race, because it's a facial, we neutral policy. Right, I mean there are many low income white families who get money
from this programme, its closest antecedent. If we were to say like where his has been tried, as there was a similar programme under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and the
hey. Where I mean, of course, there is racial diversity in the UK, but they do not have the particular history at that
Say does, and it was not at all, framed as a racial issue in Britain and in almost feels backwards to me. It's like, I feel like the way american politics worked at least like before twenty fifteen is that, like Democrats would propose racially neutral schemes of income redistribution, and then Republicans would characterize it as like a backing
way to get Whitey and now Cory. Booker, I mean I sort of get like if you're trying to win a democratic presidential primary like Booker and Harris need to compete with each other to be the black candidate and then in both two thousand and sixteen and two thousand and eight the candidate who won the preponderance of
support one, the primary, so the sort of pitching themselves is on your city, the this is to me. They feels like we're like we're doing politics back what you are saying. So what are they interesting things? I wrote this story about this book or policy yesterday. It
on on the drugs report, which had the exact backlash that you're were talking about. My email is now like a dumpster fire of emails I received, and since then- and since many people have read the story from the Drudge report,
But like when you want to mention how beneficial this will be to like people in
Northern Maine and West Virginia not now hundred right like if you at, like you said. I think what you said. It's kind of obvious, why you do
this way, no get this shit
If you were doing this and like twenty nineteen, maybe twenty twenty but my eyes a democratic any. I married motor would like to not lose the so I believe it is possible to think about this as a good faith argument happening on policy and I dont this is wildly speculative, so maybe I'm giving everybody more credit than they deserve, but the thing that strikes me about a stand simply redistributive pollen
is, is that over the last half century, or so v p
Blooms of racial inequality have become tied up with a lot of policies that are non economic in nature rate lake
mass incarceration kind
bad for intergenerational wealth in so far as its not great for the earning potential of whole generations of african american men, the in a fact that we are now
wait where we ve gone thirty years without a substantial realisation of,
authorize. Immigrants means we have entire generations of. U S. Citizen kids, growing up in households where one or both parents or even grandparents are unauthorized.
Migrants? There are things that affect the ability of children to have a nest egg for college,
or be able to buy a start at home. That can't just be answered by
looking at how much money did their parents make an how much wealth did their parents have so
when you talk about a new distributive policy. Those problems create easy bogeyman,
it's very easy to say we don't want to give this welfare programme to anybody with a criminal record. We don't want to give this welfare programme to any illegal immigrants, etc, etc, etc. So those things end up being problems for the? U s it is,
kids without records in being born into those families. Meanwhile, you know you have a situation where a lot of black men who turn it.
Right now, probably will have some kind of contact with police before they turned
even so the
medical liabilities of. Do you really want to give money to juvenile delinquency or incentivize immigrants to have kids in the United States are a thing that
We need to come up in the national debate over this. If you have portrayed this as a solution to the racial wealth gap, you are holding yourself accountable to a set of
stakeholders who are then going to be able to come in and say, look
you're watering down this policy to risk
on two conservative demands in a way that stops it from solving the problem you want to solve. This is defeating the point you have to stick to your guns, so I think that that's kind of a good policy
then why you would framed this as a Rachel wealth gap. In this way, I I dont think that that contradicts
anything about the problems with white people thinking this is it
give away for black people. But I do think that the democratic way
has a certain amount of you, no one
written twice, try or many times but many times shy about things that there too,
going to help everyone, and then, by the time they get through the culture. Wars only help the same sliver of people who have already been helped by everything. I think I'd better like they go to your point, where it is really notable like when I think back to like how they affordable characterised frames. They just said this is health insurance for everybody and then
they, let all the think, tanks from the numbers and my cap figures out like actually disproportionately benefits african American
the tunnels are going to see their uninsured rate. Go away down to Urban Institute
like all these a liberal, think tanks are kind of like doing the next step of analysis. Thing a well. If you give this universal benefit, everybody liked, just like you, give everybody and opportunity account it turns out like this is what happens, and I think you're right that I am not used to sing like this level of explicitness around race in a policy like this,
ends awry. Make I'm curious how it plays out that I think it like. I think it makes anything the political climate around I have. Actually, though, a stronger critique of this, like, I think the debris show wealth gap. Narrative that exists in much of America is a little bit like seventy to eighty percent sort of NEO liberal claptrap that is designed to distract people from these like mean question of wealth inequality in the United States, so like it so
really shocking that the media and wide family has five times TAT ten times the wealth of of the medium black family, but like check this out,
bottom. Ninety percent of Americans collectively own twenty three percent of the wealth and this country and the top zero point. One percent collectively own twenty. Two percent of the wealth right leg-
that's crazy, you know there is a much bigger disparity than the median median disparity
and its driven, not by these differences in homeownership rates, but is driven by the wildly disproportionate ownership of stocks and bonds swayed in which ten percent of the population over eighty percent of the stuff
and it strikes me that it is true and interesting as an academic exercise that the American Middle class of the good old days that Donald Trump likes to express nostalgia for was built through racially exclusionary programmes. That is like true history and people should be aware of it and like when affirmative action was white by recast. Nelson is a really good book that this good things about this, but like to day in America, zero point. One percent of the population on this much wealth is the bottom.
Ninety percent of the population- and to discuss the problem as if like the real villains in american society, are middle class. White homeowners, I think, is like politically counterproductive because it is substantively wrong, like I think, white families who are at around the median of wealth and income in the night,
Its or America correctly see themselves as getting screwed when sort of elite type. People say that they want to help the most underprivileged people in society by putting it on the backs of people like them, rather by putting it on the backs of people. Like you know, Mark Zuckerberg like there is wild wealth disparity all across the ethnic landscape of the United States of America. It's not that, like Donald Trump brand of like racial nationalistic posturing has real solutions to this problem, but like if you wanna talk about
economics and the United States, like you, have to talk about the incredible accumulation of wealth and power on the part of a very small number of billion errors and like
observed a million times. It's like global, correct
is one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate by like data, be nominate scores, but nobody thinks of him as like of real life.
going. I am like this to me is why he's like come up with something to like help, poor black image
No people that has somehow managed to like totally miss like wealthy and powerful America
I mean I think you can
come back in town like? Why can't you have both give that we actually? But it's also like you to do. There are multiple problems, and I guess there is this like disparity or talking about, but there also is this racial disparities are, I think you are putting forward policies that deal with that particular problem like that is a positive step.
and if it is not attacking, while waiting all the behind me. I mean yes like why not both but here's. My point like it is both read like the top zero point. One percent is much much much wider than the bottom. Ninety percent right,
So it's like, why not do both and why not do both with a rhetoric and politics that is designed to like tried and get people working too.
They're like why do it with a politics that is
framed around like
So this is more a politics. Arguments are being nobody, but has always its argument that is about what is the reality in on me like you're, or issues like, I think,
terror was talking about like policing seems to me like. This is the quintessential issue in America, where, like races about race and like it's not really about class, and not really about economics and land, get too
You know, races about earth. Policing is about housing degradation that yesterday I mean you know. I mean I think there is a real sense in which, like a typical middle or working class, white person is prey.
Wedged in his interactions with the police, in a way that even very prosperous African Americans are not and like. I think that is really true and it is a tough political problem because, like most people are white and asking most people to give up their privilege is challenging, like thracian wealth gap really is an issue in which, like the racial disparity, the real is just piggybacking on broad economic trends in the United States and like not just politically but like substantively
is more effectively addressed in those terms. So what stuck out to me and what you said was the idea that people are worried that caring for the most disadvantaged is going to be on their backs rather than on the backs. The very rich like that's not what Corey Booker is proposing, rightly Booker
and saying we kill the mortgage interest Deduction court Booker is saying we kill the estate tat yes, but it so. I think that there is theoretically a rhetorical world where you can say we're: gonna Ed make them billion.
There's pay for the college education of the poor people to question there is due white people of roughly
Average wealth in income here that
see themselves as
potentially most disadvantaged or see themselves as potential millionaires and- and we ve seen pretty consistently that the
answer. Is the latter right that, especially when coming from, and maybe the fact that Corey Booker is looking at Bronco by
I hear and looking at the Asia which was not you know it's not explicitly
or even in its final form, substantively a primarily people of color benefit, be characterized by
a large swathes of white voters as a giveaway two black people, maybe he's looking at that in going. Ok, if that's already baked into the cake right, then
there's not a whole lot. We can do to get roughly average white people
finding solidarity from below, instead of any mean like, as Sarah could tell you, ride like this programme like the Asia has as complicated phase out so
right and like this is where you have different again. If you are saying right, if you would like your coy bugger you're walking around Newark where you live, and you saying man, I'm worried that these kids are not, can have a chance to go to college right, a program that says we're gonna tax, the very wealthy and may college free for everybody like that, will help those kids in Newark, and it strikes me as having a much stronger.
chance of succeeding right, like as a political project, and it isn't. I wanna go project like as a policy project like that's gonna, get
I think it gets. The grocer document of like targeted verses,
oversaw because, like the revenue we're talking about raising for it like anything like with for all after edge, yes, bag
I know- and you know sometimes he got alike when the sausage gets made. You know you make some compromises and an you cut, something
down I mean just as like. The SBA wound up not being exactly what was runner and an answer on this
for it. But I mean I just remember like two weeks ago, I think I was talking one of our editors than he was
we should do a piece about like Democrats, learn the lesson from twenty. Sixteen that, like you, should come up with at least like aspirational programmes that are simple and easy to use
bribe, and I was, I guess, that's it. That's a good idea, and then I saw this and I wish it separately talk about Common Harrison and the left act, but like these are both like you
Staring at these charts- and you like what are you
If you're at three hundred and seventy five percent, I definitely agree with you. I mean so like a bright if you're gonna summarize this programme and the centre in a sentence like that is a struggle that I had writing this peace
because it's like well, everyone gets an account, but really it's not like approach
for everyone, like it's, not really a programme for the kids above
hundred Amazon. You can hardly anywhere with the graphics T like it's as if you, if you look at the article like you understand, which is needed, that crap ex that's the end, I mean it is interesting like where they decide to do the phase out, so they got to five percent of the poverty line, which sounds like a lot of money in good time at two percent, but I think we're talking depending on how many people of an intuitive set us of what happened in collisions with clarity land, then you're doing Melick the poverty line for a family agreement or about the biggest single kid whose on their own you're treatment of poverty line for like a family of force than I have to go to like the HIV.
website that has the poverty lines and do some mouth to figure out that
This means if you are in a family that are more than two hundred and fifty thousand dollars a family for then basically are phased out of the programme
you're a thousand dollars with the interests of crude at the end, which
three to one other point, I want to circle back to you from this british program right up to me. So I,
one of the things that
happens when this is not universal and you have these small amounts of money,
cruel in some of these accounts is there is actually a decent chance. These opportunity accounts diskette forgotten,
which mother were hearing. What about you haven't written red was thanks to the introducing counts in two thousand for, and so they say
accumulating money? And then
Conservative government was it universal. In Britain
thinking why the minimum was universal. Ok, we're lowered illogical that wherever there is a small but Sudan Toy governed
comes in and twenty ten, and so they want to cut the budget and to their thinking
But can we cod
the programme we're, like literally none of the beneficiaries of this programme are allowed to vote.
Right a silk.
but that's it was a good target regards, so they don't take the money away.
Because there are there, but they stop putting any new money in an and they don't come.
size that anymore, you know cause it's like Gordon Brown's novice, and so then it takes
more years right, I think it takes like eight to ten.
for years until anybody who had an account is actually eligible to get the money and by that time, like lots of people, just don't know
These accounts existed that they have this old money and there's this like little to do in the media about like how to go. Get your meagre, semi, killed off thing.
And so let me there's a story about complexity and forgetting about like also political sustainability. Right, like wind
The labour government introduced the national health system in the forties, like that's still here. Seventy years later, nobody's gonna get rid of it, because people use it all the time and they and their
like it. This be bonds thing a very
and usually for welfare. State programme was like totally killed off like right away. It had no sticking s.
Because its beneficiaries, where eleven, when the Bell had already ruled out Iraqis like their trading and economic activities, aid have been gathered. Obama people say like in retrospect, maybe our like four year- phase that was too slow and eighteen year phase in for a programme
Then it's weird because it tips you get all your money when you're eighty and so
All eligible voters will be receiving no money from this
everyone who is getting money is ineligible everyone whose eligible gets no money. It likes it. Social security without the constituency like decimating the backward such as right- and I mean this- this ties into the ito targeted redistributive aspect of it right because
the beneficiaries are not only people who themselves cannot vote, but people whose parents are generally lower income, less likely to vote. That is going to
that more politically vulnerable and then, if it does die, we
from the british example that the people who were most disadvantaged for the ones least likely to pick up the credit that make a third of the bee.
who were on the child tax credit, weren't picking up their bonds are being listed as no address like that is a policy
problem that is created
the political problem of the programme being killed there,
Created by the problem being you know something that the people who
Who are the most vocal constituency?
aren't necessarily the voters to people are listening to and what that we take a break. Let dare tell us better white paper in my favor.
People. Often ask me of prosecuting the mob is like the movies. Well
There is violence, he cracks disguise over their head and a pop. Just like a melon. There are heads, so wasn't just permission to take a map of permission to take out his own
field. But after taking down over one hundred mobsters, I can tell you this is the real thing is much more interesting
I'm Ellie holding former mob prosecutor and host of the new podcast up against a mom up against the mob.
the bail on the world's most secretive criminal organization, La Cosa Nostra we'll talk to profit
users, former mobsters, an undercover agents and and
Hollywood. All these stories are true new episodes dry.
Every Wednesday starting September, eighth, listen and follow up
Hence the Bob on Apple Podcast, Spotify or your favorite podcast app. The cat is applied cast from New York,
seen, but it's so much more than that. Its thirty minutes a week where we re
wrestle with ourselves, we're talking societal expectations, race
sex, career ambitions and our bodies. I just spend our time on Instagram, looking at health at any size, nutritionist,
talks and unify. I, you know
I'm a factor on the internet. They just come to me baby. The algorithm we're here,
conversations you'd only have with your most trusted friend, so Gabby. What were the most painful memories,
I'm just Nike, listen to the cut on Spotify Apple or your favorite podcast app, so
this paper is from the american Sociological Review by professors, Renee Flores in irish actor and its wine of a bunch of studies
they have come up in the last several years. There are trying to devise experimental ways to test not just stereotypes in general, but in particular people's perceptions of immigrants. It's pretty easy to just pull people I, and do you think that
hence our on that good or bad. For the? U S, and then ever
he tries like parse those numbers into well our people, thinking about legal immigrants when they hear that. Are they thinking about me
skins. What contours does that have so
with these studies, the idea is to build out an idea of what mental image people have in their heads when their thinking of immigrants working of undesirable or desirable immigrants. So this one they gave them like too high political profiles of emigrants at a time and they asked them to us.
ass if each profile looked like someone? Who would be an illegal immigrant or illegal immigrant, and the traits in each profile
or randomized, so that you would get for exam
bull implausibly in real life, but in this experiment, like the example to give us a canadian Phd who's, been charged with murder and
working in a low income, but formal job like a grocery store, shelter like
I kind of weird the combination of traits, because that's the impasse?
so that you can distinguish well, ok,
the difference between what people say about a Canadian with all those traits forces a Mexican with all those traits so the
The findings are most
about one treat relative to the
baseline of without initiative,
If I may use is next again with criminal record, it's the baseline,
not having from look at how much more likely someone is white american in particular, is to say that someone is here illegally based on having that trade, verses and alternative, and then they also asked the question about. If you think this person is here illegally, and you saw them in a particular context like applying for a job at your work.
as you know, walking very neighbourhood. Would you report them to the authorities, which has an added extra l
went of this. That, I think, is really interesting, but they can be bracket pretty easily. Just from the question of what people have in their minds when they think of immigrants and the answers are kind of not super, surprisingly, but interestingly
That people tend to think of it like Mexicans, are salvadorans, particularly republicans. Think of cereals is likely to be illegal.
These is likely to be illegal, that people think of people in informal sectors of the economy as likely to be
here illegally, but not necessarily of people who
There's like somebody who's working formally in a low income job is
actually more likely to be seen as here legally than somebody. His working is like a freelance graphic designer and the people with criminal records, in particular violent crime, but also kind of stereotypical immigrant crimes like dry,
and without a license, are a lot more, a lot more likely to be seen as here illegally than people without criminal records.
Interesting, I mean it's
This is a good reminder that the contracts that people used to discuss politicized phenomena do not like corresponds super closely to technical legal type categories. Something I've talked about. A number of times is some of the trouble administrations temporary protected.
Daddy's denials- and you know I tend to get like feedback and my email- that's like about well blah blah blah illegals and I'm trying to say it, but by definition there not like that
policy question was asked whether or not to render these people's presence in the country illegal, so think it's true
that once Trump declares that their presence is illegal, they become illegals but
sort of neither here nor there on the choice. Now. What is true is that I think a very disproportionate share of central american GPS recipients are sort of socio. Tropical
a quarter and quote illegals. There is a lot of work in the informal sector that, because they did not have legal permanent residence status, they had a somewhat tenuous existence in the United States, even as they began to settle and put down roots is not the same as being a citizen and a give did not have the
tunity to apply for citizenship. Things like that, so you exist in a kind of liminal stay right, and so then, to the extent that two people would illegality me in this is like not actually your legal status but the kind of limbo,
less of your presence like they really are, accorded quote the illegals again in the title of the paper, he read it. It like who are the illegal.
right, I'm. I idea- and I think that is
asking the correct question of american politics right is like cause. Otherwise things get question begging right at me, like one of the cases for doing a mass amnesty for the bulk of another, as residents is like, you would have a much smaller, illegal immigration problem. If you man,
legalised people which is true and like is something I agree with. It would be much more logistically feasible to have rigorous employer side enforcement. If the vast majority of the painful received legal status right and then like from a legal listing standpoint, you can have a better operating system, but if the problem
miss the people, not their legality, right and illegals, is just a kind of label for people who are working in informal sectors. People are coming from Latin America, Bob Bob. I then changing their legal status,
change the fact that their the illegal spreading. I think that's like the interesting thing to me about this paper is kind of raising the idea.
Illegal as like I'll leave. All verses, like Baroness Alice, great work like expire,
immigration and like and these sorts of issues, but that's not what is being
thought of in the people that are being interviewed further psych its aim, so
construct and a label that is being put on a specific type of person, rather than light
you knew it and out of you pushed their ending, they do business, but if you you push Pushmi Blonde will actually this person is here legally. I dont know that it would change their opinions of like that type of person being in the United States.
think they would still be and the like all evils: category
Even if you got information on you know that their immigration status was like we'll be like, while technically illegal, but like not the type of emigrants
you meant that they would want to write, and I mean I feel I e the paradigm. An example of this is actually
Erin immigrants were overwhelmingly here legally because their largely refugees, you look
yeah. You can start to see some of the people forget about other than Mexicans at the southern border of a time. There's the idea that people
sneaking in as fake refugees or like posing some
fraud, and they need to be better vetted is avoided
convenient bridge to take somebody who is here as a refuge.
the and say: okay, but they're they're on false pretences. You know it's very easy to kind of pushed back against, no really when I say their illegal here's what I mean that
the social, not just kids,
Corruption mentally, but kind of the social generation of illegality is another dimension here, and that's where the second question of, if you,
saw this person in this context. Would you report them to the authorities matters cause? Then it's not just
Ok. How do you, Mr White American, think about brown people it's what effect or Europe?
actions going to have on immigrants lives for the people who actually do have to deal with the lake legal ramifications
whatever immigration status they have, who also have to deal with the second dimension of how other people are
getting them based on their perceived immigration status. But that's
not necessarily it's not gonna, comport perfectly with what their actual statuses, but it also
necessarily comport with this kind of mental construction right, you do in fact see that
substantial share of the people who say that x profile person is here illegally, are not gonna. Wanna report them to the authorities that very,
a little bit by you know who's doing
reporting the people who think of Syrians, as here illegally the average person who thinks that is much more likely to want them reported than the average person who sees it
the Mexican his here illegally, but they are definitely.
is a feeling that, in particular context sister?
like walking round in someone's neighbourhood, but like at your workplace, applying for a job that there is a benefit too.
calling the authorities on someone to having them treated socially as someone who's here illegally, and that's where I think things get really interesting is the fact of the matter is that you don't have the full dossier on
everyone you see on the street right most of the time when we see cases of people blowing up at perceived emigrants. It's because they're, not speaking English and Lake, in a public
speaks with that right. You don't necessarily see whether or not someone has a criminal record.
The fact that that is more it positive, then, whether
Are they speak English? Well,
it's getting into circular questions of ok, do you perceive someone is being a criminal because you perceive them is here illegally, or vice versa?
and when you have a lot of people who are here legally but who share that
rates of someone who is not just a stereo too
golly illegal, but stereotypically worth calling the authorities on that's a very real social production. That has a legal angle on the
but who inferior supposed to be a separate from the suspicion of ice? Wait I mean
a sort of critical thing like this, like a lot of people seem to have feelings about their knowledge of the presence of unauthorized people in their community
If you think I mean nobody has like X, ray specks that are checking out everyone's immigration papers. Ride like
Hypothetical scenario. We're like somebody applies for a job at your place of work, and you somehow know that their documents are
and then you gotta like this is something that doesn't happen. Ride like
an interesting situation,
to talk about re but, like things happen about immigration in american society, and that is basically something that never happen in this scenario, you don't necessarily know for sure that their here illegally, you
have stated that, based on the fact you have, which are still more facts, what seems to trigger people being likely to call the authorities, isn't just seeing people
like seeing somebody applying for welfare benefits as much as people circulate quotes about. You know it
from voters saying I saw someone who didn't speak: English applying for welfare benefits, neither
The big motivator of people, thinking that someone was here illegally, nor was it a big motivator of people calling the authority, it's the so
we'll proximity of having to work with
one or having them in your living space, that is real
triggering these feelings of the. It is improper for this person to be here. I have to get them out, which is why
obviously no unauthorized people for cleaning homes
right in America. Fair enough. This is doing incredibly rigorous document checks, various cleaning ladys, and
We need its interesting right. I mean some of us have like maybe made me wonder like about reality, verses. You no kind of like hypothetical experimental scenario.
It was because he don't seem like in practice. You often see these for a blow up like an airplane
in other sort of
I don't wanna what to call the mobility places where people?
thrown together with strangers, unlike made to interact in a way that seems a natural rather than indeed like actual way? Is that this pops up brightly? I have never heard of any one, just like it.
go in there all by construction site and being like some of the day. Laborers here might be illegals right like I, don't have any examples on hand, but I am sure that if you Floyd
ice, Tipp line, Filet Mary right. I understand, I think you're right is there some questions in my mind about like cheap talk versus like actual calling of authority
no, I mean that's fair and I think you can even see that in the fact that not everyone is willing to act on their suspicions even in an experimental context, but it is also kind of like this is what we got.
In our world, where any individual calling of ice you can kind of post hawk justify.
by saying. Well, I know they weren't legal, because X Y see that it is clear that pub
space, is more accessible to some people than others that they are chilling effect going on that are partially from the government, but not solely from it, and thinking.
more about that and figuring out other way
to map. The contours of it is an ongoing problem for social science.
so what that we're? Getting more rapid up. Thanks, therefore, covenant sharing a lovely white paper with us, and thanks as always to our producer Griffin Tanner, the weeds, is going to be back tomorrow with it
the reeds midterms. The plus a day is growing ever near, but we got you. Some more pie casts so I'll, see you tomorrow,
accessible, affordable broadband helps communities reached
our american dream for students, lectures on a shop means rising above the poverty line and becoming valedictorian of international High School Langley Park, and thanks to access from eighteen t, can help these
dreams turn into reality. That's my eighteen tease me
two billion dollar three year. Commitment to help close the digital divide to more Americans have a chance to succeed. To learn more is eighty t, dot com, slash connecting communities
that is a pod cast from New York magazine, but it's so much more than that. Its thirty minutes a week where we really wrestle with ourselves we're talking societal expectations,
race sex career ambitions and our bodies. I just spent all time Instagram looking at health at any size, nutritionist
talks and unify? I you know
I'm a factor on the internet, they just come to me baby. The algorithm we're here,
Conversations you'd only have with your most trusted friend so Gabby. What were the most painful memories
I'm just Maggie, listen to the cut on Spotify Apple or your favorite podcast app.
Transcript generated on 2021-09-11.