If your academic work is to study poverty, and you have no solution to poverty, this means you don't know what the solution is. Therefore it is unethical to not support a guaranteed livable income until you come up with another solution. Furthermore, if poverty exists because there is scarcity of money, why would we spend it studying poverty, instead of giving it to people in poverty who are getting sick and or dying from lack of money?

Read full article on LIFE website that is a response to the article "Guaranteed Income is Wolf in Sheep's Clothing" on Act Up in Sask. by Garson Hunter (PhD U of Regina) and Kathleen Donovan (MSW)