Secondary outcomes
disability, ’
LENS
During the pre-pandemic year, and holding baseline constant, the treatment group reported a significantly increased capacity to handle an unexpected $400 emergency (Descriptive statistics of treatment and control SEED participants for ability to cover a $400 emergency, February 2019 through August 2021Descriptive statistics of treatment and control SEED participants for financial wellbeing scale scores, August 2020 through August 2021Descriptive statistics of treatment and control SEED participants for employment changes, December 2018 through August 2021Employment status was shifted from a categorical to binary variable and coded as 1 = eligible for employment and employed (full-time employed, part-time employed, stay-at-home parent or caregiver) or 0 = eligible for employment but not employed (unemployed and looking for work and unemployed and not looking for work). Individuals who indicated they were ineligible for employment due to retirement, disability, or student status were excluded from the analysesIntegrated data revealed an interdependence between agency and risk capacity. When the treatment group stabilized, expansion of time and finances arrived with self-determination and capacity for risk-taking not present prior. GI removed material barriers like childcare funds, transportation, reducing contingent labor, and completing necessary internships or training for applying to positions with unknown results. When one missed paycheck produces eviction or utility loss, it creates material barriers to these small but meaningful risks and the GI altered this. Second, a distinct pattern encompasses “the ability to breathe” and “rethink.” Freedom from scarcity translated into bandwidth that dovetailed with an increase in agency and risk associated with “space” and “breath.” Participants demonstrated how setting alternative pathways requires freedom and the ability to choose risks when outcomes are uncertain. These concepts were inseparable and captured by Kent stating, “you can take so much risk… The only reason I got the internship was because of me taking the risk of having to quit a job before and knowing that I have that money. I could sustain myself until this new opportunity came around, and I was able to take it.” Conversely, “poverty means lack of choice.” This interdependence extended into COVID but presented differently.COVID shifted risk contours, but some of GI’s power for safeguarding self-determination remained. The $500 permitted judiciousness about COVID and what conditions workers would tolerate for poorly compensated work. Akin to reducing contingent work for pursuing stronger employment, workers avoided COVID exposure by expecting more from their employers when they had a GI floor. Brendan explicitly connected the $500 to what he would endure saying, “I’m just not going to put myself through minimum wage work again.” Then, like others, credited agency with expanding perspective saying, “there’s more to life than just giving money, earning money… there’s memory, there’s culture, there’s art, it all enriches you.”Agency also exposed a lack of structural support for women and children mirroring national trends. One in ten women resigned during the pandemic, with half crediting school closures, and 47% taking unpaid leave to manage childcare and online education, which are compounded by race and ethnicity [Finally, COVID disrupted risk, trust, and agency. At baseline, participants referenced prior experiences with predatory finance that shaped wariness about GI. These memories returned with COVID, prompting comparisons between disinformation in the press and the market. The pandemic reversed or complicated trust-building processes due to confusing public health orders and the lack of agency people felt in vulnerable situations described as life in “The United States of Risk.” These dynamics were further complicated by wildfires which came with competing instructions and exposure to health trouble, along with shifts elsewhere such as methadone clinics sending patients home with more medication than ordinarily allowed or providers canceling appointments. Across all, most either had a pre-existing condition or cared for someone with one putting them at higher risk for COVID and/or breathing trouble from smoke. Thus, they made sense of GI through the lens of pre-existing and emergent vulnerabilities that created new exposures to risk. Subject 665 weighed the risks of procuring food alongside threats posed by smoke and COVID leading to more expensive means like DoorDash when the risk felt too high saying, “I just couldn’t breathe. I just turned around and came home. It was like ‘Nah, canceled.’ And as it is you know with the pandemic, you know you can only really go to the store, and you know go out when you really need stuff, like you know? I’m like, “I, I needed groceries, but uh not that bad I guess.” In this case, his pre-existing health condition was forcing him to pit the need for air against the need for groceries. These repetitive trade-offs ultimately meant he often resorted to expensive food delivery apps which eroded his finances further and echo Ehrenreich’s (2014, p.1) claim that “it is expensive to be poor.”