No Place for Poverty-Based Businesses
In a response to a National Post editorial opposing Campaign 2000’s calls for social policies aimed at ending poverty in Canada, Laurel Rothman of the campaign points out that many families in poverty are employed. Here’s what she says in her response to the original editorial:
Thursday’s editorial seemed to imply that supporting the poor is done to the detriment of the rich. Poverty has an impact on us all. A recent study by economist Nate Laurie found that poverty costs Canada at least $30-billion a year. The measures called for by Campaign 2000 are grounded in sound economic thinking. Many economists have demonstrated the cost benefits of public investment in child care, for example, which we strongly endorse. Gordon Cleveland and Michael Krashinsky at the University of Toronto determined that an investment of $1 in a universal, high quality, accessible system of ECEC services for children two to five years of age would yield $2 derived from a combination of benefits for children, parents and society.
Employers who pay their workers poverty-wages are essentially off-loading their expenses onto workers and their families. These businesses are asking the rest of us to hand over our resources for their profits. This a bad deal not only for workers, but for everyone (other than the employer on the receiving end of the equation). These employers are not only exploiting workers, but are also asking everyone else to subsidize them. These subsidies come in the form of struggling families and the social costs associated with poverty.
Businesses based on paying workers poverty wages should be eliminated from the economy, so that resources can be freed up and used for supporting more productive sectors and business models. We should tell businesses to either figure out how to pay workers dignity-wages, or to shut down and make room for those with sustainable business models.
Poverty-based business models are a drag on everyone, and should be viewed as detractors and not contributors to the overall health of the economy. And if the services these companies provide are essential, then the public sector should take over by providing the services as a public good. That way the costs will be shared by everyone, not only low-wage workers. It’s not fair for a community to off load its essential social services onto low-wage workers. Public goods should be supported with taxes, so that everyone pays a fair share. The last thing a community should do is take advantage its most vulnerable workers in order to off-load the true costs of important social programs like child care. Such a system is totally unfair, going against our shared values as Canadians.
Campaign 2000 is right in reminding policy makers that child care workers, many of whom are either unpaid or paid a poverty-wage, provide an essential social service. We know that families and children already value this work, given how much time, thought and effort families contribute to the care of their children. The challenge now is getting politicians and the business sector to reflect this common value. We also already know that quality child care is expensive, and worth the cost. That’s because quality child care contributes to communities, supports the well-being of children and advances equity for women, children and marginalized communities. Child care is a good social investment, well worth the costs. These costs should be shared by everyone, provided in the public interest, controlled by communities, and held to account through democratic oversight.
