The one real world example we have, of Dauphin, suggests this is not the case at all.
A final report was never issued, but Dr. Evelyn Forget conducted an analysis of the program in 2009 which was published in 2011. She found that only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less. Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted to stay at home longer with their babies, and teenagers worked less because they weren't under as much pressure to support their families, which resulted in more teenagers graduating. In addition, those who continued to work were given more opportunities to choose what type of work they did. Forget found that in the period that Mincome was administered, hospital visits dropped 8.5 percent, with fewer incidences of work-related injuries, and fewer emergency room visits from car accidents and domestic abuse. Additionally, the period saw a reduction in rates of psychiatric hospitalization, and in the number of mental illness-related consultations with health professionals.[0]
We know that poverty is extremely stressful, and stress leads to all sorts of other negative things. However, there's little evidence showing that poverty provides upward pressure. If we can remove the stress of poverty, people are allowed to start functioning normally.
If every child is eligible for his fair share of minimum income, there's a good incentive to direct productive-work energy into baby-making activities, boosting household's basic income numbers with each new addition.
> If every child is eligible for his fair share of minimum income, there's a good incentive to direct productive-work energy into baby-making activities, boosting household's basic income numbers with each new addition.
That kind of assumes basic income adds to rather than replaces existing welfare programs, which already have this feature. If it replaces them -- as most basic income advocates propose -- there is no reason to expect much change in this dimension, except that people already on the programs would, under basic income, have low-wage jobs as an option -- in place of baby-making -- to get more money, where in the status quo with means-tested programs, a low-wage job is often a net loss even in the immediate term, because it reduces benefits (sometimes 1:1, sometimes even greater by passing a sharp cutoff for important benefits.)
But the argument for replacement rests on reduced administrative costs of the replaced programs. If you still have to employ bureaucracy to monitor eligibility and combat fraud, you're kinda back to square one.
Which is great if you don't consider overpopulation a problem. It's good to try and ensure a high standard of living and economic comfort, but that doesn't happen in a vacuum: If your solution encourages procreation, it's important to review that not just in terms of problems it might solve but also those it might create or exacerbate (as well as results that may not be so clearly positive or negative but will introduce further change).
Indeed. I haven't see mincome in (usually religious) cultures that promote massive reproduction (6+ children surviving to adulthood).
In the long run, birh control must be a key component of mincome. This aspect makes people squeamish, sadly for the wrong reasons.
The study is interesting, but it was performed in Canada in the 1970s. I would be interested in seeing it performed now in the various 'target markets', with so many more distractions available, especially ones targeted at the teenager who just reached working age (i.e., video games). I really believe we would see different results.
EDIT: I play a few video games, hence why I know how distracting they are. Speaking of distractions, I should get back to work...
"Distractions" have existed forever. Comic books, baseball cards, marbles, pogs, etc. have always been around for teenagers to blow their money on and spend way too much time with. Saying that the existence of video games has fundamentally changed the economy as a whole seems wrong.
Moreover, if that were the case, we would have already seen it. A mincome wouldn't change that. Yet, right now, teens are one of the most under-employed demographics (as in there are more looking for jobs now than in the past), at least in the US. If they were all distracted by video games, we would have seen fewer looking for work.
A final report was never issued, but Dr. Evelyn Forget conducted an analysis of the program in 2009 which was published in 2011. She found that only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less. Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted to stay at home longer with their babies, and teenagers worked less because they weren't under as much pressure to support their families, which resulted in more teenagers graduating. In addition, those who continued to work were given more opportunities to choose what type of work they did. Forget found that in the period that Mincome was administered, hospital visits dropped 8.5 percent, with fewer incidences of work-related injuries, and fewer emergency room visits from car accidents and domestic abuse. Additionally, the period saw a reduction in rates of psychiatric hospitalization, and in the number of mental illness-related consultations with health professionals.[0]
We know that poverty is extremely stressful, and stress leads to all sorts of other negative things. However, there's little evidence showing that poverty provides upward pressure. If we can remove the stress of poverty, people are allowed to start functioning normally.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome