I have mixed feelings on this one for reasons RavenclawPrefect noted. At a minimum, you would need a narrow definition of “hardship” for the grant recipient. Because keeping the money imposes costs on innocent victims, a recipient being unemployed for a time would not necessarily rise to the level of “hardship.” If the consequence is—e.g., a moderate reduction in savings, that isn’t enough in my book to potentially override the depositors’ moral interest.
Also, it would not be potentially appropriate in my book to give the individuals extra time so that they can find another position in EA or a position doing the work they would like. The argument for providing severance is to avoid financial hardship to these individuals and would need to be strictly limited to the minimum necessary. If the community feels it important to give a longer off-ramp so that the individual can find another EA job and/or job that is a good fit, then the community needs to subside that rather than expecting depositors to do so.
I have mixed feelings on this one for reasons RavenclawPrefect noted. At a minimum, you would need a narrow definition of “hardship” for the grant recipient. Because keeping the money imposes costs on innocent victims, a recipient being unemployed for a time would not necessarily rise to the level of “hardship.” If the consequence is—e.g., a moderate reduction in savings, that isn’t enough in my book to potentially override the depositors’ moral interest.
Also, it would not be potentially appropriate in my book to give the individuals extra time so that they can find another position in EA or a position doing the work they would like. The argument for providing severance is to avoid financial hardship to these individuals and would need to be strictly limited to the minimum necessary. If the community feels it important to give a longer off-ramp so that the individual can find another EA job and/or job that is a good fit, then the community needs to subside that rather than expecting depositors to do so.