You have to be careful to not stimulate child birth that way. In South Africa there is a stipend paid for each child (called social grants). It's debatable but many claim it does encourage poor mothers to have even more children (the stipend isn't enough to support each child fully [3]- it's about $20 per month), and is sometimes used for other purposes.[1][2]

[1] http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2012/05/25/misuse-of-socia...

[2] http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/grants-used-to-suppor...

[3] http://www.parent24.com/Baby/Toddler_1-2/care_nutrition/The-...

I don't think having children is a natural right which society has the obligation to subsidize. Perhaps an additional subsidy should be provided for those who have children when the study begins, but no new children should receive that benefit.

>> "I don't think having children is a natural right which society has the obligation to subsidize."

Whether society subsidises it or not people are going to continue procreating, many irresponsibly (don't have financial ability to support their children). However are you arguing then that these children who happen to be born into poverty should then be left in it without government/societal help?

> However are you arguing then that these children who happen to be born into poverty should then be left in it without government/societal help?

First of all, UBI should ideally be enough to eliminate poverty. Parents might have to make some sacrifices to take care of the children (forgoing personal luxuries or taking a low wage job). Once the child is of age, they would receive their own basic income so there wouldn't necessarily be a cycle of poverty.

Moreover, we should incentivize child transfers by subsidizing adoption.

I think the UBI should cover the majority of families but there are still going to be irresponsible people out there. You're definitely right that the children should get out of poverty once they are old enough to receive their own UBI but I think there should still be some sort of program in place to protect the children of irresponsible parents throughout their childhood. I'm not sure of the best way to do that but overall their is probably a net benefit for society as poverty will inevitably lead to crime and physical/mental health issues.

> I think the UBI should cover the majority of families but there are still going to be irresponsible people out there.

If they're so irresponsible, why would giving them more money necessarily help the children to live a better quality of life?

> I don't think having children is a natural right which society has the obligation to subsidize.

Many of the social benefits a working Western society wants depends upon a growing population, like social security.

> Many of the social benefits a working Western society wants depends upon a growing population, like social security.

To be clear, they depend on a growing labor force.

However, the whole reason to investigate UBI is that we're likely nearing a future where labor is not a dominant factor of production. It seems unlikely that we'll have full employment in the future, particularly if there's UBI.

In an economy where labor is not a necessary constraint or driver of production, it seems entirely unclear why having a growing population (without a growing labor force) would be beneficial.

Not to mention that for the forceable future there are plenty of countries desperate to export excess populations. If you need to increase the population, there's no need to subsidize it.

Children are society's future. I think society needs to incentivize people to have children - otherwise our population will gradually decline to zero (developed countries already have birth rates well below replacement, only immigration is keeping them out of decline).

> Children are society's future.

Sure, but only in the sense that they're the ones who will be living it. Fewer children doesn't mean society won't have a future. It just means they'll each have more resources.

The world is not at risk of underpopulation. If that were actually a serious concern, we could take measures to mitigate it but all evidence points to there being plenty of people in the world already. Some wealthy countries might have declining populations, but there are plenty of countries with overpopulation to offset that.

Why does it need to be enough to support families? It will help. It doesn't seem that tricky.