Sender: "au_canada - Basic Income / Alloc. Univ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Livable Income For Everyone LIFE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Livable Income For Everyone
Mothernomics
Cindy L'Hirondelle
How bizarre it was to see the huge headline "Mom-A-Nomics" on Saturday's
(May 13) National Post Weekend section where they go on to state: "Four
mothers add up all their jobs. The result? If you had to pay her you
couldn't afford her." (FW1, 4-5).
Then Vladimir Putin's State-of-the-Nation Address (11-05-2006) where he
says: "...the most acute problem facing our country today - the
demographic problem. ...our country's population is declining by an
average of almost 700,000 per year."
Then the article posted on PAR-L called "One Thing They Aren't:
Maternal", New York Times, May 9, 2006 under the subject line: Mothers
not all Maternal (5/14/06).
Yes indeed, being "maternal" under the market system is completely
illogical. This is why the birth rate is dropping. Long hours of
working for no pay is not a good competitive strategy to "get ahead." If
mothers actually followed the logic of the "free" market, first, they
wouldn't get pregnant, second, if they did happen to give birth, they
would immediately leave their baby on the front door of any Free Market
Think Tank...
(http://www.mskousen.com/Books/Articles/thinktanks.html) ["Donating
money to a few of my favorite free-market organizations used to be a
pleasant duty, but now I'm literally inundated with demands from
hundreds of think tanks and public-policy groups, all vying for my
limited funds. Maybe you're wondering if we really need so many
foundations and political organizations." --Mark Skousen]
...to save it from the evils of "dependency" and to let it learn from
the experts on how to compete on the "level playing field." Of course,
we know that Free Market Think Tanks are not maternal either, so they
would either starve the baby or sell it.
In addition, why is anyone (like Putin) worried about dropping birth
rates? Because the "free" market needs babies. Economic growth requires
either additional consumers or higher levels of individual consumption.
The idea that individuals can increase their consumption to the point of
full employment to end world poverty is disputed by almost everyone
including free marketers such as Henry Hazlitt...
["The progress ofcivilization has meant the reduction of employment, not
its increase." -- Henry Hazlitt "Economics in One Lesson: The Fetish of
Full Employment"] http://jim.com/econ/chap10p1.html
...and the entire environmental movement with especially anti-consumer
activists who tell us to consume less.
["Buy Nothing Day 2005 was a huge, shop-free success. Concern about the
ecological, psychological and political consequences of our consumer
culture inspired some seriously provocative actions..."
-- Adbusters] http://www.adbusters.org/metas/eco/bnd/
With a Guaranteed Livable Income, these problems can be addressed. No
one doing unpaid care work would face economic penalties including those
who do unpaid care for children, parents, family, friends, community,
environment or even themselves (especially if they have chronic illness)
. See also: http://www.livableincome.org/health.htm
*************************************************************
Mothernomics - The Economics of Motherhood
by Cindy L'Hirondelle, May 2004
http://www.livableincome.org/amothernomics.htm
"Unpaid female caregiving is not only the life-blood of families, it is
the very heart of the economy" -- Ann Crittenden, The Price of
Motherhood (2001)
A university text book on economics by Prentice-Hall (1996) states: "The
rewards of a market system are linked to productivity..." One would
think then that since women produce the entire human species, they would
be the richest people in the world.
However, 70% of those living in abject poverty in the world are women
(UN Development Programme,1999). Poverty is also prevalent for women
here at home. "As soon as a woman has a child, her income plummets..."
writes Marika Morris, from the Canadian Research Institute for the
Advancement of Women (2001). Information from Statistics Canada reveals
that two thirds of minimum wage earners are women, 56% of female single
parents are poor (compared to 24% for male) and 49% of single women over
65 are poor.
"If you can't afford kids, don't have 'em" is a common refrain used to
justify this situation. In an article titled "Poverty is Voluntary",
Fraser Institute researcher Fred McMahon advocates ending welfare
because it "subsidize[s] bad choices." He writes, "The end of welfare
would eliminate the two main routes for the 'inheritance' of poverty--
the welfare culture and single-mother families." (Vancouver Sun, Aug. 9, 01)
This view hinges on the assumption that having a child is a personal
choice and responsibility -- as if society does not need children,
therefore it has no obligation to provide for their needs or the needs
of those who care for the them.
However, a closer examination reveals that the opposite is true and
evidence of this is appearing not in feminist journals, but in daily
newspapers.
"Unto Canada, too few children are born" is the headline of a David Frum
newspaper column in the National Post (Dec. 22, 04)."Atlantic Canada
will face a 'long, slow and torturous decline' unless its population
begins growing"(Globe & Mail, March 27, 04). "If we are not producing
more citizens who will ultimately consume, that is a problem," (Alan
Mirabelli, Vanier Institute of the Family, quoted in the Globe & Mail,
Aug. 12, 03).
"Until we can produce [emphasis added] the labour force we need to
remain competitive in the world we'll have to import it." (Victoria
Times Colonist editorial, Sept. 9, 03.)
Not having children might be financially wise individually but when the
desired goal of society -- as stated repeatedly by leaders of all
stripes-- is for unlimited economic growth, then it becomes a massive
disaster.
Feminists have pointed out that it is the so-called 'non-productive'
work that is the prerequisite for all other work. This idea is at first
hard to grasp because unpaid work is like air: it is everywhere,
essential for life, but is unnoticed and unvalued, unless it disappears.
But shouldn't mothers just be happy they get paid in hugs? That would
work if you could also pay your rent in hugs, or if other people were
paid in hugs. But as Ann Crittenden states: "Virtues and sacrifices,
when expected of one group of people and not of everyone become the mark
of an underclass."
Society has a real problem when those doing essential and beneficial
work like raising children are financially penalized, while at the same
time harmful industries reap financial rewards because they are
considered 'productive' such as the tobacco, alcohol and junk food
industries. It is time to toss the productivity rule into the dustbin of
history and who better to do the tossing than those who do the cleaning.
The idea that your "productiveness" determines your right to a decent
life is clearly outdated. But it is not only mothers who suffer from the
"unproductive" label. As automation replaces human labour with machines,
more people fall into the "unproductive", "unpaid" and "poverty" category.
This leaves us with four options:
The Luddite solution - smash technology because it robs people's means
to "make a living";
The Ecocide solution - increase consumption to create more jobs;
The War on the Poor solution - accept that people deemed "unproductive"
by conventional economics are left to live and die in poverty;
Or, the only just and realistic option, implement a universal guaranteed
livable income.
A GLI is environmentally and economically feasible and will create
productive choice for people and the planet. A GLI is a goal that
addresses the lives of those most devastated by the current death-cycle
economy and would simultaneously address determinants of health, social
justice, economic democracy and replacing the punitive welfar(c)e system.
See also the article Housework under the Market
http://www.livableincome.org/ahousework.htm
C. L'Hirondelle is a founding member of Livable Income For Everyone and
the Project Coordinator of the Women's Economic Justice Project.
http://pacificcoast.net/~swag/swcproject05.htm
A version of this article appeared in the 2004 May issue of Victoria BC
based Focus magazine.
