I find myself a bit troubled by this notion that pandemic benefits have been “too generous,” even when people trot out statistics that show that some households got as much as $3000 more in supports like CERB over reported lost income in a three-month period, and some $2500 more in lower-income households. Partially why this rankles is because this is a gods damned global pandemic and we needed people to stay home rather than try to recklessly go to potentially unsafe workplaces where they could spread the virus. This notion that people needed to get back to work is one of the reasons why COVID infections and deaths were at much higher rates in other countries who had less generous supports, and I don’t think we should necessarily be apologising for this.

The other aspect of this that is unsettling is this notion that if these benefits continue that there will be a disincentive to work as the economy recovers, but again, if the economy is recovering and we are reaching a point of mass vaccination sufficient to actually have a re-opened economy, then these pandemic-specific programmes would be wound down, so it shouldn’t be a long-term consideration. More to the point, however, is that these pandemic supports were not really all that generous, and if people think it’s a disincentive to work, then maybe they should re-examine the wages that people are being paid – if they’re so low that CERB-level payments are a disincentive, then perhaps the job is the wage rate and not the benefits themselves. Businesses have continually lobbied to keep minimum wages artificially low, in spite of an increasing volume of evidence that higher minimum wage don’t actually cause businesses to close (and in fact, have the opposite effect). Perhaps governments should take that into account as we look to “build back better,” with more inclusive growth that should include higher wages for these workers, rather than returning to the failed “old normal” of grinding poverty.

Good reads:

• The National Advisory Committee on Immunization says that the AstraZeneca vaccine shouldn’t be used on people over 65 because there isn’t enough data.
• The country’s chief science advisor is warning against BC’s plans to give the whole province a single dose and follow-up four months later instead of four weeks.
• It should surprise exactly nobody that even the Biden Administration won’t allow vaccine doses produced in the US to head to Canada or Mexico.
• Public Safety Canada released its plan for the coming year, with a heavy focus on dealing with economic threats including those posed by cyber-security.
• The government’s promised reforms to the Social Security Tribunal, for those appealing EI and CPP decisions, are being delayed because of the pandemic.
• Elections Canada is ordering see-through masks (for people who rely on lip-reading) and single-use pencils for a possible pandemic election.
• The former military ombudsman will testify at the Commons defence committee after all regarding the allegations against General Vance, and who knew what when.
• Questions are being asked at committee why PornHub’s parent company hasn’t filed any reports of suspicious videos or suspected exploitaiton to the RCMP in ten years.
• Susan Delacourt sees a return to the (nastier) politics of “shopping for votes” as the phenomenon of vaccine shopping rears its head among voters.

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.