Many Canadians believe it is inappropriate to pay people for "doing nothing." This notion is related to our cultural norms and values around work and income security. Our cultural valuing of economic growth, and therefore productivity, affects how we value people and what we consider to be work worth doing. In order to truly value people and their activities, regardless of income, we need to relinquish our focus on productivity and re-focus our attention on people. Read more »
Some policy experts prefer conditional income support programs to Guaranteed Livable Income because they believe those who are able to work should receive lower benefits to encourage them to work, while those who are disabled should receive higher benefits since they are deserving poor. But this division assumes that it is possible to make good distinctions between who is and is not capable of working. Instead, our poor track record in judging others and their ability to work suggests that employment conditions are the equivalent of condemning some people to poverty. Income security must be unconditional and universal. Read more »
How and why does poverty happen? Who is experiencing poverty in Canada? How are communities and institutions addressing poverty? What further action must be taken?
These are some of the questions that CPJ staff members Chandra Pasma, Karri Munn-Venn and Mariel Angus will be reflecting on next week when they attend the Canadian Social Forum. Read more »
Concerns about a possible work disincentive appear to be one of the biggest obstacles to guaranteed livable income. In this paper, presented at the USBIG Congress 2009, policy analyst Chandra Pasma examines the assumptions that underlie the belief in a work disincentive. Read more »
People often fear the work disincentive of guaranteed livable income because they believe that people will choose not to work if they have income security. This belief assumes that there are enough jobs for everyone, and that GLI or generous social benefits encourages some people not to engage in paid employment. The reality is, however, that there are not enough paid jobs for every Canadian, nor enough good jobs to meet every Canadian's needs. Income security for Canadians should therefore not be determined solely by participation in the paid labour force. Read more »
In our previous web feature on guaranteed livable income, we looked at whether the only thing that motivates people to work is money. This time, we 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? Read more »
By Chandra Pasma | Tuesday, November 4th, 2008 - 4:12PM
0 comments
While there is growing interest in guaranteed livable income (GLI) around the world, only two jurisdictions currently have such a program. Here's an update on Alaska and Namibia. Read more »
By Chandra Pasma | Tuesday, October 28th, 2008 - 10:00AM
0 comments
This week’s web feature deconstructs some of the assumptions that underlie concerns about guaranteed livable income (GLI) and work disincentive. There is another good reason for not being scared off of GLI by work disincentive though – research demonstrates that the impact is actually rather small. Read more »
One of the questions people often ask about guaranteed livable income is whether people will work if they have income security. But what do we really mean by this question? This question assumes that the only motivation for work is money, and that only paid labour is valuable work. Deconstructing these assumptions reminds us that work is about more than wages. Read more »
Income security affects many Canadians, but our current social assistance and income security programs aren’t having a major impact. Neither work nor social programs ensure that all Canadians have enough income to meet their basic needs. CPJ believes that it’s time to consider a guaranteed livable income for all Canadians. Investing in well-being is well worth the effort. Read more »
Many Canadians believe it is inappropriate to pay people for "doing nothing." This notion is related to our cultural norms and values around work and income security. Our cultural valuing of economic growth, and therefore productivity, affects how we value people and what we consider to be work worth doing. In order to truly value people and their activities, regardless of income, we need to relinquish our focus on productivity and re-focus our attention on people. 
Some policy experts prefer conditional income support programs to Guaranteed Livable Income because they believe those who are able to work should receive lower benefits to encourage them to work, while those who are disabled should receive higher benefits since they are deserving poor. But this division assumes that it is possible to make good distinctions between who is and is not capable of working. Instead, our poor track record in judging others and their ability to work suggests that employment conditions are the equivalent of condemning some people to poverty. Income security must be unconditional and universal. 
Income security affects many Canadians, but our current social assistance and income security programs aren’t having a major impact. Neither work nor social programs ensure that all Canadians have enough income to meet their basic needs. CPJ believes that it’s time to consider a guaranteed livable income for all Canadians. Investing in well-being is well worth the effort. 
