Part II – A Deeper Look at GLI: Can We Pay People to Do Nothing?

This web feature is Part II in a series looking at the assumptions we have about guaranteed livable income. Part I deconstructed the question of whether people would work if they had income security.

Previously, I shared the anecdote of one participant at the Senate roundtable on guaranteed annual income who suggested that if he had income security as a young person, he would have spent all day in the pool hall and never made something of himself. He believed everyone is similarly motivated to become involved in society and to participate in the paid labour force for the sake of money. Whether intentional or not, the conclusions to be drawn from this belief are: a) that making people desperately poor is the only way to drive them to be useful and productive members of society, and b) that if people fail to participate in the paid labour force, it is okay for us to let them starve.

In the first web feature, we looked at the first conclusion and whether the only thing that motivates people to work is money. This time, I want to explore the second issue: is it okay to let people live in poverty if they don’t work? Or, as the question is more commonly framed, is it right to pay people to do nothing?

But this question already reveals certain underlying values – why do we immediately jump to the issue of payment? What other values would we reveal if we were to ask if there are certain things every human being can expect, by virtue of being human? Does everybody have a right to food, to shelter, to a basic minimum of security, and to clothing?

International human rights commitments say yes. These commitments are founded on the basis of human dignity. They are an attempt by the international community to establish the norms of a just society (and thereby hopefully avoid the horrific wars that characterized the early 20th century), by recognizing that human dignity can only be fully realized in the context of basic rights belonging to every human being. These include the right to security of the person, and “a standard of living adequate for health and well-being…including food, clothing, housing and medical care” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25). Many other human rights cannot be fully realized unless this basic security of the person is protected.

As Christians, we believe that this inherent human dignity is the birthright of every human being, as every individual is created in the image of God. Loving God means being respectful of the image of God in our neighbour. But what does that mean in practice? This idea is at the core of CPJ’s public justice framework. We believe that it means every individual is gifted by God with rights and responsibilities, including rights to the basic resources necessary for well-being, and the responsibility of working to ensure everyone’s rights are respected.

From both the international and public justice perspectives perspectives, then, there are no grounds to argue that it’s okay to leave people without sufficient access to the basic resources of life even if they are doing nothing. In our monetary economy, where income represents access to food, clothing, shelter and basic security of the person, every human being must have income, regardless of what activities they are and are not doing.

When this question is reframed, we can also avoid the assumptions discussed in the last web feature about what people are actually doing and what motivates them to engage in those activities. Are people really “doing nothing” simply because they have income security? Are we (those who engage in policy debates and formation) really qualified to pronounce their activities worthy of having income security versus being left in poverty? Is the only way to motivate people to engage in activities that we consider worthwhile to withhold money from them?

Let’s not make the mistake of reducing people’s innate worth to their current employment. Human beings are worth far more than that, and denying them access to the necessities of life based on external conditions disrespects this intrinsic worth.