unconditional cash transfer now https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1245787069076602880

from a humanitarian/disaster response perspective I don't understand why this is even in question. there's NO reason not to help people out, and help the economy at the same time.

the US has always had a complicated relationship between disaster response and social welfare. see Landis 1997-1998 for a history and Fothergill 2003 for qualitative research.

It's a toxic combination of
-we only help those who "deserve" it
and
-what we do is replace assets
and it's counterproductive for disasters and long-term economics alike

a focus on replacing assets means that the people who owned the most get the most help, while those who are more precarious don't. so for example, homeowners tend to get assistance, while renters, whose lives have also been disrupted and who may face housing shortages, don't.

This means that disasters worsen inequality and poverty. since inequality and poverty are also vulnerabilities that exacerbate the impacts of disasters, that also leads to us as a society being less prepared for the next disaster. (and there will be another disaster.)

The "deserving" thing is a real problem for me, because humanitarianism means you help people because they're human and in need.

In humanitarian responses the debate is never "what about moral hazard" or "they weren't earning that much to begin with", it's "how can we help both groups without worsening conflict" or "how much can we pay in cash-for-work without disrupting the economy"

But in the US, as in other places, there is an idea of blamelessness as a criteria for disaster assistance. In part this is a distancing mechanism: if we can find ways to blame people for their misfortune, it means that (as long as we do right) it won't happen to us.

It's also part of the history of conflating disaster response with social welfare (shown persuasively in the Landis) and stigmatizing welfare (as shown in the Fothergill).

This is problematic for so many reasons, among which: to worry about blamelessness or "deservingness" frames the disaster, and assistance, as individual. But disasters have collective effects as well. Trying to sort out individual merit is ineffective and counterproductive.

This is even more obvious during the current crisis. If we don't help people who have no savings no income, they're going to find ways to keep working, even if it puts them at risk, especially b/c the risk of pandemic is mostly collective, while the risk of starving is individual

So that will worsen the immediate crisis. At the same time not helping individuals to survive economically will hurt the collective economy, because those people won't be buying things. Total comemierdería.

tl;dr: after a disaster, especially one that affects large swaths of economy but leaves some functioning, give people money. Give fast and give a lot. Don't worry about whether they deserve it or whether they will use it for the "right" things. Other ideas https://twitter.com/m_older/status/1244230518851371010?s=20