It is tremendously costly,
and not just monetarily,
but also spiritually.
As a society,
how are we going to be judged?
'They did what with the poor people?' 
-Janine

The whole thing is about money and for me, not enough,
and for 60% of the population in Canada, that's what it's about.
-Donna

During the interviews, many women pointed out that a GLI would be far cheaper financially for society than the costs of poverty. However, arguing for a guaranteed income purely in terms of monetary savings, seems logical, but is deeply problematic because it would not openly challenge economic definitions of what is considered economically "productive" and what is not. In Marilyn Waring's 1988 book, "Counting for Nothing", in the chapter "The Value of Death" she states: "While women, children and the environment are counted as nothing, the entire international economic system calls war productive and valuable."

If we accept that the money supply is created by "production", and who has money, and who does not is based on how "productive" you are, then we had better examine these definitions and assumptions closely. For this reason, I spoke to JS Larochelle, a writer from the group Livable Income For Everyone, (of which I am also a member), which has a website advocating Guaranteed Livable Income: "Everybody thinks that because you have a job, money is automatically printed and ends up in the person's bank account. That somehow you've done something productive, and therefore you are deserving of money. This is obviously not the case. For example, there is no mathematical equation that can somehow equate being a politician, a professor or a police officer with a growth in the money supply. This is a political decision we have made to give staggering numbers of people a guaranteed livable income. The reason why this isn't extended to everybody in society, is because of a historical misunderstanding of the concept of money." (Interview, March, 2006)

In addition, discussing GLI in terms of "cost savings" is similarly problematic. How can we put a cost on a life shortened because of poverty? How can we put a cost on the loss of natural resources from the relentless pursuit of economic growth and jobs? Or social and family breakdown? Several of the women interviewed, emphasized that we are all connected. When individuals are weakened, so are their friends, family, and larger community. The lost human potential, the loss of health and happiness, the loss of nature, ability to connect with nature, and the loss of other species, is staggering. So it would be extremely shallow, dangerous and almost impossible to try to do a purely monetary cost-benefit analysis in regards to Guaranteed Livable Income. For this reason, the Costs section attempts to examine the broadest definition of the costs of poverty and pursuing jobs as a solution to poverty.  

For this reason, more people are looking to develop other tools, like the Gross Progress Indicator or the Gross National Happiness, to evaluate a country's health. The accounting used for the Gross Domestic Product is a kind of scorched earth policy because it counts destructive activities as "productive" and counts activities where money is not exchanged-like looking after your health, growing a garden, caring for your children, or looking after and preserving the environment-as "unproductive."

In addition, is there any other life and death situation were people would argue that we need to do a price analysis before any action can be taken to save people? No one would do a "costing out" if it were their life, or their child's life on the line. Many people think that a GLI would be "too costly" because the current costs of the economic system are mostly hidden. However, as this section clearly shows, the true "costs" are getting less and less hidden

(see also Coordinator's Findings)

General Costs - Quotes

Every four years the government can change their priorities for money.   Why can't we say the money is not in destroying the planet anymore, it's in health? -Kym

With GLI we can meet people's basic needs very easily by choosing to spend money differently and restructure - dissolve - harmful institutions. There is lots of money around; it's just not available to all. There is no monetary reason for poverty. The money is there in Canada. The money is there globally. Distribution is the problem and the notion that some are more deserving than others. -Valerie

Canada legally has the right to issue its own currency. A GLI could be viewed as working capital for the nation's human resources. It would NOT need to be raised by taxes, which always infuriates people in all brackets. It would automatically represent something of intrinsic value: Canada's human resources. -Jennifer

The cost of poverty is so high that the GLI is actually so low in comparison. -Olive

To me the costs of poverty are greater than anything else. GLI, people think of giving people money for free and becoming lazy. That's not true. It's the long-term goal, and this affects the children for generations. -Perpetua

Biggest cost of poverty? Health and malnutrition. The government is doing things backwards. If you want to fix the health care system, then feed the people. Proper nutrition leads to good health. -Donna

Everybody deserves opportunity to have dignity in their life. [A] GLI, however that looks-society can afford it. There's no way they can afford not to do it, but they choose not to. -Bernice

I feel like crying when I think about it. Basic health things that you can't fix, is penny-wise pound foolish. The government, by trying to save money, is costing them tens of thousands more. The costs of poverty to society are huge: homelessness, health costs, or the costs of one woman who is attacked because she can't afford a taxi. Anxiety problems, especially when living in poverty, lead to other disabilities-enormous health costs. And there would be savings of all the job clubs and resume prep places that don't really go anywhere. That is a huge waste of money. It's a big problem with people being threatened with the idea of GLI. People don't think big enough, don't think outside the box.   If something is important enough, especially if it is preventative, you find the money; you pay for it. Do we really want a public health disaster, or the loss of a generation? -Claire

The thing that struck me the most is the extreme stress that goes with poverty. It is like a palpable disease that you carry on your back when you are on welfare. It drags everything down, it drags the children down, being teased when they are in school. And the kids get so angry that they end up going into drugs or crime to get what they can't get otherwise. -Mary B

Financial costs of poverty right now are horrendous: mental health, addictions.... It causes a lot of stress leading to substance abuse. Look at the millions spent on prevention and recovery programs. A lot of that could go right to the families and hit it at the core. Parents can't afford to meet the needs of the child, but the government will pay a foster parent much more. The average costs of kids in care is thought to be $1.2 million per child. Look at the costs to society. Instead give the mom a GLI and keep the family together. It will reduce all the other costs from having a child in poverty. Another cost is people living in poverty that end up in criminal activity. There would be much less money put into police patrols, prosecution, incarceration. -Suzanne

As long as people are limited and stuck in a tight little box, how can they know their potential? How will they even know who they are without room to grow? The costs are huge. They will end up in the medical system or the criminal justice system. They are stuck in a system and become cost to society rather than enhancing our society. And what I worry about the most: what's the cost to that individual? Their energy, their spirituality, who they are, is part of who their children and their friends are, and it has a huge impact on a lot of people. -Faith

There are always going to be glitches in the system, but on the whole, if you gave everyone opportunity for decent education and livable income, society would be a lot better off, and in the long run it would cost far less than what it is costing society today. They only look at a tiny window and not the big picture. -Bernice