Freakonomics Radio
Hosted by Stephen J. Dubner
Original podcast
A 19th-century Georgia land lottery may have something to teach us about today's income inequality.
5,373 words · 8 speakers
Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.
Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by hotels.com. Hotels.com helps you find and book the right stay for work faster. With business preferences, save your travel must haves like gym access or breakfast just once, then get tailored results whenever you search for work travel. Plus, with a free membership, you can save up to 20% on hotels and earn rewards on every stay for future travel. Book now at hotels.com. Visit hotels.com for details.
Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Amica. You know what they say, if you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together. So go with Amica and get coverage from a mutual insurer that's built for their customers, one that looks after what's important to you together. Auto, home, life, and more, coverage that fits your unique needs. Amica helps you protect what matters most. Visit amica.com and get a quote today.
Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Mint Mobile. With Mint Mobile's summer sale, all of Mint's plans are $15 per month, even unlimited. Free yourself from big wireless and switch to Mint for high speed data and coverage on the T-Mobile 5G network. To get your new wireless plan for just $15 a month, go to mintmobile.com/freak. That's mintmobile.com/freak. Upfront payment, $45 for three months, $90 for six months, or $180 for 12 months. Plan required, $15 per month equivalent. Taxes and fees extra, initial plan term only. Greater than 50 gigabytes may slow when network is busy. Includes up to 20 gigabytes hotspot. Capable device required. Availability, speed, and coverage varies. See mintmobile.com.
Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by ChatGPT. ChatGPT Work is a new way to work in ChatGPT. ChatGPT Work can pull info from across your apps and connect to your tools to help you create finished work. You can even automate work in ChatGPT with the Scheduled Tasks feature, and the whole time, you stay in control. Put ChatGPT to work on your most ambitious ideas and projects. Get started at chatgpt.com by selecting Work Mode, available on Plus and Pro plans.
The other day, we heard from a Freakonomics Radio listener named Thomas Appleton. He had been talking with a friend about giving money to charity, and he had this idea.
I was wondering what would be the socioeconomic effects if the 50 wealthiest Americans each selected 50 needy American families and gave each one a one-time gift of $50,000 and repeated the process every year with new beneficiaries? And what if these efforts were concentrated in, for instance, like some of the poorest neighborhoods in Brooklyn?
So that's an interesting question. In economic terms, Thomas is asking about the effects of a geographically concentrated, one-time, unconditional cash transfer, and whether, for instance, it'll lead to real intergenerational income mobility, although the way he put it is, I admit, much more exciting. All right, then, why don't we try it? Let's see, 50 families, $50,000 each, that's $2.5 million a year. So who out there wants to fund our experiment?
Hello?
Anybody? Nobody?
I guess this is what happens when you give your podcast away for free. Nobody wants to pay for anything anymore. All right, then, we'll just have to find another way to answer Thomas's question.
From WNYC, this is Freakonomics Radio, the podcast that explores the hidden side of everything. Here's your host, Stephen Dubner.
OK, so here's the question we're trying to answer today. If you're thinking about helping poor families, how effective would it be to simply give them a big pile of cash? Would that change the course of their trajectory over time? Giving away $50,000 may sound like a lot of money, but if it means helping not only this one family, but the next generation and the next, it's probably a bargain, right? Now, there are a couple of problems with trying to answer this question. The first is that none of you are willing to give me the $2.5 million to fund the experiment. But there's also this. In order for it to be an experiment, we need to randomize who gets the money, which also means having a control group
so we can measure the effect of the money. And also, we need a lot of time. So even if we could give $50,000 to 50 families today, what we want to see is the long-term effect of that money, how it affects their children and their grandchildren. So wouldn't it be great if somewhere in history, something like this already happened? Maybe there was some magical dataset that a couple of scholars could analyze and write a paper that answers these questions?
The paper is "Shocking Behavior: Random Wealth in Antebellum Georgia and Human Capital Across Generations."
Well, hello. That is Hoyt Blakely. He's an economic historian at the University of Chicago, currently a visiting scholar at Princeton. He did this research with Joseph Ferry, an economist at Northwestern.
So the shocking behavior that we're talking about is a shock to the system, which is this land lottery that happened in Georgia in the early 19th century, yes?
That's right. So there's sort of a little-known fun fact from antebellum days, which is the state of Georgia opened up almost three-quarters of its territory to white settlers through a system of lotteries, as in actually pulling names out of a barrel to randomly give out land rights.
Now, this land, we should say, had been confiscated from the Indians, right?
That's correct. So that's the less fun part of the fact, which is that, of course, this happened because of the displacement of the Cherokee and the Creek. And in fact, you know, this particular episode we look at is what gave rise to what's called the Trail of Tears, where the Cherokee were forced marched to Oklahoma under some depraved circumstances.
Okay, so the government of Georgia had a lot of land, and they used to give land away in a different way, right? A somewhat less, a less random way?
Quite a lot less random, yeah. Something that looks a lot more similar to the way it had been done for much of the east of the US, which is to say they would issue grants, or they would have people go out and claim land, and they would be entitled to a certain claim, but they would also have to show evidence that they'd done something with it.
Gotcha. So I can say, "I'll commit to farming this land and hiring certain people if you give me the land," some kind of contract like that?
Yeah, that's right. Some evidence of having done something with it, and that's right.
Okay. And why did this lottery come about? What precipitated the need?
Well, so take yourself back to that map that you may have seen in 11th grade in high school history, where the colonies, you know, the new states were claiming land all the way out to the Mississippi. There's, you know, you may have seen this thing where there's like a super elongated map of New York and Georgia and Virginia, all claiming out to the Mississippi. So some enterprising set of gentlemen decided they were going to start selling that land that Georgia was claiming, opening up for settlement. And the way they did this is they basically bribed a majority of the legislators in Georgia to make this happen. This generated such a scandal because in part it wasn't clear Georgia actually had title to this land, you know, was legally able to give out the land. Eventually, they
gave it up. It's this land was in the state of Mississippi eventually. But further, it generated such a throw the rascals out movement that when they came around to allocating the part of the state that really was part of Georgia, politicians opted for what they viewed as the most incorruptible, the most transparent mechanism possible. And they came upon the lottery as such an idea. And so they went and, you know, surveyed the land into a bunch of parcels, set out a grid. And after that time, they started pulling bams out of barrels. And essentially, every white male who had lived in Georgia for a few years was eligible to participate. And there was so much money on the table from participating, right? It cost you 12 cents to register.
And could you buy more than one ticket? Or everybody could have just one?
No, this was, don't think of this as go to the store and buy a ticket.
It's not powerball.
It was simply, no.
Yeah.
So you're basically eligible for one registration, and we estimate approximately 100% of the people registered.
Wow, okay. So if we, if we forget the fact, or deny the fact, that the land was confiscated from Native Americans, then this is a pretty equitable way to distribute the land, yes? In that it's not giving advantage to people who either have, you know, a corrupt legislator in their family, friendship, or whatnot, right?
Yeah, I mean, you could say that. At least, at least ahead of time, it's a, it's an equitable way to do it, because everybody gets the possibility of winning. Of course, some people win, some people lose, which ends up being central to the way we, you know, perform our research.
Okay, so tell me just a couple of quick facts about this. What share of, you said that there was virtually 100% participation, because it was pretty much free to sign up to try to win some land. What share of people then won? What were my chances of winning?
Yeah, so a little shy of 20% of the people won.
And then how much land are they winning? And I want to know what that land is worth. And I also want to know how I can convert that land into value. In other words, can I sell it right away? Or do I have to actually go and farm or build something on it?
Sure. So in the particular one we analyzed, they were winning 160 acre parcels in the northwest part of Georgia. So think Atlanta and to the northwest of that. We estimate
That they were winning numbers in the hundreds of dollars, maybe five to $800 by, if you value this in 1850 units, which is when we observed them.
And let's put that in constant dollars, then it's worth roughly what today?
Well, it's worth a lot. It's worth a lot in the sense, it's a little bit hard to convert that into a number today because prices are so different. So let me just give you two ways of thinking about that. One is, that's pretty close to the median level of wealth. Think about a bell curve of wealth. We're basically taking some amount of money that's approximately equal to where half the people are above and below that, of the non-winners.
And you're saying that's total wealth to all their assets would be worth about that much?
Well, we don't observe if they own stocks or bonds or something like that, but essentially everybody had their wealth either in land or slaves, and that's what we do observe.
Okay, so in other words, if I am essentially penniless, but I happen to be a white male living in Georgia for a few years and therefore am entitled to enter this lottery, I can overnight have the same amount of wealth that is the median wealth in Georgia?
That's right.
So it's, for certain people, then, it will be a life-changing event, not for all, but for some, yes?
It should be, yes, that's right.
Okay, so it's 1832, and the state of Georgia is giving away a bunch of land via a lottery. Roughly one in five people who enter the lottery will win? Economically speaking, it's a pretty substantial windfall, and, for a pair of 21st century researchers, it's a pretty big windfall, too. This kind of organic randomization, it's what economists call a natural experiment, it doesn't happen every day.
I'm a big fan of the libraries that are run as open stacks where you can kind of walk up to the books and you can look at them and pull them out and you can smell them and everything. You know, you get up close and personal with them because a lot of stuff, good stuff, happens by accident. And in this case, I've done a lot of work looking at the economic history of the southern US, which has put me in that part of the library. And I've seen references to the lottery system of Georgia, which for a while I just thought, oh, what could this be? This is some sideshow. I don't know what that is. But I was walking past the Georgia section at the University of Chicago Library at some point and see this title that says, "The Cherokee Land Lottery." Big, thick book,
walking past it. You know how this is, your brain takes a second to tell your legs to stop moving. And so I finally, you know, a couple stacks down, I turn around and think, I gotta go look at this book. I pull the book out and there are a series of these books about the lotteries that describe the participants, names, you know, actual winners, what they won, that sort of thing. And at that point, you know, I was stunned. I thought, can this really be that they randomized wealth? And I got on the horn with Joseph Ferry, who's my co-author at Northwestern University. He's spent a lot of his career tracking people through these historical records. And I said, you know, we gotta follow up on these people because this was potentially a life-changing event for them.
And not necessarily life-changing for you guys, but it's kind of a diamond in the rough, or maybe not even in the rough, but to find a pile of data like this, which, as you put it, is a shock to the system. In other words, it's the kind of experiment that an economist today would love to run, but you can never get permission to. And here, it's been run, right?
Yeah. So the reason why I got so excited about this is because, of course, you know, one of the big questions within economics is about the inequality of outcomes, the distribution of wealth, the distribution of income. And further, this seems to be something that, to a large degree or to some degree, is transmitted across generations. And You know, there's a lot of questions as to why there's this kind of persistence, why the distribution seems to have such a spread to it.
So I guess if I were to guess what you're thinking then, I would guess that you're going to say, well, okay, so here's a perfect tool to tease out the question of do people whose children and grandchildren do better than them do so because of money? And because they use money in a certain way? Or are there other explanations for it? Is that what you were concerned and excited about?
That's exactly right.
Coming up on Freakonomics Radio, what did Hoyt Blakely learn? What did the families who won the land lottery do with their windfall? Did their wealth grow and grow over the generations?
I was surprised. I would not have expected this at all.
And what do we know about contemporary lottery winners?
If you want to be depressed, you should read either the academic literature or the journalistic accounts of lottery winners, because they basically waste it, right? Blow through the money very quickly and oftentimes end up worse than how they started, many of them.
Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Granola. You know that moment when a meeting ends and someone says, let's circle back on this next week, and everyone nods, but no one writes it down? Then next week rolls around and it's radio silence? That's why Granola exists. Granola is an AI-powered notepad built for the way real people actually meet. You take rough notes like you normally would, and in the background, Granola securely transcribes the meeting. Then it turns everything into clean, structured, actually useful notes when the meeting ends. And the best part? Granola works through your device's Audio, which means it integrates seamlessly into the video conferencing tools you already use. No setup, no awkward bots. It's just your normal meeting with superpowers. If meetings are eating up your day, granola is a no-brainer. You can try it totally free.
Just head to granola.ai/freakonomics. That's granola.ai/freakonomics to get your time back. Try it for free at granola.ai/freakonomics.
Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Quince. You know those pieces in your closet that you find yourself wearing on repeat? The sweater that goes with everything, the perfect pair of pants, or the tee you somehow always reach for first? Those are the pieces that make getting dressed easy, and that's what Quince does best. Quince focuses on high-quality wardrobe staples made with premium materials like 100% Mongolian cashmere, organic cotton, and merino wool. The styles are timeless, versatile, and designed to become the dependable pieces you reach for day after day. And it's not just clothing. Quince brings that same approach to everything they make, from hotel-quality bedding and bath to kitchen essentials and thoughtfully designed furniture. Find your next fall favorites at Quince. Download the
Quince app for app-exclusive offers, or go to quince.com/freak. Get free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada and the UK, too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com/freak.
Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by hotels.com. Hotels.com helps you find and book the right stay for work faster. With business preferences, save your travel must-haves, like gym access or breakfast, just once, then get tailored results whenever you search for work travel. Plus, with a free membership, you can save up to 20% on hotels and earn rewards on every stay for future travel. Book now at hotels.com. Visit hotels.com for details.
From WNYC, this is Freakonomics Radio. Here's your host, Stephen Dubner.
So a pair of economists, Hoyt Blakely and Joseph Ferry, found a fascinating data set from a fascinating moment in history, a big land lottery in Georgia in 1832. They realized that they could use this data, along with US Census data, to follow families over time, comparing lottery winners to losers, to see how this shock of sudden wealth affected those families. Did the kids in those families acquire more "human capital", as economists call it? Did they get more education? And did they parlay that education into even more wealth, a generation or two down the road?
We see a really huge change in the wealth of the individuals, but we don't see any difference in human capital. We don't see that the children are going to school more. If your father won the lottery, or he lost the lottery, the school attendance rates are pretty much the same. The literacy rates are pretty much the same. As we follow those sons into adulthood, their wealth looks the same, in a statistical sense. Whether their father won the lottery, lost the lottery, their occupation looks the same. The grandchildren aren't going to school more. The grandchildren aren't more literate.
Wow, all right. So two questions for you. One, were you surprised? I would have certainly assumed that the families who won the lottery and had a lot of money would have used it to do what we think most parents should do with their kids, which is get them more education, get them more prepared for a good career, and so on. Were you surprised?
I was surprised. I would not have expected this at all. Now, this was a period where the people were sending their children to school to a small degree. This was a period where it looked like poverty, at least in the cross-section, seemed to be an impediment to doing that. School attendance rates of the very rich versus the very poor differed by 60%. And yet, when you used this random wealth drop to move the very poor into the middle... It did not move them along that path that you observed.
So my next question then would be, where does this money go? You're saying that the next generation doesn't maintain the wealth. What happens to this wealth then? Is it just dissipated?
Where did it go? Well, you know, this is a period where you didn't necessarily have access to good retirement assets apart from the stuff that you owned right around you. You could imagine that the families that won used this for themselves, right? And sent their children off to do something else.
To do something else, meaning what they would have done had the parents not won the money?
Yeah, basically.
Now, could it be that what you found is true for this particular setting? The agrarian southern US in the 19th century? And that for whatever reason, human capital just wasn't so valued and wasn't sought after?
The question is how generic or how much does it generalize to other contexts? And I think you've hit on the key thing, which is how much was human capital valued? And how much was human capital constrained? On the former question, I guess I would say it looks like human capital was valued in the sense that people did send their children to school. People who were literate did make more money. People who had more money did make those investments in their children with a greater propensity. It just maybe wasn't that the constraint was particularly important. At least to the men who won or lost the lottery. That's a key point, which is that there may have been a lot of money on the table, but they just didn't care because, you know, they didn't care enough about their kids.
But you know, it gets to a few questions that, a few issues that we're talking about a lot these days in society generally. Income inequality and income mobility. The whole idea of the American dream is one could do much better a generation down the road, that our economy affords that opportunity. What you've identified in one setting is where a shock of wealth. Didn't snowball and turn into a quote "better life for the generation and the next generation." So I'm curious if you can extrapolate or generalize at all to, you know, the broader US or maybe to the present day from what you've learned. I mean, if
we look at a map of the US today that shows where income mobility is high and low, the deep south, including Georgia's, is pretty much the headquarters of low income mobility. So is it that you've found an example of that? Or is it that you've found something larger than that, which is that wealth alone is not what turns into greater generational wealth?
I would make two observations. One is that we actually observe pretty strong persistence of outcomes across generations in our sample of lottery losers, right? So think of that as the control would have been absent that. And the numbers that we get from that are actually comparable to modern estimates of persistence of wealth, of persistence of education, literacy, et cetera. And so I don't think that this is a particularly exceptional thing in the sense that, you know, there is, there is mobility, but there's also persistence. And we kind of fall within the range of that. But it still comes back to the question of whether, you know, I think this is true today as it is then, is are
the disadvantages that might be present for children that are in poor households, are they present because there's not enough resources, not enough money at the poor household? Or is it because there's not enough of something else, right? Maybe the resources have to come from outside the household, be it, say, a good public school. Maybe the resources have to come from the parents, but the parents don't know how to provide it in terms of nurturing, in terms of, you know, reading and communicating ideas to their children, et cetera.
But if we wanted to blow your research up, your research concerns a small place in time and a small geographical place. If we wanted to totally and irresponsibly explode it and try to create some grand generalizations, we should say, well, look, plainly, the viewpoint
Which holds that giving people, giving poor people money, just giving them money, doesn't work because they don't use it to produce what we, the people who give them money, want them to use it for, which is to make their lives and their children's lives appreciably better through getting more education and so on, right? It'd be very easy for, let's say, a politician who believes in that position to read your paper and say, hey, I've got a University of Chicago and a Northwestern economist telling me, this is hardcore proof of what I've been saying all along. Is it?
Well, certainly for these, if the politician were contemplating, you know, giving wealth to these people in the 1830s, certainly that policy would be, that analysis would be right on. I mean, as you said, there are issues about generalizing it, but let's, let's do the wild extrapolation. I think you're right to say, this is not evidence that what's missing is money at the household level, right? Because we don't know whether that it would be spent on these things that we want. That doesn't mean that there's nothing to be done. It's just, it doesn't mean that money is the solution, right? At least money that gets given to them, to those, to those fathers and mothers.
It's funny, Hoyt, because we actually had a listener write to us recently and say, you know, I really like your show, but god, it's depressing. It's like, you take all this good news out there and all these good ideas and good plans and nice intentions and show how, you know, people game the system, or they don't work, or... Now, I disputed this a little bit. I actually think that we're extremely optimistic and kind of hunting always for ideas that, that do work well. But I, but I'll be honest with you, you've depressed the crap out of me, Hoyt, because, because you've taken a very basic idea and belief, which is that, you know, poverty is addressable by a very simple intervention, which is giving money to poor people. And you're saying...
Based on this evidence, that's just not a solid argument, at least when made that narrowly. Right?
No, that's right. There may be something you can give to them, but money is not that something, at least in this episode.
All right, let me ask you this. Not that this is going to be any less depressing, but it may at least be a little bit more entertaining. Have you looked at all at literature on modern lotteries and what happens to people who win them and whether they do a better job of encouraging human capital acquisition among their offspring?
Oh, no. I mean, if you want to be depressed, you should read either the academic literature or the journalistic accounts of lottery winners because they basically waste it, right? Blow through the money very quickly and oftentimes end up worse than how they started, many of them. Now, it bears mentioning that what distinguishes that group from this one is that it's a very select group of people who go play the lottery every day at the convenience store, right? We economists like to refer to the lottery as a tax on people who don't understand math because, you know, in statistical terms, it's a negative expected value, right? You pay more in than you expect to get back out. And that's different from what we saw in the Georgia lotteries to allocate land because
these people, they understood expected value because they paid 12 cents to get basically $100 of expected value, right? So that's a pretty clear decision. But I think it helps us understand to some extent our results in the sense that when you select a particular group of the population and you either give them money or you cajole them to get a little more schooling by bribing them with the cash transfer or cellphone minutes or what have you, you have to ask whether there's some other set of characteristics that they have that makes it hard for them to take advantage of those opportunities. And maybe there's an intervention that helps them better manage those other characteristics, right? That makes it such that that's less of a disadvantage for them.
Whereas giving them something, you say, well, this was great for me, it'll be great for you, that's perhaps not the right approach.
So, did we depress you too? I hope not, but I suspect we may have. Okay, how about this then? Why don't you send us some non-depressing ideas for future episodes? Our email is [email protected] and maybe we can turn your ideas into Freakonomics Radio Good News Edition. Might be the shortest podcast we've ever made. Or maybe, who knows? Maybe you will overwhelm us with uplifting ideas for future episodes. In which case, we'll be the ones who won the lottery. And we promise not to blow it.
Hey, podcast listeners. On next week's episode, Steve Levitt and I do what we sometimes do. We answer your questions. And I have to say this, they are pretty darn good.
Is central heating a primary cause of obesity?
Why do South Asians dominate the hotel motel business?
Why do corporate honchos and mafia dress themselves in expensive suits?
Are people who care about the environment more or less likely to use a toilet cover?
Do cardboard cutouts of policemen really deter theft?
How many sexual predators still have their foreskins?
It's another installment of Freak Wintley Asked Questions. That's next time on Freakonomics Radio.
Freakonomics Radio is produced by WNYC and Dubner Productions. Our staff includes David Herman, Greg Rosalsky, Boree Lamb, Susie Lechtenberg, and Chris Bannon. If you want more Freakonomics Radio, you can subscribe to our podcast on iTunes or go to Freakonomics.com, where you'll find lots of radio, a blog, the books, and more.
Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Ozempic. Innovation happens through rethinking what's possible. And when it comes to GLP-1s, Ozempic pill does just that. Learn more about Ozempic semaglutide tablets, 4 and 9mg, by calling 1-833-OZEMPIC or visit Ozempic.com to view the medication guide and ask your doctor what's possible with FDA-approved Ozempic pill.
Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by US Bank Smartly Checking and Savings. You know, US Bank Smartly Checking and Savings are bank accounts that work harder for you. You get better savings rates, fee waivers, and rewards from day one. So you spend less time worrying about money and more on what matters. Sign up for US Bank Smartly Checking and Savings today at usbank.com/smartly. Member FDIC. Copyright 2026 US Bank.
Pandora makes it easy for you to find your favorite music. Discover new artists and genres by selecting any song or album and we'll make you a personalized station for free. Download on the Apple App Store or Google Play and enjoy the soundtrack to your life.
This episode is brought to you by Charles Schwab. Is there a right time to sell a stock? Are you taking the right risks with your portfolio? Financial decisions can be tricky, and often, your own cognitive and emotional biases can lead you astray. Financial Decoder, an original podcast from Charles Schwab, can help. Join host Mark Reapy as he offers practical solutions to help overcome the cognitive and emotional biases that may affect your investing decisions. Listen at schwab.com/financialdecoder.
Page updated September 30, 2026 · transcript and summary are machine-generated
