This very important topic. I wrote the book to make the case for Unconditional Cash but grounded in my own personal experience i grew up in a small town in North Carolina called hickory with the appellation mountains and as a traveling paper salesman we have a very middleclass existence of a god Financial Aid and then harvard we started facebook 2004 and the rocketship rise of facebook is pretty wellknown. But in my own case i made quite a bit of money at a young age when it forced me to think about what is the most powerful way to rebalance the economy so that the 1 percent that keeps getting so lucky is actually not getting lucky at the expense of everyone else. That took me a long journey to help people get ahead and it turns out the evidence is pretty clear that if you provide people with cash, Unconditional Cash, no Strings Attached, then they invest in their communities their Health Outcomes are better they work just as much if not more. So to answer your question the reason to empower people with cash is not only to make a moral case with poverty but also pragmatic that people want to invest in themselves and there is no more efficient way than providing the cash to do so. Host what you say to the skeptics they will argue they spend more money on tobacco or alcohol . Is there any research to support that . We know a lot about what people do when they get cash for have the opportunity to invest in themselves. Theres a lot of studies that show providing people with the resources more often than not will always be one or two that dont use money that they deem responsible but on balance i spend more on alcohol in fact the opposite happens. We could have more Financial Stability they invest in families of Health Outcomes to help them improve. So people asked the question if i just spend the money on booze and cigarettes but they asked the question fundamentally about trust and what we consider to be the right thing to do for those in particular. There is a sense to build more Government Programs and regulation to tell people to do this or that with the money. In reality if we can ground ourselves in the data and challenge some of those fundamental assumptions then we would do well to use cash. By the way this isnt a left right kind of issue but the and in one on earned income tax credit is the size of 70 million. Supported by people on the left and on the right despite concerns and people will use this money effectively because there is the immense amount of evidence to show that people are responsible with money when provided and the most efficient way to lift people out of poverty with Economic Opportunity every president from gerald ford republican and democrat alike have invested in expanding the and in one on earned income tax credit and that there should be bipartisan appeal. The on earned income tax credit among the most conservative economists. The eitc came out of the last big debate that we had around guaranteed income in the United States late sixties and early seventies. It was widely accepted on the left and the right it could be the most powerful way to ensure nobody lives in poverty and to provide Economic OpportunityMilton Friedman was an early proponent of the idea talks about it and wrote about it extensively. At the same time doctor Martin Luther king jr. From a moral perspective at that moment in history as im sure you know supported the idea and then failed in the senate and then went underground for several decades. But the on on on earned income tax credit but it was a steppingstone if you will to that overtime has been expanded so now we have a new moment an opportunity to talk about work in the United States and poverty and economic mobility when income inequality is at historic levels and we would do well to ground that conversation about how cash can be the most powerful way to provide Economic Opportunity. How do you address the irony that Mick Mulvaney office of omb suggested on food stamps instead of making them relatively unrestricted but shift them back to meals . Is this the wrong direction . I agree i do think that would be a move in the wrong direction. Ironically that kind of outlook to drive somebody do a box meal rather than providing with cash is a paternalistic view of government which ironically on the right and those to be skeptical of a very long time. And then what to spend money on and the cynical moves to the work requirements and they are at the pattern of economic thinking coming from this administration which is more focused on doubling down trickledown economic which have created record profits companies keeping median wages flat instead of working on that problem there doubling down on that theory and the stock market is near record highs. And it is my view that me feel good to some in the short term that bubble will burst the idea to cut rates for corporations and specifically what we should be eating that seems fundamentally out of line where the country is today politically and the longterm values we want to share for everyone to make their own choices and their freedom of their own destiny and that responsibility to ensure no one in america in 2018 lives in poverty. Socialism for the rich the market capitalism for the poor. The original proposal in your book was 500 per month for families making less than 50000 per year. 6000 per year. How many people would be lifted out of poverty or receive payments . What does the overall structure look like . Where we want to go in the longterm. And the they ways to slice and dice it of how it might work. But that income inequality and the first major step toward the eradication of poverty. So my view to build on and expand what we know works take away the unearned income tax credit in the United States those that are working in some way it was 500 a month per month so this order of magnitude of the benefit but that is with 20 Million People lifted out of poverty overnight to stabilize the lives of 90 million americans who very much need not only abuse to the bottom line but that stability to count on the 500 per month in the background i think it is a powerful way to begin the work to establish and come that could potentially be even bigger. But to me this is a place we dont need to talk about if the robots are coming we know this policy could be massively impactful. Talk about the philosophical idea to try to solve their own problems rather than government. I think there is a symptom in the country particularly among elites that we experts can engineer the progress and ive been pretty skeptical of that idea the way i became skeptical from the perspective so after facebook went public in 2012 my husband and i made a commitment to give the vast majority of our wealth over the course of our lifetime and in taking that challenge we look at all different nonprofits who were doing good work and also that. Internationally and i have a chapter in the book that relates to a journey that i went on over the course of several years and highlight a couple moments in the book and i spent time with one nonprofit that was working in africa to try to engineer products so if we could just invest enough in education and health care and roads, sanitation, fertilizer, e , all of these different benefits when this administration and bureaucracy then all we can lift different out of extreme poverty and i went on a trip to go visit one of those villages and became pretty skeptical and went on walk in the village in kenya on the somalia border and we went into some dormitories that were recently built to house students but there is nothing in the dormitories. No sheets on the beds or books for things you would expect kids to have. It felt wrong and they say thats before hand and it was also very clean and orderly nobody was using it later they showed me the computer the guide as they are to be impressed by the connection to the internet and you asked the teacher what you use of four . Everything. Theres little specificity so it turns out that theyve never been used in relators stolen and the villagers themselves were not able or willing or are interested to take advantage and then to petition the kenyan government to push out the nonprofit so its indicative of the idea we can engineer progress and that is to the idea that we can use cash for those beneficiaries themselves to choose what they want and to invest in themselves and create their own lives and stories so another nonprofit that i got involved with later took a very different approach , provided cash unconditionally, no Strings Attached and the independent group to measure the exact impact of that cash dedicate wasted was it used productively and they found results that were in line with hundreds of other studies that show dollar for dollar cash is one of the most if not the most effective policy that is out there. Some in the United States context there is a question about who we trust mor more, solution we invest in at this moment in time . More complex Government Programs that lecture the poor how to spend their money and how to behave . Or in the middle class that have not gotten a raise in decades and when provided with cas cash, this is a big debate. I dont want to oversimplify. This is a big debate going to who we want to be as a country. But its time we have a conversation that puts the emphasis on what we know already how people use money and bring people to the place they feel they can trust in one another and other americans to be masters of their own destiny. In your book by the examples you point out people that try this, there is one close to home the unrestricted Cash Transfer how does that work out . Up in alaska they have a small guaranteed income. The story behind the Permanent Fund dividend is that it is unexpected in some ways. The republican governor in the seventies when alaska was enjoying a huge amount of Economic Abundance decided he would place a small royalty on the oil and gas company and they would pay a few Percentage Points into a common find every year and that would distribute two. 5 percent in dividend checks to every single alaskan man and woman and child. That was put up for a referendum and passed overwhelmingly so for the past 30 some years every alaskan 700,000 americans, has benefited from the Permanent Fund dividend check about 51 1500 every year coming in october. With a family of four that is a check of 6000 every fall which is a meaningful amount of money. Not so much people can put their feet and hang out and play video games or drop out of the workforce but it is enough to help people make ends meet a little bit easier. Some of my colleagues were talking to people what they do with the dividend Empirical Research backs of the stories that they use it to cover a month or two of rent they are behind, some use it to prepare for the winter to buy heating fuel, others save for College Education than upper middle class and wealthy would use it to find vacations in january or february when alaskans want to go where its warm where its bleak and cold but the biggest thing to take away from that fund is not only do people love it because it provides a little bit of breathing room, but also one of the most powerful factors to be back against the poverty rate in the state of alaska significantly and to contribute to the fact alaska is the most equal state in the United States of america. So there is a lot we can learn from that. By the way when you go to alaska its not welfare, its not a handout is just something that each alaskan benefits from and can use as they see fit. We know culturally that it is very much possible to create to this income with this type of security to be massively effective and it is a great publication for how we could create and alaska for america type of program and Hillary Clinton talk specifically about evaluating that idea was part of her campaign in 2016. She did not advance it but in her book she makes the case that it is a small set ideas she thought that she wished she thought more about to combat poverty. I would argue its not a small idea either. We struggle on capitol hill trying to overcome income inequality and we realize as you write about the winner take all economy it is the largest since before the market crash 1929. So your last example shows us guaranteed income may be the single biggest step toward creating income inequality without massive other changes in the structure. So thank you for pointing that out it is dead last or dead first. Thats right. It is important to say that cash is not the silver bullet. I dont want viewers to think im sitting here saying cash will solve all the problems. We need good schools, Healthcare System thats accessible to Affordable Health care to all americans. With the smart skills building but however i do think that we often jump to the systemic solution first and we miss that sometimes the best solution is the template so we would do well to think about cash and the creation of guaranteed income in america in conjunction with these benefits but i truly believe that it could be the most powerful tool in the toolbox and the accomplishments that you and i share. There is a book of fascinating ideas i just want to read page 155. Use a small amount of regular cash produce the feeling of living on the brink which Research Shows causes immense amounts of stress and poor decisionmaking. You talk about the ted talk. And people are not poor because they make bad decisions but they make bad decisions because they are poor. Can you expand on that idea . There is a whole body Psychological Research which suggests when people feel and live scarcity and feel they are on the brink there is a limited amount of resources and we dont know how we can make ends meet. So one specific study that is indicative in a mall in new jersey what would you do if your car broke down . The cost is 300. So they ask wealthy people were middleclass people and poor people that question then immediately afterwards and then surprisingly had the same iq even after we asked this question what would you do if your car broke down . Then they said what would you do if your car broke down and cost 2000 to fix it . And they each had one group and in that second scenario the middle class people those that have Financial Security did just as well as five or ten minutes before. The group living closer to the edge saw the iq points drop by 12 points and just to give some context that level of the iq drop when you test people like an all nighter. So what that demonstrates the experiment has been interpreted that we shift that cognitive from Financial Security as we begin to ask people how can you cover a cost you cannot cover it introduces a hold of her level of stress and distraction when they move on to other tasks it doesnt immediately go away very much stays in place so imagine and think about whats going on in america we know that half of americans cannot find 400 like a car breaking down or healthcare many people in the middle class not just the poor and are living on the brink so when we talk about the stress that comes with that, there is a real human cost and also an Economic Cost because people are constantly thinking about how they can make ends meet. The power of a guaranteed income is not just to combat income inequality as you mentioned is at record levels but to have some semblance of stability 500 a month you know will arrive in your bank account every single month by direct deposit or through a debit card that you know you can rely on, that stability is as important with the changing nature of work and the gig economy has in common inequality as guaranteed income would combat. Youre talking about giving this to people who are working. What about folks who cant work because they stay at home take care of the elderly or infirm parent or a disabled brother or sister to take care of . My view on this to have a whole chapter in the book that we need to expand the definition of work and then connect it to what everyday people already recognize when you talk about were conversationally of a young parent or a mom or dad who stays home with a young child and working to raise that family most see that is work. For you have an aging parent and then year at home taking care of that parent in my view is work and we call it that. Similarly, education they are working hard may not get paid for it but they are workers in a broad sense of the term doing something for your family or community that is the fundamental value of the guaranteed income should suppor support. But we need to expand the definition of work from those like the elderly so that is why the social safety net is so critical i have an uncle who is on disability benefits for much of his life and could not have survived without Social Security and disability. Those kinds of benefits need to be supported, enforced and expanded and not cashed in to pay for any other guaranteed income. When they work in concert with one another can they create true security and Financial Stability for every single american. That is a key value of how the guaranteed income should work and its an important thing to note a firmly believe it should be on top of the existing benefit to make sure everyone is provided for. You know what our children were young and my wife is staying home taking care of them she pointed out she was working much harder than when she was in the outside world and the unfair of the homemakers rearing children not having any Soci