Health was the first and most frequent benefit of Guaranteed Livable Income identified during interviews. Benefits to nature and peace were the least mentioned. Also, I expected that thinking about the costs of jobs would be unfamiliar to many women, however, as the quotes show on pages 48 to 51, there was no shortage criticism of the jobs system. People are starting to look beyond jobs as a solution to poverty.

Poverty and the impact on democracy, also emerged during interviews. Many women did not want their real names used; no doubt fear negative consequences from family, bosses or welfare workers. This indicates a serious impact of poverty on participation in political processes of all kinds. Based on the interviews, I think it is safe to say people would easily vote in a GLI-they want a GLI to "happen"-but the fear of censure, lack of time, and ironically, lack of money is a barrier for organizing.

During the project there were several instances were it became evident that women feel urgency to help others, but don't see the same urgency to work on long-term solutions. Possibly, the situation for low-income women (and subsequently all women) could deteriorate, since there is no time for organizing for systemic change because of the demands, and rewards, of doing immediate humanitarian charitable work.

Another block to the movement for a Guaranteed Livable Income, is an understanding of money. A key finding of this project is that most people assume there must be a scientific rationale for the money supply, because the thought that millions of people are dying, or living in misery for no reason, is just too abhorrent to contemplate. However, the money system has no relation to "productive" activity. The very definition of economic production is totally skewed. Many destructive activities are counted as "productive" because they add to "economic growth," yet beneficial things, like unpaid care of family members, are not counted as being economically "productive". (See also the section "The costs of poverty" for more analysis on this point) During interviews women frequently used the word "productive" saying they want to be "more productive" or that a GLI would make people "more productive." After asking them what their definition of productive was, they said it meant things that are beneficial and meaningful to themselves and the community. This vastly different from the narrow economic definition of "productive" that you can find in economic textbooks such as, "The rewards of a market system are linked to productivity..." -"Principles of Economics", Prentice-Hall, 1996. Since this particular word is the arbitrator of who lives well, and who dies in misery, it is a key word to define. The question is, how did the word "productive" fall into common and frequent use especially when the word constructive would be more accurate to what people want to say? In his 1988 book, "Plastic Words," Uwe Pöerksen states: "Experts molded public discussion; and, wherever people talked, the words they used aligned themselves with a higher realm.... The language of the elite colonized and ruled the vernacular." It is not surprising that people want to emphasize their productivity. Many women interviewed said that societies biggest taboo was against "lazy people." This explains the current obsession with production and the overwhelming tendency for people to want to produce things, without an examination of what would be produced; whether it is beneficial to nature, people, community; whether it is harmful; or whether there is already a surplus of it.

During focus groups, participants asked for facts about (a) exactly how many low-income people are there, and how many of those are women (see chart at: http://pacificcoast.net/~swag/womenfactsChart.htm); and (b) economic surpluses-they were shocked by newspaper clippings showing gluts of everything from electronic gadgets to beer.

Other findings occurred when I made presentations on Guaranteed Livable Income at various conferences. Academics were very concerned about their concerns. I was told by the head of one "progressive" think tank, that there was simply not enough money for a GLI, because all money comes from production. A law professor had concerns that women might be entrenched in the home. Other prominent poverty thinkers said they are in favor of it, but, "It will never happen." Another said we need to have "credibility" before we argue for it; and another that they weren't working on it because union leaders don't want it. But, as you will see from both this report and the evidence compiled in the following article, the case for a GLI is so strong, that we may be surprised by the momentum it might gain, as the problems with the current economic system become even more evident. For people around the world living in poverty, problems are already too evident. As Mary Billy stated, positive change is coming, but, "I hope they just don't blow us up first."

Cindy L'Hirondelle, Women's Economic Justice Coordinator