And what happens when it decreases the number of people who choose to get an education to seek greater opportunities? After all, the thought of perpetual poverty is a huge motivator. With that gone? Won't we see a higher divide between skilled and unskilled, rich and poor? I'm a bit skeptical about this supposed panacea that cures crime, disease, and teen pregnancy, all in one fell swoop.
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.
Poverty is a huge cause of crime, disease, teen pregnancy, and poor educational outcomes. Do you disagree?
And if someone refuses to get an education or better themselves when given the opportunity, are they somebody you'd like to hire for your company? Better to keep them placated with some minimum of food and shelter so they don't rob you, and save the jobs for the people who want them and will execute to your satisfaction.
I took a criminology class in college and the big takeaway was the supposed statistical correlation between race and crime - which, if study correctly - actually correlates to poverty and crime.
That seems to obvious to me, I'm always surprised that more people don't see it that way. I believe that most racism is really classism, and exists primarily in places where race and poverty correlate.
Not to say that actual racism doesn't exist; of course it does. But I think when most people think "I'd rather not be around 'those people'", if they thought about it they'd find that 'those people' are really defined by either their culture or economic status, rather than their race, and that their race is just a visually-obvious proxy.
"After all, the thought of perpetual poverty is a huge motivator."
Pain, fear, and force are by far the least effective means of motivating labor, and they massively undercut the more effective means (enjoyment of the work, pride in the product of your labor, identification with and emotional investment in the enterprise, etc.). The threat of destitution is not necessary to procure labor, but only to procure it at a bargain rate.
Once people reach a livable income, do they totally stop learning, inventing, or creating? I know I don't, and I know other people I see with financial security don't just "stop" either. Because of that, I believe it's at least worth a try.
No, of course not. But the idea that minimum income would cause everyone to just quit their jobs is predicated on the presumption that the poor are morally inferior. Thus, analogies to what middle and upper class people do once they reach a certain level of income are irrelevant, because those people are not morally inferior. You might see a middle class person leave his comfortable line engineer job to get an MBA or PhD to increase his earning power, but that's a mark of the moral virtue of the middle class. A poor person given any sort of income security would just sit on his ass and eat mcdonalds all day. Or so they say.
Nice straw man, but no - I'm not concerned about the poor who work for a living, they genuinely tend to want to improve their lives and their families lives - that's why they are willing to work 40 hours or more a week for barely more money than could be gained on welfare. I've been there.
I'm worried about the children of middle and upper-income families deciding that 'mincome' is good enough. I have yet to see any actual study or research on this that isn't 40 years old. The results were fairly positive then, but I'd like to see it replicated today. Maybe I'm worried about nothing.
Just look at the children today who have parents that are wealthy enough to support their children through adulthood. Most of them, I suspect, go through college and then work, either in the family business, some business of their own (possibly a boutique business that can never earn a profit but still pays rent and tax and maybe some salaries), or in some kind of charity/fundraising business.
With mincome, more children whose parents couldn't give them that kind of support would probably behave this way. And that would probably be a good thing.
There are also the brats of the super-rich which do nothing but throw away money, but even they are throwing their money towards people who can make better use of it. So maybe we'd have middle-income brats living off mincome and throwing it all away without doing productive work, but so what? They're not going to hoard the money, they're going to spend it, and that will drive the economy and put the money into the hands of people who are working productively.
There's a great quote from Warren Buffett -- something like "I want to give my kids enough money that they can do something, but not so much that they can do nothing."
The clear implication is, having a little bit of money to fall back on helps people build their lives.
I think it's more likely that the poor would quit their jobs because the sorts of jobs that they do are more likely to be boring or unpleasant than middle class jobs.
No, it's simply predicated on the idea of diminishing marginal utility. The only reason it's more of a potential problem for the poor than the rich is because a concave function has a negative second derivative. Seriously, make up any concave function and compute marginal utility before and after a basic income for the rich and poor alike.
It's also a concern given that the poor already do sit on their ass and eat mcdonald's all day. Most poor don't work and aren't looking for a job.
Most of those who are either lazy or unable to find work are poor. Many who are unable to find work are in that situation through no fault of their own.
I suspect you are referring to my use of the words "sit on their ass and eat mcdonald's all day"? Read Rayiner's post - the phrasing is his. He just uses it as reducto ad absurdum, which is not actually so absurd.
My ability to invent and create is limited by my education. If I never got one in the first place because I had my basic needs met, there are quite a few things I could never do that I could now. And 'worth a try' on something this potentially disruptive needs more evidence than wants and feels for me to ever consider it viable. I don't think I'm alone.
I'm sure many would be happy to watch tv all day long. But likely a majority would want to do something with their lives.
If we were to do a program like this it should also include free birth control and even the option to sell reproductive rights. I've seen Idiocracy and while it is hyperbolic, I think there are elements of truth there.
Ideally the income level is below "Owns 42" flatscreen, can go to anything more expensive than McDonald's, owns latest xbox, owns other luxury goods" such that people are no longer living in poverty, but still have motivation to excel beyond their current situation.
Unfortunately, if you hand someone with poor money management skills a bunch of cash, they may end up with all of those luxury items & no food on the table.
Considering how cheap consumer electronics and entertainment are these days, I'm genuinely concerned that this 'minimum income' would be high enough to permit many to live in perpetual 'childhood' - cheap food, cheap entertainment.
To me, that sounds like hearing someone saying "I'm genuinely concerned that people will start giving their kids strange-sounding names." Sure, it's a bit odd, but so what... it's not affecting you.
Maybe you are concerned that they will fail to contribute to the economy, thus dragging it down, but if so then I wonder what you think of our current economic system which leaves a noticeable percentage of people unemployed. Maybe you are motivated by the classic Protestant work ethic and think failing to work hard is a sin, but if so I'm not sure why THIS sin is one you need to worry about in others rather than in yourself.
And at this point I should stop knocking down straw men, and wait to hear why this actually concerns you.
> Why does this concern you?
To me, that sounds like hearing someone saying "I'm genuinely concerned that people will start giving their kids strange-sounding names." Sure, it's a bit odd, but so what... it's not affecting you.
It concerns all taxpayers, since they're the ones paying the bill for basic income.
I think it's the other way round: It's difficult to convince people to get an education when:
- It costs money
- It's presented as a way to get a profession that could maybe make you money in the long term, and not as a way to get an education. Besides, evidence seems to be to the contrary.
- The short term financial benefits are nil, and you need money now.
But when people have survival off of their minds, I think it's be easier to convince them of taking a no-risk dive into education. I think consumerism will be there, and people will still be motivated to make more money to spend more money.
A bit like the ancient greek free men: They had their lives all set for them, and so they couldn't help but think about governance, politics, arts, rights, etc.
> And what happens when it decreases the number of people who choose to get an education to seek greater opportunities?
Why would it do that?
> After all, the thought of perpetual poverty is a huge motivator.
The threat of absolute poverty may have some marginal value as a motivator, but what it motivates is largely risk-averse behavior to maintain the status quo from those at risk of poverty but not currently in it. At the same time, the reality of poverty often means, regardless of motivation, the absence of the means to many things, regardless of motivation.
> With that gone? Won't we see a higher divide between skilled and unskilled, rich and poor?
No, if we are funding a basic income guarantee from progressive income taxation, we won't see a greater divide between the rich and the poor, in any case. We might (though I don't see any reason to believe this is particularly likely) see a greater gap in skills between the "skilled" and the "unskilled" by some measures, but as this gap won't produce as large of a gap as currently between the opportunities and choices available to the next generation offspring of the "skilled" and "unskilled", that will simply reflect a greater realization of human freedom.
> to get an education to seek greater opportunities?
That, "make mo money", is the poorest and most cynical incentive to "get an education". Education is it's own reward. Not everyone desires/benefits from going into debt for a piece of paper.
People should be free (by having basic income) to choose their own education (or not at all). And not be forced into becoming fuel for the economic machine.
But by providing them a minimum income, you basically make them into fuel for the economic machine - a consumer with no viable skills. And the vital years for gaining these skills are full of distractions, made all the easier to acquire by a basic income.
Look at the Mincome example I posted above. Teens are more likely to graduate high school. Why? Because they aren't pressured to help support their families.
This "distraction" theory is a far stretch. Teens have always had distractions. And most of them have the means to acquire those distractions. So they might buy a video game they couldn't afford before. They also don't have to try to go to school and work a full time job to support their family. Having to go to school and work is a much larger distraction.
> But by providing them a minimum income, you basically make them into fuel for the economic machine - a consumer with no viable skills.
No, by providing them with a minimum income, you make them into a someone who has the freedom to expend resources to acquire new skills as their existing skills become less relevant, rather than someone chained to their current situation.
They may choose to be satisfied with their current situation, but we'd need a lot more productivity from a small slice of the population before the completely unskilled would likely to choose to do so. Under a basic income system, the marginal benefit of additional effort (and, thus, purely financial motivation) is greater than in the status quo system for people who would otherwise be beneficiaries of means-tested social support programs.
> what happens when it decreases the number of people who choose to get an education ... After all, the thought of perpetual poverty is a huge motivator
It's also a catalyst for the kind of lifestyle that quickly stifles further education. As it stands, unskilled, uneducated or partially-educated, non-wealthy individuals often have one realistic option: low-wage, long-hour labor which seems to tend to form a trapping cycle.
Now consider for a moment the line of work for (I think it's fair to assume) the majority of users of this site (software development) and the nontrivial number of people in the business who are largely self-educated. It would be silly to promote self-education and free-time online learning as an exact analog to accredited institutional education, but this field in particular presents an interesting case study in individuals simply choosing to get educated in a subject and succeed on their own time.
Is it likely that a subset of the population would simply settle for the minimum income lifestyle? Of course. But I'll wager without a second thought that freeing up a large other portion of the population to pursue their interests will in fact raise the number of educated individuals entering the workforce. After all, the promise of a higher standard of living is still a huge motivator with a basic income of only $10,000/year (still below national poverty level.) And societal attitudes towards the former group are not likely to change -- in fact the sense of tax-dollar ownership is liable to increase stigma on nonworking or nontraining individuals.
There are no modern examples of such a system to draw concrete conclusions from, so it's all hypothetical in the end. But I think you are looking at it a bit narrowly and missing the greater economic good that could come from removing "basic survival" from the top of the list of concerns of a huge portion of the population.
