30 people attended a Public Meeting to release the Women's Economic Justice Project on Guaranteed Livable Income which was held on Saturday, April 29, 2006 at the Victoria Event Centre at 1415 Broad St.

Meeting notice stated: Solutions are urgently needed for People, Peace and the Planet. Find out why a Guaranteed Livable Income addresses all three. Digitial slide show will highlight the findings of the Women's Economic Justice Project: benefits of Guaranteed Livable Income, why women would benefit, the costs of poverty, and the barriers & strategies to move this idea forward.

GLI Reader: This 32 page booklet contains over 130 quotes about guaranteed income; from proponents in the 1960's to current guaranteed livable/basic income groups from around the world. What is a Guaranteed Livable Income?
Contents: Herstory/History - Today's Worldwide Movement - Why should women care about a GLI? - What is Work? - Objections & Excuses - Reality Check - Costs

Pamphlet: What is a GLI and why should women care. Includes facts on women's poverty, and the economic rationale for a guaranteed livable income.

Digital slide show: These presentations use numerous graphics, facts and photos to provide an introduction to guaranteed livable income to interested groups.

Facts on Women and Income in Canada

Articles: The Strong Case for a Guaranteed Livable Income

Call (250) 383-7322 or email to request any of these resources

Related Information

• 2003 Article: Why women would benefit from a Guaranteed Livable Income
• Dr. Evelyn Forget's project researching "The Town with no Poverty" .
• Article about a GLI workshop by: "Anarchocyclist"
• Videos of 3 GLI/BI presenters, Rhonda Breitkreuez, Jim Mulvale, and Cindy L'Hirondelle (from SWAG) speaking on Basic Income/Guaranteed Livable Income at the Women's Economic Security Conference in Vancouver in October 2005
• Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres endorses the Pictou Statement.
• Articles and links on Guaranteed Livable Income from Livable Income For Everyone (LIFE)

In July 2005 the Women's Livable Income Working Group (c/o SWAG) began an 18 month project funded by Status of Women Canada to examine how women would benefit from a Guaranteed Livable Income. This initiative addresses the feminization of poverty and the resulting economic barriers to women's participation in the political life of their community.

The concept of a guaranteed income has been around for many years. (See the links page of the Livable Income For Everyone website for more information.)

Over 30 years ago, guaranteed income was a recommendation of the Royal Comission on the Status of Women:

See also a critique of the Royal Commission

Today, feminists from across Canada (See the Pictou Statment and the resolution on Women's Poverty) are taking an interest again in such a concept.

• Investigate and document the benefits that would incur to women with the implementation a universal GLI as compared to
  a) the costs of the continuation of the feminization of poverty and
  b) the costs of pursuing jobs as a solution to poverty.  
  
• To disseminate our findings in order to expand social policy debate in BC and elsewhere to include how women would benefit from a universal guaranteed livable income.
  
• Analyze and evaluate the response to our findings in order increase effectiveness of future action on women's economic justice.
  

Women's poverty and the negative impacts on women's and children's lives are well documented. (See Gender and Income Chart for Canada from 2004 Revenue Canada data specially perchased for this project, text only info here)

The solutions proposed to this deeply entrenched systemic problem, especially in the industrialized countries, have focused on solving women's poverty through labour market attachment.

This solution is put forward from both the political left and right, although they propose different methods for this goal. Those who consider themselves progressive want to use incentives and supports to lift women out of poverty, while those on the political right advocate a sink or swim approach, exemplified by assertions such as "Poverty is Voluntary" (Fred McMahon, Fraser Institute, August 9, 2001, Vancouver Sun, opinion article).

Both approaches to solving poverty ignore the work of feminist economists who have researched and described for decades how women are poor because so much of the work that women do for family, community, society and the economy is deemed "unproductive" by the current economic system and is thus unpaid.

Because anything resembling 'women's work' is unpaid or under-paid, those who do this work end up poor. This has created entrenched inequality and exploitation in women's lives around the world.

The poverty and hardship for low-income women in BC has also deepened due to vast social spending cuts, income assistance cuts and other policies such as contracting out, the introduction of a $6/hour training wage and the gutting of employment standards.

Yet social policy debate has not moved beyond arguing over how to get more women into good paying jobs or fixing the welfare system to provide more benefits. Since women bear the brunt of economic inequality, proposed solutions to poverty must include the analysis of feminist economics. Otherwise we are trying to solve a problem with the very same value systems that caused the problem.

One way to deepen and challenge conventional analysis in social policy debate is to examine and promote the concept of universal guaranteed income and how it would benefit women. There is a revival of interest around the world, however, the guaranteed/basic income discourse rarely includes women's perspective even though it is clear women would gain the most from such an income security initiative.  

The goal of this project is not to determine 'if' a guaranteed income is wanted, or not wanted, by women. There is simply not enough information or analysis for women to have an informed discussion on this issue. The idea that good paying jobs are the only solution to poverty thoroughly dominates current discussions on poverty to the point that it is almost unanimous. However, due to impacts on health, children's health and the environment's health, it is essential that we move 'out of the box' when analyzing poverty, work, jobs and have an evidence-based analysis.

For example, millions of people work directly and indirectly in the fast food, junk food and processed food industries. In addition, many more are employed in the medical/pharmaceutical industries because of all the ill health caused by consumption of these products. Similarly the tobacco, alcohol and gambling industries create jobs and ill health and social problems. Trying to solve poverty by using "jobs" as the main method of income distribution has very high costs to our health, our children's health, the health of the environment, other living things and to our communities. See Health and Environment on the LIFE website.

The idea of 'productive choice' must be introduced into social policy debate. Why are poor mothers and other family members not allowed to do the work of raising their own children but must find 'real' work which can bizarrely mean selling illness producing junk food to other people's children? Elder care is also going to become more and more of an issue for women as social spending is cut.

The concept of guaranteed livable income (GLI) would mean 'productive choice' for women and everyone else. It would mean that socially beneficial activities that are currently deemed to be 'unproductive' would be an option without financially penalizing those who do them. More people would be able to do this work instead of letting the world's 'unpaid' work fall on the shoulders of women.

Examining this concept would also allow acknowledging the reality that much work that used to be done by people, is now done by machines. However, instead of this being a boon to people, it has become a bane; competition for jobs has become increasingly fierce and people naturally are terrified of not having a job because no job means not being able to survive.

In spite of the mounting evidence that "Get a Job" is not a solution to poverty, GLI has been overlooked without a thorough understanding of what it would mean, especially to women who have the least economic security and the biggest burden for doing the world's unpaid, yet essential, work.

With this initiative, we wish to rectify this lack of analysis that inordinately and devastatingly affects the lives of women in BC and beyond.

1) Recent social spending cuts in BC inordinately affect women. This has been documented by the BC Coalition of Women's Centres, BC CEDAW, and by organizations in the Victoria region. Poverty has clearly documented and costly negative consequences for women, children and communities.

2) Testimony from local low-income women at SWAG-organized grassroots social justice meetings (held between August 2001 to January 2003) related these reoccurring themes: the harm in their lives from poverty especially health problems from lack of nutritious food; the inadequate and shaming nature of welfare and charity; lack of recognition and economic support for the work of mothers, harms from precarious and underpaid employment, the difficulty of doing 'real' work while also having full responsibility for the work of raising children; how poverty and fear of poverty leaves women vulnerable to exploitive/abusive/harmful situations. Interest in the idea of guaranteed livable income and how it would benefit women was frequently expressed.

3) Feminist economists and eco-feminists writings and research indicate the need to look beyond traditional economics for solutions to address the impoverishment of women. Current social policy debate in general fails to do this.

For example in two recent papers on poverty: "A Bad Time to Be Poor" by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) and the Social Planning and Research Council of BC (SPARC BC) and a report completed for the BC Federation of Labour called "A Path to Poverty: A Review of Child and Family Poverty Conditions in British Columbia" by SPARC BC, propose poverty solutions which focus on labour market attachment and improved welfare.

When analysis on poverty omits the issue of unpaid care work (which is a vast area of work, affecting large numbers of women) this means that the economic problems faced by those who do this work (mostly women) will continue or worsen.

4) In other parts of the world and even here in Canada, there is a revival of interest in the concept of guaranteed/basic income. While this solution to poverty does move beyond conventional economics, there is a notable lack of women's perspective in writings on this issue.

"Although the role of women in society is central to social policy reform, the existing basic income literature disturbingly void of any comprehensive treatment of women." (Ailsa McKay, Feminist Economics, 7 (1), 2001)

• Compile resouces relating to a guaranteed livable income (GLI).
• Conduct interviews and focus groups and compile findings in a report on the benefits of guaranteed livable income (GLI) to women.
• Public meeting to release report (April 2006).
• Create transcript of meeting for supplementary report.
• Document, evaluate and analyze response to, and effectiveness of, initiative.
• Produce Supplementary Report and disseminate.
• Develop networks for further action on women's economic justice.

Interview Themes

The following themes would be explored in interviews with 40 low-income women who have a diversity of life experiences and who are interested in the concept of GLI.

Benefits:

• What would be specific benefits that a GLI would have on women's lives both in the short term and in the long term?
• What would be the benefits of GLI to children, nature and society in general?
• How could GLI enhance community care, problem solving, innovation and creativity?
• What opportunities would GLI create to address systemic oppression including sexism, racism, ableism, classism, homophobia, transphobia, ageism and other forms of oppression?

Costs:

• What are the costs of continuation of poverty and the feminization of poverty?
• What are the costs and viability of pursuing jobs with decent pay as a solution to poverty and the feminization of poverty?
• What are the financial costs of poverty to society?
• What are the non-financial costs of poverty: to family, to community, to nature, to cultural, spiritual life?
• Consider the impact of pursuing the goal of jobs as a solution to poverty on women, children, elders, the ill, the differently abled, on culture, community, family and the environment.

Concerns:

• What can go wrong with implementation of GLI; concerns and pitfalls.

Strategies:

• Ideas for future organizing; developing an effective grassroots network; barriers to organizing.