AISH: Social Indifference or a liveable income August 2011 Edmonton Street News

AISH: Social Indifference or a liveable income, August 2011 

Edmonton Street News

August 2011 

by Timothy Wild

According to the Canadian Centre for Policy

Alternatives (CCPA), our country's 100 highest paid

Chief Executive Officers had earned the full year's

average wage of Canadian workers by 2:30 pm on

Monday, January 3 2011 - just in time to pay their

Christmas bills. The CCPA's report also noted that the

average wage of these one hundred executives was

$6.6 million. In addition to these unfathomable (to me

at least) wages, the CEOs also enjoyed the bounty of

stock options. More recently, the Toronto Globe and

Mail reported that Canada's top three executives earned

over $16 million each in 2010,and the bonuses enjoyed

by CEOs in general increased by 21%. Finally, it was

shown that the pension benefits of this elite group

increased substantially. Not bad for them I say!

But, in contrast, I wonder how long it would take a

low income person to reach the average wage of

Canadian workers? How long would it take a person

on AISH, or a worker employed at minimum wage?

When would they reach the average wage in Alberta?

Sadly enough, the answer is never! The average hourly

wage in Alberta is $25.02 per hour, so multiply that by

37.5 hours and then by 52 weeks and you get $48,789

per year as an approximation of our province's average

wage. As we all know, AISH, minimum wage and

social assistance are not even in the same galaxy let

alone orbit.

Indeed, they currently don't even meet the Statistics

Canada Low Income Cut-Off line, regarded by many as

Canada's poverty line. Even with the promised - and

long overdue - increase in September from $8.80 to

$9.40 per hour, the minimum wage employee will

never reach that average. It will remain patently inadequate.

And people on the Assured Income for the

Severely Handicapped program (AISH) still receive

only a maximum of $1188 per month. Once again, this

is an income that does not even come close to meeting

the actual costs of living. Shame on Alberta.

Admittedly, a person on AISH can augment their

income by part-time or periodic work. There is provision

for income exemptions. However, let's face it,

people who are able to meet the arduous requirements

necessary to get AISH have persistent and severe limitations

that prevent them from obtaining, and maintaining,

secure and long-term employment. So it seems a

bit odd that a work income replacement program would

promote reliance on work to supplement that replacement

income!

Only a small percentage of people on AISH actually

reach the maximum income exemption amount, reflecting

the fact that most people cannot take advantage of

this illusionary "incentive" as they cannot work. And

even of the people on AISH who are working, most of

them are employed in low-paid and periodic positions -

so this isn't the untapped income reservoir that the government

would have us believe. All told, although the

theoretical ability to supplement the AISH financial

benefit through the job market may sound "nice" and

provide some comfort to the murmurs of our conscience,

it is a policy initiative that subtly camouflages

the real situation - the income provided by AISH is

completely and utterly inadequate to the meet the ongoing

costs of living, and provide a foundation for dignity

and authentic social participation. Now, I am not

knocking work. In addition to providing money, it is

also important in terms of promoting self-esteem and

developing social networks. But to use work as a compensatory

policy provision with reference to AISH

recipients is simply not on.

So what's the answer? Well, I think there are a

number of steps that should be taken immediately. The

most obvious one is to increase AISH by approximately

$347 a month, which would bring the income to the

poverty line for a single person. Secondly, in order to

guard against the erosion of cost of living increases,

AISH should be increased by the cost of living on an

annual basis. This is the

minimum required.

However, a more far

reaching and lasting policy

approach would be to

implement a form of basic

or guaranteed annual

income. Essentially, as

the name suggests, individuals

are guaranteed a

minimum income regardless

of their relationship

to the conventional, paid

labour market. This has

been promoted and supported by a number of groups

and individuals, including Conservative Senator Hugh

Segal and has actually been implemented with positive

results in Namibia. It has been suggested that the

expense of guaranteed income is significantly cheaper

than the costs associated with poverty. Furthermore,

our national pension system - particularly the

Guaranteed Income Supplement and Old Age Security -

is, at root, an example of a basic income system that

works. Sure, poverty remains a problem for too many

seniors, but poverty rates for seniors as a whole have

decreased due to the economic intervention of the various

levels of government.

Anyway, without going too much into the details,

it is clear that there are solutions - but we need to have

the political will to explore and implement these initiatives.

We have to be willing to collectively determine

what is best for all of us, not just the so-called corporate

elites. Finally, I don't want to give the impression

that it is all about money. It isn't. Money is simply a

means to an end. Overall, an adequate, basic income is

about participation, dignity and choice. And while I

am sure that the top CEOs are worthy of their keep, so

are our fellow citizens who don't earn near as much.

We must ensure that this fundamental human equality

is recognised in policy. We all have value; so let's make

sure that our models of income provision reflects this.

. By Timothy Wild