The year has started with a flurry of reports looking at how
to best provide support to those that are financially challenged.
It is well acknowledged that an single adult leading a
family working full time at minimum wage remains under the poverty line. However, at that point there are differences
of opinion about what poverty advocates should speak up for.
Two pieces worth reviewing, first arguments in Healthy
debates January 14, following within days by critiques of the living wage
by The
Fraser Institute. Needless to say
with opposite conclusions on the value of approaches to increasing economic
wellbeing for families and individuals.
Minimum wage being a legislated lowest denominator for
hourly rates. The Living wage being a
construct that speaks to the minimum salary for a full time employee to eke out
a living when leading a family. Neither
has consistent methodology. Both assume
full time employment. The living wage was based on conversion of annual costs
to an hourly rate.
Concurrently, Statistics
Canada released December employment survey showing that full time jobs
decreased while overall parttime employment led to a net increase in jobs. Hidden in the report, participation rate
decreased to just under 2/3rds, those
unable to find employment who do not qualify for employment insurance for
having never worked, worked insufficient number of weeks, expired EI benefits without
finding employment are excluded from unemployment statistics that suggest
unemployment rates of just 7.2%
Herein lies the major issue. Poverty advocates are targeting minimum
hours levels of income. The labour
market continues a slide away from full time employment with benefits, to part
time or temporary positions with limited
benefits. Simple math, annual income is a function of both hourly rate and
number of hours worked. Put together
leads to a resurgence in the concept of the assured (guaranteed) basic income,
or what is actually needed annually to survive.
Few individuals wish to be dependent on social
programs. Rather than blame a minority,
its time to blame the system that purposefully holds individuals in economic
slavery. Forcing many to multiple part
time jobs and working in excess of accepted working hour standards for
employment. Fueled in the debate by
ultra-right wing thoughtless tanks like the Fraser institute.
Before believing that there is a simple solution, pay equity
between genders in Canada and most developing countries remains unachieved
despite government commitments.
1.
A societal commitment to social wellbeing
2.
A social commitment to reducing inequities
3.
Employment efforts that reinstate full time positions
with employee flexibility
4.
Wage and benefit standards
Perhaps more than ever, labour organizations need to speak
out – however with stronger unions for professions typified by regular hours,
fulltime employee and good benefits, the core values of the labour movement has now been undermined from within and those needing a voice are no longer represented.
In the meantime, much rhetoric is lost into the air by advocates
using differing terms, focusing on activities with marginal benefit, and
counterattacked by those who believe the solution to poverty is through
increasing profits amongst the richest 1%.
"ultra-right wing thoughtless tanks" - catchy, but I'll try not to use that during my CaRMS interviews :)
ReplyDeleteGreat article, as always.
Good advise although many of your interviewees would likely share the opinion. "Think tanks should be willing to consider a diversity of opinions objectively, not impose predestined ideology - hence the thoughtless comment. The Fraser Institute is capable of good work, but undermines its own credibility by poorly researched and highly opinionated pieces dressed up to look as legitimate and interspersed with better prepared materials..
ReplyDelete