Seeking jobs not just income
BIG is largely an expensive attempt to buy our way out of poverty
There was a saying many years ago that "the best social program is a job". The origins were probably dubious (influencers seeking to limit social spending) but there was a karat of wisdom in this nugget.
In her guest opinion (A tale of two provinces, Feb. 11), Mary Boyd made some sage observations on policies to tackle poverty. She favoured a job guarantee as opposed to a guaranteed income. While I have some doubts about the ability of government to guarantee jobs for all, I believe that she would have us headed in the right direction.
I do have sympathy for proponents of the basic income guarantee (BIG). I think it would be a positive step, for instance, to provide most basic income support through the tax system rather than welfare assistance. Also, that there should be increased income support, just not to the level of the market basket measure of income.
The concern I have is that, as it is proposed, BIG is largely an expensive attempt to buy our way out of poverty. It addresses the symptom of poverty, not the causes.
The focus, where possible and feasible, should be on jobs. Decent-paying jobs. Mostly private sector and non-profit sector jobs. Not
jobs at any cost and not jobs at the expense of the environment but jobs to enhance services, environmental care and local economies.
People tend to feel better about themselves when they feel they are being productive. A deposit from the government can replace the money they lack but it may do little to give them the satisfaction of being a contributor.
Are there really enough jobs available now and in the future to make this orientation realistic? If so, can people at the lowest incomes fit into them?
I'm normally a pessimist but I'm ready to be hopeful. The challenges are huge and ongoing; systemic barriers, automation, disability limitations, child car obligations, economic downturns, pandemics, and on and on. Yet, throughout the world, including lesser developed areas, sizeable job growth had been taking place prior to COVID19.
One of the arguments made for a guaranteed income is that technological development will eliminate many of our existing jobs. Perhaps it will but change almost always opens new opportunities and new growth. Many twentieth century jobs are already gone but unemployment rates preCOVID had fallen substantially.
What has not changed in the past twenty years is the pain of the poor. Income support can help but it can't relieve many of the burdens they face. That is why it is so important to maintain and strengthen the existing array of programs and services. It is not that BIG proponents would seek to limit any of these services, but by presenting an expensive income focused solution to poverty they may draw resources away from the services that may best ease the load of the poor and give hope.
Perhaps the province could scale back the BIG proposal to maybe 75 per cent of the market basket measure and explore the beginnings of a job guarantee. Start by getting more income to those in deepest poverty and by expanding job opportunities.
Waiting for the federal government to fully fund an expensive BIG pilot project really hasn't gotten us very far. As Ms. Boyd pleaded, more urgent action is required.