It was with great anticipation and cautious hopefulness that we awaited the Government of Canada response to In from the Margins: A Call to Action on Poverty, Housing and Homelessness. Action on the 74 recommendations it contains could have had a profound impact on the lives of Canadians living in poverty. The Senate has challenged our government to assume its responsibility to care for its citizens, to respect international human rights commitments, and to invest our collective resources conscientiously. Sadly, the government’s response illustrates a disappointing unwillingness to constructively assume this responsibility. Read more »
Our Judeo-Christian heritage has contributed to a work ethic that shapes our understanding of poverty and income security, creating cultural attitudes that make many uncomfortable with the idea of guaranteed income security. Some people feel that a guaranteed livable income is not only economically unfeasible, it is immoral, because it rewards people who are not working. There are, however, major problems with using the work ethic as a justification for withholding income support. As Christians, we are called to respect and protect the dignity of every individual created in the image of God. When poverty harms that dignity, we are not to punish the poor. Rather, we have an obligation to respond with justice, generosity and compassion. Read more »
One popular view of poverty is that it is a matter of individual responsibility. From this perspective, income security programs like Guaranteed Livable Income reward irresponsible behaviour. However, this view fails to account for the complex reality of modern poverty and the high proportion of working poor in Canada. This understanding of responsibility also lacks context since the reality is that everyone is interdependent. Recognizing this interdependency should lead us to a more holistic, communitarian sense of well-being. 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. 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 »
It was with great anticipation and cautious hopefulness that we awaited the Government of Canada response to In from the Margins: A Call to Action on Poverty, Housing and Homelessness. Action on the 74 recommendations it contains could have had a profound impact on the lives of Canadians living in poverty. The Senate has challenged our government to assume its responsibility to care for its citizens, to respect international human rights commitments, and to invest our collective resources conscientiously. Sadly, the government’s response illustrates a disappointing unwillingness to constructively assume this responsibility. 
One popular view of poverty is that it is a matter of individual responsibility. From this perspective, income security programs like Guaranteed Livable Income reward irresponsible behaviour. However, this view fails to account for the complex reality of modern poverty and the high proportion of working poor in Canada. This understanding of responsibility also lacks context since the reality is that everyone is interdependent. Recognizing this interdependency should lead us to a more holistic, communitarian sense of well-being. 
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. 
