“The perverse effects of the lack of access of young people to a basic income are more important than those of a so-called assistantship”

Tribune. Not only are young people the most affected by poverty, but they are also the ones who have suffered the most from the Covid-19 crisis. According to the latest figures available from INSEE, in 2019, 12.5% ​​of 18-29 year olds had a standard of living below the poverty line (i.e. 50% of the median income), while this rate is 8, 3% for the entire population, and just over 3% for those over 65. We do not yet know the poverty rate in 2020, but INSEE indicates that young people are those for whom the rise in unemployment was the strongest in 2020.

To this high incidence of poverty among young people, our social system adds an additional difficulty: the principle of dependence of young adults on family solidarity. 18-25 year olds are not entitled to RSA. This logic imposes on young people of modest origin, whether they are studying, training, looking for work or in precarious employment, a situation of financial distress that the health crisis has only worsened.

Logic error

Why exclude young adults from national solidarity? The reason is ideological: our political leaders, and a large part of public opinion, fear supposedly perverse effects linked to the payment of a benefit to young people. This “assistantship” would push them to laziness; those looking for a job might just play PS4; those who study would no longer see the point of going to class; those who work may prefer to reduce their number of working hours and receive a supplement from the State. While such perverse effects may exist for certain young people – generally with psychological difficulties and which it would be good to take care of – they are so limited that they have never been confirmed by statistical work.

Story: Article reserved for our subscribers 18-25 year olds, a generation damaged by the pandemic

The idea of ​​“assistantship” is an intuitive and deeply rooted ideology. It comes from the empirical observation that such and such a person touches the RSA and does not seek work effectively, while the work of researchers belies this simple observation. The apparent contradiction comes from what is called an “attribution bias” according to which one intuitively interprets the situation as “so and so does not look efficiently for work because he touches the RSA”, while the reasons for his inactivity are other: lack of access to information, lack of self-confidence, discouragement, shame, mental health issues, etc.

You have 56.31% of this article to read. The rest is for subscribers only.

source site