Self-Determination

Shifts in employment patterns were tied to removing material barriers to full-time employment and removing time and capacity limits created by scarcity and precarity. Material barriers included the ability to reduce the number of part-time shifts or gig work in order to apply for stronger positions. This included completing internships, training, or coursework that lead to full-time employment or promotions, or reallocating resources in a way that facilitates seeking better job prospects.  For example, one man in his mid 30s had been eligible for a real estate license for more than a year, but could not afford taking the time off work to complete it. With the $500, he says that his life was “converted 360 degrees… because I have more time and net worth to study… to achieve my goals.”  As reflected in the spending data, financial scarcity generates time scarcity. Simply put, when every dollar of wage work is allocated for bills before it is earned, most cannot afford to skip work or take necessary steps toward better employment structurally trapping them regardless of individual effort. While these constraints are widely studied as limits for saving and asset building (Sherraden et. al, 2015), these findings indicate that it may also limit how workers react to local job markets. 

The alleviation of constant financial strain also generated increased bandwidth for goal-setting and risk-taking, both of which were previously limited by scarcity. In Kent’s words guaranteed income means, “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.” However, the burden of unpaid care work created a ceiling on risk-taking for some women supporting networks with significant needs left unmet by the market and safety net.   

In some cases, the strategies people used for survival were explicitly articulated and readily described. But, more often than not, people spent so many years battling scarcity that resilient survival strategies functioned as implicit ways of being and getting by. Recipients carried these strengths into SEED and, as bandwidth increased, capacity for risk-taking, new goal-setting pathways, and some freedom from forced vulnerability emerged. For more than 100 years, the social science literature has established that one way those living on the economic margins survive is by relying on strong networks and social ties (Eden & Lein, 1997; Engels, 1892; Du Bois, 1899; Kornblum, 1974; Raudenbush, 2016; Stack, 1974). While the experience of poverty does not guarantee the presence of a strong network (Offer, 2012; van Eijek, 2010), and strength of ties for escaping rather than surviving poverty remains a matter of debate (Desmond, 2012), we do know that drastic increases in poverty, austerity, and rising inequality constrain choice and undermine formation of strong social ties (Small & Gose, 2020). The narrative data underscored these dynamics and illustrated how living with constant financial strain creates forced vulnerability, dependence, and trust in people you may not want to engage with or in systems that invite unwanted surveillance into your household. As one Mom put it, “poverty means lack of choice. You’re forced in ways you don’t want to be.” Or, as Jada describes, feeling compelled by circumstance to “choose” between terrible options. In her case this means “opting” to live in unsafe housing she calls a “cave” with broken appliances, constant vermin, and an absentee landlord rather than living in a nicer place with family members whose presence invites more unpaid care work and difficult relationships.   

In contrast, chosen vulnerability and interdependence hinges on agency, self-determination, and authentic trust in the ties you actively choose and rely on.  Once basic needs were met and scarcity dampened, participants described small, but meaningful pathways out of reciprocal ties of vulnerability they desired freedom from in favor of chosen vulnerability and authentic trust defined by choice and a sense of safety. Unlike forced vulnerability that can invite surveillance and constrained dependence, Callie describes chosen trust, interdependence or vulnerability as, “putting your all into something and not having to worry about something happening to you from it.” This included the ability to reduce asking for money or resources from friends and family that people had strained or difficult relationships with, and to limit time in and with relationships they remained in under duress. While limited, these findings indicate the potential for guaranteed income to bolster self-determination and a sense of agency.