Guaranteed Livable Income a universal idea

Cindy L'Hirondelle, Women's Economic Justice Project Coordinator responds to Vancouver Sun column

July 24, 2006

 

 

In Daphne Bramham's July 22 (Vancouver Sun) column "Oh, wouldn't it be lover-ly?" she launches a none to subtle attack on the Women's Economic Justice Report on Guaranteed Livable Income and me personally.

She hopes the ideas in the report are a joke, calls the report "sloppy", "sentimentalist", "Rousseau-ian", "sprinkled with neo-Luddite thinking", "buttressed with Marxist-socialist cant"; that I am "channeling the founders of the Social Credit party", making the guaranteed annual income idea seem "ridiculous", doing a "huge disservice" to the women interviewed, that I "trivialized the desperate needs of the poor", made a "nonsensical lament about how [low income women] can't buy organic", put feminism in disrepute and made the rest of Canada see us as "wigged-out West Coasters." I'm surprised she didn't call me a blood-drinking vampire as well, but then she wonders if I'm vegan. If she had contacted me, I would have told her: that's right, I only drink the blood of organic carrots.

Her over-the-top hatchet job would be funny if she didn't also state in all seriousness that I have "no intention of sharing the benefits" of GLI and that I must believe that "the equality section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms shouldn't apply to 'foreigners'." She gets this point completely backward. At some of the meetings it was brought up that everyone, including those new to Canada like refugees, needed to also get a GLI. We did not want to exclude people, in fact throughout the report the GLI is emphasized as a universal concept both within each country and worldwide. To quote a young woman I interviewed from Rwanda in reference to guaranteed income: "This is the issue that has to be tackled worldwide, not just limited to one country or one continent. We are facing the same problems in all parts of the world."

Bramham also takes themes that are included in our report – dozens of times – and then implies that we do not make these obvious cases for the need for a guaranteed income. She writes, "Women – or men – should not be penalized for staying home to look after children or elderly parents. They shouldn't be forced to choose between staying in an abusive relationship or living in poverty." These are some of the main themes of the report yet this does not come across in Bramham's article.

In regards to Bramham's description of the "nonsensical lament" of not being able to buy organic food: many women, especially those with health problems, repeatedly stated during interviews the importance of organic food. Improved health was the number one benefit cited for a GLI. Organic food was seen as key to good nutrition and thus good health. What is "nonsensical" about this?

And what is "sloppy" about pointing out economic facts as I do, at length, in my "Strong Case" article contained in the report? As Adam Smith states in the Wealth of Nations, "Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production" (Chapter VIII). Thus, all exhortations to solve poverty with higher productivity and economic growth necessitates more consumption. And where do consumers come from? They are born. This underscores how the economy is dependent on women's unpaid work. With a guaranteed livable income, dropping birth rates would not be an economic concern. But with an economy based on economic growth you need either a) more consumers or b) more consumption. According to the European Population Conference 2005, "Never in history has there been economic growth without population growth"; the Wall Street Journal frets, "Not enough babies: Report fingers new threat to economy" (August 23, 2005); Alan Mirabelli of the Vanier Institute of the Family (Globe & Mail, Aug. 12, 2003) stated: "If we are not producing more citizens who will ultimately consume, that is a problem"; and the National Post recently ran a 4-part series on "Canada's Baby Gap" Feb. 18-22, 2006). There are countless such articles – how ironic that it turns out that the wealth of nations depends on mothers.

In the 1960's and 70's there was a great deal of momentum for guaranteed income. Today there is more of a global network of GLI/Basic Income proponents who understand that every person in the world needs a Guaranteed Livable Income. Some pro-technology people also advocate guaranteed income as a way to spread the benefits of technology without worrying about taking away people's jobs. And even if volunteer bloggers replace paid newspaper "journalists" like Daphne Bramham, that's okay too. She could get a Guaranteed Livable Income too.

From: Cindy L'Hirondelle, Women's Economic Justice Project Coordinator
c/o Victoria Status of Women Action Group
Box 8484 Victoria, BC, V8W 3S1, (250) 383-7322
email: swag@pacificcoast.net
web: www.pacificcoast.net/~swag

 

---

 

Vancouver Sun, columnist Daphne Bramham slams
Women's Economic Justice Report on
Guaranteed Livable Income

Important clarification about the Women's Economic Justice Report

 

In the July 22, 2006 Vancouver Sun, columnist Daphne Bramham slams the Women's Economic Justice Report on Guaranteed Livable Income. (page C4) See article here: http://tinyurl.com/fs3kj

She states:

and

and

But that is not all. She also makes a very damaging mistake about one of the points listed under the section on "concerns". She thinks we were saying that we did not want people new to Canada to have a GLI. She got it backwards! We had the opposite concern. We wanted to ensure that people new to Canada could easily access getting a Guaranteed Livable Income. Throughout the report it is also noted that a GLI must happen in every country in the world.

The web site for the report has been revised to ensure that this is clear. http://pacificcoast.net/~swag/WEJreportconcerns.htm

Full report available here: http://pacificcoast.net/~swag/WEJreport

It is also causing a lot of alarm that in her article she attributes her mistaken ideas about the report to Cindy L'Hirondelle personally. This is what she writes about Cindy:

Bramham has been asked her for a correction in her next column but it would be great if others could send an email too about this over-the-top hatchet job.

Here is her email: dbramham@png.canwest.com

Here is the email if you want to send a letter to the Vancouver Sun (max. 200 words) sunletters@png.canwest.com

Or use this online form: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/letters.html

---

 

Women's Economic Justice Report available online

June 29, 2006