The Mincome project

[RMorgan]

Hey folks,

Check this out.


A town in Canada tried the simplest method to end the ills associated with poverty: give everyone a minimum sum of money.

Try to imagine a town where the government paid each of the residents a living income, regardless of who they were and what they did. For a four-year period in the ’70s, the poorest families in Dauphin, Manitoba, were granted a guaranteed minimum income by the federal and provincial governments.

Until now little has been known about what unfolded over those years in the small rural town, since the government locked away the data that had been collected and prevented it from being analyzed.

But after a five year struggle, Evelyn Forget, a professor of health sciences at the University of Manitoba, secured access to those boxes in 2009. Forget has begun to piece together the story by using the census, health records, and the testimony of the program’s participants. What is now emerging reveals that the program could have counted many successes.

Unlike welfare, which only certain individuals qualified for, the guaranteed minimum income project—called “Mincome”—was open to everyone. It was the first—and to this day, only—time that Canada has ever experimented with such an open-door social assistance program. The program came to a quick halt in 1978 when an economic recession hit Canada.

Initially, the Mincome program was conceived as a labor market experiment. The government wanted to know what would happen if everybody in town received a guaranteed income, and specifically, they wanted to know whether people would still work. It turns out they did.

Only two segments of Dauphin’s labor force worked less as a result of Mincome—new mothers and teenagers. 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.

In the period that Mincome was administered, hospital visits dropped 8.5 per cent. Fewer people went to the hospital with work-related injuries and there were fewer emergency room visits from car accidents and domestic abuse. There were also far fewer mental health visits. In today’s terms, an 8.5 per cent decrease in hospital visits across Canada would save the government $4 billion annually.

If a guaranteed income program can target more people and is more efficient than other social assistance programs, then why doesn’t Canada have such a program in place already? Perhaps the biggest barrier is the prevalence of negative stereotypes about poor people. “There’s very strong feelings out there that we shouldn’t give people money for nothing.”

source (http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100)

Interesting project, right?

It´s pretty obvious why they don´t implement such system permanently, and why they kept the research data to themselves.

They need people to fear for their own future through financial insecurity, otherwise, the current system wouldn´t work.

Anyone here had a personal experience with this project? I´d like to know more about it.

Raf.

[write4change]

I found this interesting and highly thought provoking. I have often thought along these lines. It is pretty much acknowledged that in any institution 20% do most of the work and most of the contributions. Like my brain does not like being out of control and is addicted to reading and learning--I essentially read a book a day since I was 7 because I like it. I am right now working on restoring a pasture and learning to care for goats for free--because I need to work. I understand the rules is use it or loose it.

I have often thought that if we did a universal guaranteed income, this kind of result would really play out. Most people want a life and a living wage for that life. Most people are not driven by the so called need to have a yacht. These are created needs for status by the MSM. I did not see TV until I was ten. I was average in the world I lived in. We were all poor but we did not know it. We had enough to eat, time and room to play, and safe shelter to sleep. We did not lock out doors. Who steals their neighbors shoes?

If we removed the propaganda about what real value is, the power of the PTB would be immediately broken. That is mostly what they do not want you to know.

[AuCo]

Maybe i shouldn't say this but anyway. There are two kinds of people, imho. There are those that appreciate help, try hard to get going, and will be thankful for it even after it is long gone. There are also those that do not seem to recognize that oneself are being helped, keep depending on it, and may even nurture resentment when it is gone. It is unfortunate that the one kind is getting fewer and fewer.

The human minds at current stage are corrupted, compromised, made imperfect. Imperfect minds creates at best an imperfect society.

We humans have tried pretty much every way possible to live together, from anarchy to authoritarian. As of late we have capitalism and communism. The Soviet Unions returned to capitalist, China turned a hybrid, Cuba stays communist. There used to be 3 divided countries - each half followed these two ideologies: Germany, Vietnam, and the Koreas. Germany united into capitalism, Vietnam into communism, the Koreas are kept as is. Vietnam used to be ranked only after Japan before the social structure was flipped upside down - the governed became the governing. Look at its society now after almost 40 years later. A regretful outcome of a human societal experiment? I do not know. One can certainly see none is perfect for the roads that we choose to travel together are more than wicked and challenging, nevertheless I have a feeling someone is trying very hard to make it better.

Life is too short and we tend to get impatient at time.

sigh.....

I know! We have lots of patient, just not enough time to use it, right? :o

[Heartsong]

Where does the money come from to pay this subsistence income to people? Unless the government prints funny money, taxes pay for what the government spends. If fewer people work, there is less money to pay out.

In the long run, it seems that the financial end of this set up just wouldn't balance.

But it is an interesting idea.

[RMorgan]

Where does the money come from to pay this subsistence income to people? Unless the government prints funny money, taxes pay for what the government spends. If fewer people work, there is less money to pay out.

In the long run, it seems that the financial end of this set up just wouldn't balance.

But it is an interesting idea.

Hey mate,

What you didn´t understand, is that this experiment ended up almost paying for itself, since it reduced other public costs, like public medical care.

Clearly, when people don´t have to worry about getting poor all of a sudden, they tend to reduce the practice of self-damaging activities, such as excessive drinking, smoking, domestic violence, etc, therefore, saving resources that would be spent in those areas.

Long term, if fine tuned, such kind of social care could even revert profit for the Estate, since the "no pressure no diamonds" principle doesn´t work well regarding human beings; Happy people are always more productive. Fear and insecurity are the biggest enemies of creative productivity and creativity is the biggest producer of wealth.

Raf.

[Freed Fox]

To further reinforce your point Raf, the article also states that this program eased the pressure on individuals to take the first job they found available. Therefore, they were free to find an occupation that was best suited to their skill-sets as well as their own personal drive and preference. It's easy to see how that would have a positive impact on not only their own happiness and quality of life, but on their job performance and professional contributions.

[ceetee9]

... Happy people are always more productive. Fear and insecurity are the biggest enemies of creative productivity and creativity is the biggest producer of wealth.
Raf.Assuming that is true (and I don't doubt that it is), can you imagine what we could achieve as a species if we lived in a world where everyone capable of working worked at a job that they loved and/or were best at and the fruits of their labors all contributed to the wellbeing of everyone else so that everyone's needs were met--including those who were incapable of contributing? No need to fear, stress over, or worry about how you're going to feed yourself and your family, provide a decent home, clothing, energy, transportation, or healthcare needs. No need to worry about anyone robbing you because there is no money and everyone has everything they need. No need to feel insecure or worry about war with other countries or fear or hate this group or that because there are no classes or countries and groups that have more than any other country or group. No need for massive governments that tell us what to think, how to think and who are enemies are so that those with the real power and control (and their puppets) can live like kings while they slaughter your children and families to maintain their wealth, power and control under the guise of self-defense and patriotism.

Sounds like a completely foolish Utopian idea doesn't it? And it is as long as we persist in focusing on the things that divide us rather than focusing on the things that could unite us. The problem isn't that it is impossible to achieve, but rather that it is only impossible to achieve as long as we desire/allow it to be impossible to achieve. The choice is ours to make.

[Flash]

Maybe i shouldn't say this but anyway. There are two kinds of people, imho. There are those that appreciate help, try hard to get going, and will be thankful for it even after it is long gone. There are also those that do not seem to recognize that oneself are being helped, keep depending on it, and may even nurture resentment when it is gone. It is unfortunate that the one kind is getting fewer and fewer.

The human minds at current stage are corrupted, compromised, made imperfect. Imperfect minds creates at best an imperfect society.

We humans have tried pretty much every way possible to live together, from anarchy to authoritarian. As of late we have capitalism and communism. The Soviet Unions returned to capitalist, China turned a hybrid, Cuba stays communist. There used to be 3 divided countries - each half followed these two ideologies: Germany, Vietnam, and the Koreas. Germany united into capitalism, Vietnam into communism, the Koreas are kept as is. Vietnam used to be ranked only after Japan before the social structure was flipped upside down - the governed became the governing. Look at its society now after almost 40 years later. A regretful outcome of a human societal experiment? I do not know. One can certainly see none is perfect for the roads that we choose to travel together are more than wicked and challenging, nevertheless I have a feeling someone is trying very hard to make it better.

Life is too short and we tend to get impatient at time.

sigh.....

I know! We have lots of patient, just not enough time to use it, right? :o

Your mind AU seems fixed into 3 paradigms: communism (which was not real communism but fascism), capitalism and in between.

As long as we are fixed on old paradigm, we will not be able to create a new thinking for a new society.

When basic income is given to everybody, and food/shelter are garanteed, it does free people's mind and makes one free from stress to imagine and implement a better world. And American would scream "communism" but it is not. I would call it a light form of socialism that allows capitalism to flourish as well.

However, the difference between now and the 70's are drugs in every family almost (when one member is touched, the whole family is touched), corruption of the mind that is much more intense now and heavy brainwashing. Those 3 alone makes a garanteed income less potentially successful.

This garanteed income for everyone was analysed in Quebec because it was thought that it could be cheaper altogether than all the existing welfare/unemployement/student grants, that are offered now. I never heard further about it, it seems to be kind of taboo.

[Heartsong]

Where does the money come from to pay this subsistence income to people? Unless the government prints funny money, taxes pay for what the government spends. If fewer people work, there is less money to pay out.

In the long run, it seems that the financial end of this set up just wouldn't balance.

But it is an interesting idea.

Hey mate,

What you didn´t understand, is that this experiment ended up almost paying for itself, since it reduced other public costs, like public medical care.

Clearly, when people don´t have to worry about getting poor all of a sudden, they tend to reduce the practice of self-damaging activities, such as excessive drinking, smoking, domestic violence, etc, therefore, saving resources that would be spent in those areas.

Long term, if fine tuned, such kind of social care could even revert profit for the Estate, since the "no pressure no diamonds" principle doesn´t work well regarding human beings; Happy people are always more productive. Fear and insecurity are the biggest enemies of creative productivity and creativity is the biggest producer of wealth.

Raf.

Thanks R for the clarification. I guess it was that fact that everyone got the same amount. In the U.S. we have "welfare" which gives out cash according to a formula that is supposed to be equivalent to "need". Yet these people aren't happy. Most likely it isn't enough. Medical here is never free although through the welfare system it is subsidized.

I'm all for people being happy and well adjusted and working as they wish however, a government stipend is still dependency on the government. What is given can be taken away or diverted towards...say..war.

It's something to think about.

Maybe someday when times are different this would work out.
Heartsong

[AutumnW]

The worst thing you can do is make people struggle on below subsistence welfare. It guarantees poor health, lowers IQ in children. Pretty soon you have created that sub-clinically 'lazy' class of people referred to as 'poor'. I'm sure multi-generational poverty is partly due to these factors.

[Corncrake]

What an interesting experiment - I have sent the link on to various people I know who may be interested. I am intrigued - why have most of us not heard of it before especially considering it was successful? When visiting the then USSR at the time of glasnost and perestroika around 25 years ago I was struck by just how badly people worked and put it down to lack of incentive as everyone was paid whether they performed well or not. As a very restricted tourist I of course only saw people working in almost empty shops, waitressing and bar workers. Having read this, rather late in the day, I now realise this was probably as much due to being in a dead end job with little room for creativity. I remember some tourists behaving in a shameful arrogant fashion as well which was probably a contributory factor! At the time the average life span of a male was about 62 years and I don't think it has got much better.

[Wookie]

While on the surface "Mincom" seems noble I feel that is only surface deep. Maybe I'm jaded towards my government, and power structures in general. Or it might be the guaranteed income, the focus on money, that puts me off. First create an environment of generated scarcity, second throw the dog a bone. Most of the time problems can be fixed but sometimes the systems that create the problems are so intertwined starting from scratch is the best option. Someone or something somewhere is happy with the way the world spins. Working as intended. This does not mean we can't affect change, it means we must create change.

Peaceful Journeys Wookie