Ireland to launch basic income program for artists

https://www.artforum.com/news/ireland-to-launch-universal-basic-income-program-for-artists-87612

by rbanffy • 5 years ago

139 218 5 years ago

arcticbull2• 5 years ago

Well that's not really universal by any metric (you have to be an artist, there can't be too many applicants or you'll get subjected to lottery) but I'm still enthusiastic.

It's always nice seeing countries look to support their artists in building their cultural heritage.

These feel more like government artist in residence grants.

emaro2• 5 years ago

https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/080b9-minister-catherine...

The gov itself seem to speak about a basic income. :) Media...

lelanthran5• 5 years ago

It's always nice seeing countries look to support their artists in building their cultural heritage.

But, at the end of the day it's still worth close to nothing, right?

I enjoy art and music as much as anyone else but the reason those professions are so poorly paid is because the supply outstrips the demand considerably[1]. What value is there in asking taxpayers to pay for an increase the supply when there's already too much supply?

Sure, paying people for doing what they love even when you are going to, in effect, throw away whatever they produce is madness.

[1] I play guitar and sketch/paint. Of the other people (who do these things) that I have regular contact with, no one can make money of the things they produce. My rough guess is that for every 1000 musician/art supply, only 1 is demanded.

paulannesley• 5 years ago

Art and cultural heritage may have worth outside that represented by short-term supply and demand?

TaylorAlexander2• 5 years ago

Not very many people believe that a market of individual capitalists responding to supply and demand creates the best outcomes. For example many people believe that state mandated healthcare creates better outcomes. For anyone willing to look beyond a simple model of supply and demand, a deep analysis of the effects is needed.

krageon• 5 years ago

Framing everything as a reflection of short-term capitalistic gain is a travesty. Culture transcends your lifetime and probably the lifetime of the people that you are a part of. You ask what value there is in that, but I am curious what value your believe there could be in anything else without it.

toyg4• 5 years ago

paying people for doing what they love even when you are going to, in effect, throw away whatever they produce is madness.

No, it's hardcore keynesism. You're still sustaining demand in the market for all their necessities, from food and toilet paper to brushes and smart LEDs; and you are supporting the overall quality of life in the country, which passes also through people getting involved in art in various ways (as critics, consumers, etc). The fact that you may or may not get valuable output at the end is relatively irrelevant; in the end, a couple of resulting unicorns could probably repay the whole operation just by publicity and goodwill flowing to Ireland.

AndyMcConachie• 5 years ago

Art is a public good. It's not something that gets produced and then consumed. It gets produced, and that production costs time and resources. But it is not comsumed like cheesecake or natural gas.

Taxes should be spent in a manner that serves society and its people. The sharing of art benefits everyone. Even art you don't like benefits you, because there is a good chance an artist you like will be influenced by it. If you want a thriving art scene you need people making art. Much of it might get thrown away and never reach an audience, but gems will emerge from it.

Even if one takes a completely selfish approach to art (ie, only art that I like is good art), there is benefit in having more artists making more art. As someone who does not live in Ireland I enjoy some art made in Ireland. So even I benefit from Ireland supporting its artists.

chongli• 5 years ago

Art produces huge positive externalities. This is the reason artists are the pioneers of gentrified neighbourhoods. They arrive when rent is low (all they can afford) and their product increases the desirability of the area. The artists themselves capture none of this value and often have to leave when rents go up.

geocar3• 5 years ago

What value is there in asking taxpayers to pay for an increase the supply when there's already too much supply?

When "taxpayers" refuse to subsidize non-taxpayers, they run the risk of those non-taxpayers murdering them; the "value" is that it directly prevents death and revolt.

Some people just simply don't agree that people should have to die simply because there are too many people, either because they're (directly or indirectly) worried about revolt or because they're "good people" who think people have a right to life, dignity, and happiness.

But some people don't: either because they lie to themselves about what the ramifications of their decisions will be (or are simply ignorant to it), or because they believe in destiny -- that god, for example, wants some people to live and others to die.

timeon2• 5 years ago

I think that art is also about ideas and experiences that can stimulate another ideas. Can takes you out of your usual context of thinking. There is no demand for it. How can be there be demand for something that do not exist yet. But it can influence generations. Not every value can be directly purchased.

burntoutfire• 5 years ago

Modern art world is completely overtaken by cliques and is basically about marketing and who-knows-who. If you create something that is against the current clique that runs things (i.e. are curators in major museums, officials in Ministry of Culture, art critics in major newspapers etc.) then you're basically screwed. The art world absolutely eclipses academia in terms of petty politics.

The reason for that is of course the impossibility of objectively judging the value of a work of art. It's all subjective, and hence "emperor's new clothes" kinds of situation are commonplace. Also, subjectivity heavily supports no-skill fields like conceptual or performance art - why work 10+ years to learn how to paint properly, when you can do abstract paint splatters, and instead work on marketing it, building a clique (an "art movement") with like-minded allied "artists" instead?

IMO it's all fair game until taxpayer's money are involved. I for one don't want my taxes to be paying a small fortune for an empty piece of canvas, the "artist"'s canned shit or a "performance" of an "artist" sitting on a stool and peeling potatoes.

peoplefromibiza• 5 years ago

It's always nice seeing countries look to support their artists in building their cultural heritage.

we are all artists in that way.

I don't play or paint, but in my country I take care of some vineyard a couple of centuries old, at my expenses.

Of course I also enjoy the wine made from them and make no money out of it, I lose a little bit every year.

Should I be included in those that "build the cultural heritage" of my country, given that my country is the world's largest producer of wine?

Or am I simply adding a few thousand liters of wine to an already massive production, basically adding almost nothing to our "cultural heritage"?

rsynnott9• 5 years ago

Many big wine producing nations actually do have a range of grants and tax exemptions for this sort of thing.

lelanthran5• 5 years ago

Ireland: Putting the "un" in universal :-)

raxxorrax• 5 years ago

un²iversal income. For everybody, perhaps.

swarnie3• 5 years ago

To me universal basic income is just that, universal.

This feels like the government employing 2000 people and telling them to do nothing in particular.

Also it seems the payment is set to the Irish minimum wage of €10.50 p/h. I would love to know what an actual minimum wage worker thinks of this scheme.

MrPatan• 5 years ago

They'll become an artist

swarnie3• 5 years ago

Oh yes, i expect the definition of that word to expand massively.

Are we still doing coffee and subway artists?

smoyer• 5 years ago

Call me cynical but governments employ millions of people who effectively do nothing so a few thousand more won't cause a blip on the spending graph. My only consolation is that those who don't do anything don't cause as much harm as those who purport to serve their constituents via actual governing.

akuji1993• 5 years ago

telling them to do nothing in particular

Nobody told them anything close to that. Any research towards basic income tells us that people continue working close to as much as before. So this seems like a really unnecessary combative comment.

Regarding minimum wage workers, one thing can be bad, while the other is also bad. So not really an argument.

swarnie3• 5 years ago

telling them to do nothing in particular

As in not being given a task or directive for their income.

I'm not saying they're told to literally do nothing.

sharikous• 5 years ago

Any research towards basic income tells us that people continue working close to as much as before

I am curious about the research in this field. Living in Israel I see the Ultra-Orthodox being payed for studying the scriptures and they work much less than their secular peers. Knowing corrupt countries, I know of tons of people employed by the state and local authorities just to give them jobs - it is a sign of malfunctioning and corruption usually - and they often do nothing in their job.

What those examples have in common is that they create a class of people dependent on a party or on some politician to eat their meal. This entrenches tribalism and corruption.

Also there is a very big difference between "universal basic income" - which would be an extension of human rights accorded to all, and paying some "artists" money. The former may be the evolution of the latter but there is no way to be certain. I am not familiar with Ireland but I suspect it is a trick of some party to secure thousands of certain votes, and probably even to use them for propaganda (I want to see those artists expose critical views of the party that gives them money..).

tgv• 5 years ago

From the other UBI thread:

Multiple studies of where basic income was tried in the real world found it to reduce work.
For example, "Manitoba, Canada experimented with Mincome, a basic guaranteed income, in the 1970s. In the town of Dauphin, Manitoba, labor only decreased by 13%, much less than expected" [1]. There are plenty of others.

So not "any research". The research you think of are probably academic and/or pilot studies, which is absolutely not UBI.

But I think the parent wrote in a hurry. It should probably have said "without demands or restrictions".

duud• 5 years ago

Instagram to launch universal basic income program for attractive people.

bncy2• 5 years ago

There was a debate regarding this topic just recently in Poland, where they wanted to introduce something of this kind.

This is wrong in so many ways. It will encourage people to basically pretend they're doing some kind of art even if they're not.

If someone is a real artist imo, they will manage. It will be part-time but eventually they will get better and can start making money out of it, and if not then well it can just be their hobby right? Why am I not supposed to be paid for making my own garden look good? Is it art or hobby?

onion2k3• 5 years ago

It will be part-time but eventually they will get better and can start making money out of it, and if not then well it can just be their hobby right?

Except that's not what actually happens. People working a full time job (or more than one job) don't have the time or energy to also be a part-time artist until they make it. This is especially true for people who have other responsibilities like raising children or caring for elderly relatives. Leaving it up to "the market" only works if a single part time job is enough to live on, and it isn't.

UBI for artists means they can work a little less to make time for making art. Society is essentially paying them to make art. That makes society better. Ireland has decided it's a worthwhile investment.

I'd love to live in a society where everyone is paid to do something they love, to make society better, but doing it for artists to start with is a great first step.

Ekaros• 5 years ago

If their skills aren't marketable in free market, why should other people subsidise them? I would much rather the money to be spend on something actually productive or physical. And not wasted entirely on art...

bncy2• 5 years ago

I think you're missing the point here. It's great to have cultural heritage, but it's much better to get people out of poverty and hunger first, I think we should mainly focus on more important tasks at hand if we already have the resources to do that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm an art enthusiast myself but I think that if someone is really passionate, they will go out and look for a sponsor themselves that's how it worked over the ages and our cultural heritage as a civilization is quite rich I'd say.

This is especially true for people who have other responsibilities like raising children or caring for elderly relatives.

But that's how every side hustle works, you have to get organized and manage your time well, having children is not an excuse.

s_dev2• 5 years ago

This was received very well by the artistic community in Ireland so it's odd to see people remarking it's not much or will do little. Certainly better than tolerating the open secret that many of them weren't' "actively looking for work" when claiming the dole.

chrisseaton• 5 years ago

This was received very well by the artistic community

Well yeah obviously it was.

toyg4• 5 years ago

People being given free money say it's good they've been given free money. News at 11.

Certainly better than tolerating the open secret that many of them weren't' "actively looking for work" when claiming the dole.

I agree there. The real move forward is the (re)acceptance that certain sectors of society are a poor fit for the salaried-work/commercial-enterprise model. It's the good part of socialism, which should be par for the course in an European social democracy - the fact that we don't expect it anymore is a very sad result of 30 years of political decline in the West.

lelanthran5• 5 years ago

This was received very well by the artistic community in Ireland so it's odd to see people remarking it's not much or will do little

Well, yeah. The community gets offered free money, and receives the news well. All others aren't so enthusiastic.

What were you expecting?

vegancap2• 5 years ago

Not to be overly cynical, but could that create a surge of people claiming to be artists, given the lack of means testing?

vegancap2• 5 years ago

It's potentially incredible for the established artists though

pydry4• 5 years ago

If it's anything like the way Tories designed universal credit to be in the UK it'll end up disqualifying real artists and qualifying people who learn how to game the system.

rbanffy5• 5 years ago

I'm very happy Ireland is no longer part of the UK. I'd say this would be a very good reason.

rsynnott9• 5 years ago

I mean, maybe some? That's typically a risk you take with these things, unless you want to spend most of the money on oversight. It's capped, and not a huge payment, so any impact from that would be limited.

MikusR• 5 years ago

How that would be different to current situation?

speed_spread• 5 years ago

Any other Future Of The Left fans here?

"Our survey says that shouting inanities in a regional accent is valuable to culture" - Singing of the Bonesaws

chrismorgan2• 5 years ago

two thousand arts and culture workers for a span of three years … earmarked €25 million for the plan … top recommendation … €10.50 per hour

3 years × 2,000 hours per year (estimate of full time employment) × €10.50 per hour × 2,000 people = €126 million, five times as much as is earmarked (even ignoring administrative costs). Perhaps it’s 400 rather than 2,000, perhaps it’s not full-time, perhaps the mention of the top recommendation of €10.50 is a red herring and not what’s being implemented (one must admit that €2/hour doesn’t sound so impressive), perhaps something else?

pembrook• 5 years ago

Sounds basically like a grant program, not UBI.

However, slapping the phrase UBI on your program while it’s trendy is a genius way to “rebrand” something most governments already do. Politicians are the best marketers.

throwaway0a5e2• 5 years ago

Politicians are the best marketers.

There's statutes and case law that make it unwise for real marketers to make claims the way politicians do.

goblin893• 5 years ago

A few times in the past 3–5 years I came across Europeans who would travel and do stuff like photography or filmmaking while being compensated by the government. I was told that those are programs where basically all you need is to be an unemployed artist. (Some of those people would also do remote software consulting or such, although I think that was bending the rules slightly.)

For a country that wants to start a similar program, mislabeling it (because of course it is not actually universal) as “UBI” could be strategic—make people comfortable with the term that could later be expanded to involve actual UBI with less controversy.

cabalamat• 5 years ago

Politicians are the best marketers

They are certainly accomplished liars.

richrichardsson3• 5 years ago

I've never really looked too closely at the idea of UBI, although I like the concept. I always assumed that any money you earn would then be deducted from future payments. With completely arbitrary numbers, let's say UBI was 1000€/month and I earned 500€ in a particular month, then next month my UBI payment would be reduced by that amount. If I earned 1500€ my next UBI payment would be zero, but the excess 500€ would not be rolled over. I may have completely misunderstood how UBI is supposed to work though.

gmadsen• 5 years ago

I believe most implementations do not do that. That could lead to a disincentive for work, since you would need to make the entire amount of the ubi payment before your labor is benefiting you.

It is usually a flat rate for everyone, no matter the income. If you want more money, you sell your labor like normal

illwrks• 5 years ago

"a basic income pilot program that would award SELECTED arts workers €10.50 ($11.90) per hour."

Selected is the key word. I imagine it would be only a handful that are paid to be full time artists, while the remainder might get funding for specific projects or periods of time.

dskloet• 5 years ago

That's a terrible way to implement UBI. It causes the dreaded welfare trap where people are incentivized to do nothing. UBI should be unconditional. This makes it much easier to implement, removes the stigma, and most importantly avoids the welfare trap. You want people who rely on welfare to be encouraged to become self sufficient, not trap them in dependence.

dagw4• 5 years ago

I always assumed that any money you earn would then be deducted from future payments

Not directly, at least not in most described implementations. Most implementations say that, if you qualify, you get 1000€/month every month no matter how much you earn. Now a lot of people add a secondary mechanism where some or all of that money gets clawed back, indirectly via increased income tax, if you earn 'too much', but the base idea is the 1000€ gets deposited into your account every month no matter how much or little you earn.

The rationale for this is a), not do disincentivize doing extra work and b) to simplify the system as much as possible and remove the need to spend a lot of extra time and effort on means testing, fraud detection, handling complaints etc.

doovd2• 5 years ago

I always assumed that any money you earn would then be deducted from future payments

Contrary to what everyone says in this thread, this is the crappy way welfare exists in the UK

unwind• 5 years ago

2,000 hours at 40 hours/week is 50 weeks. As a European, that sounds really really high.

I believe around 1,700 is the real average for all of EU, for instance. That is not enough of course to change the result much (at 1,700 hours they would need €107 or just above four times the earmarked amount), I just wanted to point it out.

nixass2• 5 years ago

1768 hours to be more exact, at least HR in my company (FAANG) in Germany calculates it that way (85%)

DoingIsLearning• 5 years ago

1,700 is the real average for all of EU

Salary average is also misleading, there is a fair amount of inequality in European salaries and total compensation, a median would be better suited.

chrismorgan2• 5 years ago

My figure of 2,000 was estimating the hours you’re paid for, including holidays, not the hours worked, matching Australia’s model for salary, where the figure is normally reckoned annually. It’s still definitely a touch on the high side (standard in Australia is 7.5h/day, which multiplied by 5 days per week and 52 and a bit weeks per year comes to 1,950 hours per year or a little more), but not by much—around 2.5%, rather than 11–12%.

barcoder• 5 years ago

It is basic income, so presumably the artist will be able to make additional money their art.

s1artibartfast2• 5 years ago

I wonder if they can take a full-time job in a different industry

rsynnott9• 5 years ago

So, some of it may be an assumption that:

- Some beneficiaries would otherwise be on jobseekers' allowance (208 eur/week)

- Many beneficiaries would not be full-time, and might be mixing this with a part-time job

- Many beneficiaries will drop out of the programme and get a normal job

circlefavshape• 5 years ago

I lived in Dublin on the dole for a year in the early 90s while playing in a band. From a practical perspective this isn't really much different

aethertron• 5 years ago

I suppose now is the time to invest in art materials suppliers, and exhibition/performance venues, since this will function as a subsidy for them.

emaro2• 5 years ago

I think that's the way to go. I really enjoy art, especially music. There's a lot of money in the market, but most artists really struggle to make a living. The superstars get rich.

With a basic income for artists, everyone profits:

- Artists can be more creative and independent, because they don't need to monetize their work. - People can enjoy art regardless of their social status and the money in their pocket. - Society has a richer, more diverse and creative culture.

CryptoPunk• 5 years ago

Hopefully these artists can use this opportunity to create a following in the NFT market, which is rapidly growing and could possibly lead to a massive expansion in annual spending on art.

beardedman• 5 years ago

Get ready for art to become... design.

nixass2• 5 years ago

Don't launch it for general public, the people on dole are already ruining every day life for normal working folks

jll29• 5 years ago

I wish for the cynics and for the literary connoisseurs that the next James Joyce comes out of this programme.

Norway has had a stipend programme for writers for some time.

Interesting question: how does not "prove" to be an artist, and a needy one at that? At the moment it's a lottery.

inglor_cz2• 5 years ago

How often does a new James Joyce arise out of government subsidies?

We spend much more money on art than in 1920, yet the art quality does not seem to have improved proportionately, indeed it possibly went down. That might or might not be causal (possibly talented people do not choose to be artists anymore), but it is still worrying.

There is a lot of gatekeeping around art and professionals tend to declare opinions of amateurs for null and void, but as a reader I still miss a new Oscar Wilde.

petercooper• 5 years ago

We spend much more money on art than in 1920, yet the art quality does not seem to have improved proportionately, indeed it possibly went down.

I think it's hard to say because there's so much art above a basic quality bar now that it's next to impossible to experience, curate or judge a significant amount of it, even within a category.

We are so overwhelmed with creative output that even watching every "highly recommended" TV show or movie we're recommended on Netflix would be a fulltime job, let alone the hidden gems, or the millions of books published each year. You'd hope that someone would find the next Oscar Wilde and shout about it, but I don't like the odds.. especially as the gamut of what is considered good literature is now broader than ever before.

I frequently find some amazing new music that isn't popular and shout about it a bit but no-one really cares. There's too much music, tastes vary too much (what I find amazing could well seem like total crud to everyone else), and most people prefer to listen to what they already know over and over rather than keep digging for something new.

rsynnott9• 5 years ago

I mean, commercial art today is a lot better than commercial art in the 20s. Find some old radio recordings if you don't believe me. And that's where the money goes. We don't spend dramatically more on, say, literary novelists than they did in the 20s; that continues to be a thing that people do out of passion rather than for money, so you wouldn't expect the rate of production to have gone up very much.

usrbinbash2• 5 years ago

Martin emphasized the importance of aiding artists in continuing their work. “The minister is conscious of the value that this sector brings to all Irish citizens,”

What about the work of health workers, delivery people, drivers, employees in supermarkets, cleaners, constructions workers, etc.?

inglor_cz2• 5 years ago

They probably do not have as strong a lobby.

ploika2• 5 years ago

Several of those groups have much stronger lobbies in Ireland than artists do, I would argue.

Live music and theatres in particular have been almost totally shut down here since March 2020. I'm struggling to think of any other sector that has been so badly hit during the pandemic.

roomey• 5 years ago

I think the point is you can gain employment as a:

  health workers, delivery people, drivers, employees in supermarkets, cleaners, constructions workers

But you can't really get employed or have a regular income as an artist (well you can but it's quite difficult).

I think a good comparison might be home carers or stay at home parents. Very hard to have a regular income from these also

usrbinbash2• 5 years ago

So? The criteria I am talking about is "produces value for society" not "how easy to employ".

slig• 5 years ago

What about the work of health workers, delivery people, drivers, employees in supermarkets, cleaners, constructions workers, etc.?

They're the ones paying taxes so that the government can then redistribute the money to unemployable artists.

s_dev2• 5 years ago

What about the work of health workers, delivery people, drivers, employees in supermarkets, cleaners, constructions workers, etc.?

They have salaries. The artists really didn't have a salary beyond the dole.

stingi• 5 years ago

Iceland has had this for quite some time. It's usually a hot topic in the media every year. I think it was started in 2009 after the 2008 financial crisis which hit Iceland particularly hard https://is.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listamannalaun

kybernetyk4• 5 years ago

Why artists and not open source developers? Arguably FOSS devs create far more value for society than some dingus painting stuff with his butt cheeks.

sofixa4• 5 years ago

Because art is easy to appreciate universally ( anyone can like music or a painting), and software is not. It's an abstract thing for most people.

I do think it'd be a great idea to have grants / subsidies / UBI for FOSS developers. The EU is slowly walking in that direction with donations and funding a big bounty programme for FOSS they directly use.

mypastself• 5 years ago

If we’re using universality as a benchmark, more people can appreciate the advances in technology facilitated by Linux, Postgres, Git, and WordPress, than they do a lot of art, which can be culturally or linguistically specific, obscure, or highly subjective in general.

Unless you’re talking about very specific art and very specific software, I don’t think universality is a strong argument.

kybernetyk4• 5 years ago

and software is not.

Linux and thus Android would like to have a word with you.

lopis• 5 years ago

That's, of course, your personal opinion. Most dev work brings me no value. Doesn't mean it's not valuable, but maybe I prefer to see more paintings.

dexen• 5 years ago

why artists

The unsaid part: "recipients are supposed to publicly laud the government": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_painter

rbanffy5• 5 years ago

Since the entrants are selected randomly, I'd say no.

Ireland has the sanest political system I've ever seen in person.

rsynnott9• 5 years ago

I mean... if that's the intention it's a bit on the optimistic side. Irish artists as a group, even those who benefit from the artists' tax exemption and various grant schemes, are not exactly known for being pro-government. I'm not sure that artists in any democratic country are; arguably artists being generally pro-government would be a rather bad sign.

socialdemocrat• 5 years ago

Is it right to call this UBI? In Norway we have supported artists economically since at least the mid 1800s. Playwrights like Henrik Ibsen got paid by the government after decisions by the Parliament.

This is payment for contributing specifically to the cultural enrichment of the country while UBI as a system has no strings attached.

valdiorn• 5 years ago

Same in Iceland. We have something called "artist salary" where every year a handful of artists are selected to essentially be paid by the government to practice their craft. Opinions are however divided as there's always this debate about who is deemed worthy and who is not.

This sounds very similar, but I think they'll have the same problem; who decides what art is worthy of being supported?

rbanffy5• 5 years ago

who decides what art is worthy of being supported?

If the number of entrants exceeds the number of allowances, they are randomly selected. It's written in the article.

NoboruWataya2• 5 years ago

No it's not right to call it UBI because it's not universal, and in that regard I would point out that the government is not calling it UBI, but merely "basic income": https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/080b9-minister-catherine...

Most governments (including the Irish government) have supported artists to some degree in the past, through grants, etc. I think the main difference is that this is intended to be broader support and not tied to specific projects.

nathias• 5 years ago

I was afraid of this, governments will get rid of U in UBI to use it as a controller.

Dave3of5• 5 years ago

I'm moving to Ireland and becoming an artist

rscho• 5 years ago

So, we have degrading social nets, public education and public health. But we should fund people for "doing what they love" because it has "positive externalities" (left undefined).

I am a doctor and I hate it. Please fund my passion, so I can stop doing that and bring positive externalities to society.

rbanffy5• 5 years ago

So, we have degrading social nets, public education and public health. But we should fund people for "doing what they love" because it has "positive externalities" (left undefined)

This is a false dilemma. We obviously should do both.

As someone who lives in Ireland and who pays taxes a lot of people on HN would say are outrageous, I support this wholeheartedly and would gladly pay even more taxes if such a program were extended and become truly universal.

I would, of course, continue to do what I do because I love it.

taubek• 5 years ago

I didn't quite understand this part: "The committee’s top recommendation was the creation of a basic income pilot program that would award selected arts workers €10.50 ($11.90) per hour." They will be payed €10.50 on top of very hour that they work or will they get that money for every hour that they don't work? Do they count artists to work 40 hours per week?

adwn• 5 years ago

Why is it so often "artists" that receive this kind of public funding? Why not open source developers? Hear me out, this isn't the "my hobbies are more important than your hobbies" kind of argument.

Art is almost always exclusively used for consumption. That doesn't make it worthless: it has value to the people who enjoy consuming that kind of art. But when an artist creates a work of art, that's the end of the chain – there's typically nothing that can build on that work, no other work that is enabled by this work.

The case is different for open source software, for example. Not all OSS is used productively by other people, but some of it is, enabling other work in sometimes completely different fields. For example, the Linux kernel and other OSS components which provide a versatile and free (as in free beer) operating system, have facilitated the creation of an incredible amount of value all over the world, in many different domains. Many of those thus facilitated works have themselves enabled other works, and so on. It's a source of value creation chains, not the end of one.

So, why start a grant program *cough cough* "UBI" for artists, but not for open source developers?

goodpoint2• 5 years ago

Art is almost always exclusively used for consumption ... Not all OSS is used productively by other people

If anything it's the opposite: there is more demand for software than art.

True, for most niche single-developer OSS projects is very difficult to gain an user community. But for a random musician/sculptor/painter it's even worse.

hubert022• 5 years ago

Wow this is so naive… how are they gonna define who is an artist and who is not? Why taxpayers (who may not care about art at all) should pay for this? Why a government can define that this specific group of people should get some grants, but not for example teachers or Uber drivers? Utopia

rbanffy5• 5 years ago

If only you read the article...

how are they gonna define who is an artist and who is not?

They won't.

Why taxpayers (who may not care about art at all) should pay for this?

Who would? Would you?

Why a government can define that this specific group of people should get some grants

Because that's what governments do.

but not for example teachers

Teachers have regular incomes.

or Uber drivers?

The hurdles to be a taxi driver and an Uber driver are mostly the same, so we mostly don't have Uber drivers. We have taxi drivers instead, who also answer Uber calls when they want to get exploited while they enrich someone else.

nineparts2• 5 years ago

The way things stand, what they are fighting for is more like a "non-dystopia." A utopia would actually need to lead somewhere new... but at the moment the powers that be have tried absolutely EVERYTHING to stay in power and they ran out of options. This is their last bet (or rather - their last bluff - as I don't think they will make good on their promises).

mejutoco• 5 years ago

It is a problem that artists would depend so much on the government. As it happened during covid with theaters and concert halls. How are these artists going to be able to criticize the hand that feeds them?

helpfulmandrill• 5 years ago

It used to be called "the dole", and that's why the 60s had The Beatles and we have Mumford and Sons.

sputr• 5 years ago

We call this "systemic financing" and Slovenia has had it since it's independence from Yugoslavia in the 90s.

It's a stupendously bad idea. There are already hints of this:

Currently at issue are eligibility and the process by which recipients will be selected.

If you allow politics to finance the arts, then soon the only art you have is the one preferred by the ruling politicians.

If your political option is ruling at the moment, this may not seem that bad - as happened in Slovenia, where the "left-ish" options rule for the most part.

The problem is when "the others" take over the government, as has happened in Slovenia. Then, suddenly, everyone looses their funding while it's being redirected to the groups preferred by the new government. And the longer since the last change, the more dependent everyone is on the "government handout" and the bigger the effect.

The ministry has said there will be no means test and that the process will be noncompetitive. If the number of applicants exceeds the number of income awards available, selection will be randomized.

You may say, "but the system that they propose solves this problem". Yeah, sure. For now. Soon after implementation, the policitcal debate about "real artist" and "fake artists stealing money" will start, just like the one we have here. Rules will be amended to "stop people from stealing money with fake art" and BAM, you have politically set standards for what constitutes "art".

Don't get me wrong - I'm in the very small minority in Slovenia who does not support the system we have. But this may, or may not, have something to do with the fact that the only financing for arts (and NGOs!) are government grants, so those who do not agree with the system (and the people enforcing it) never even have a chance to get started. The fact that we've not known a different system for generations (since Yugoslavia, being a communist dictatorship, also had "systemic financing") does not help.

Just to add regarding the NGOs I mentioned: officially, 0.6% of the population is employed in the NGO sector. European average is ~6%. But our number includes ALL government established and funded art and science institutions (like museums and the like). We have no NGO sector. Which, by extension, also means we do not have non-establishment politics.

In short: don't do government guided systemic financing. Does not mean it's not a good idea in any form, but please do in a way that the population (via tax credits, tokens etc.) decides who to award the majority of the money to, not the politicians.

graderjs• 5 years ago

There's also this:

https://www.superhibasicincome.com/

Super hi basic income 1,000 US dollars per month apply by January 21st 2022

rmbryan• 5 years ago

Saved you a click == They pay the basic income in crypto

lmilcin• 5 years ago

universal basic income for artists

How can something that only a single occupation receives, at random, be called "universal"? Do words even mean anything anymore?

We know what it means. Ireland will suddenly have a lot of "artists".

Also, who is going to decide what is and what is not art?

selection will be randomized

Now I'm confused, do you mean artists should be counting on luck to be paid? Isn't that what they have already been doing?

How is something that depends on luck called basic?

Do words even mean anything anymore?

While you are at it, can you buy lotto tickets for the homeless? Because that will solve the problem.

Ireland, you are doing it wrong...

ramblerman• 5 years ago

As others have mentioned this is mostly marketing and not UBI for many reasons but one thing that irks me particularly with this initiative is selecting candidates based on occupation.

The *whole point* is to *not* select based on who is more or less deserving, that exists already and is called welfare.

geocar3• 5 years ago

It irks me too; It irks me because this is dangerous: Whether this succeeds or fails tells you (or me) nothing about the values (or costs) of UBI, but it is awful convincing to people who don't understand the difference between UBI and welfare, and it is hard not to imagine someone against UBI (like a capitalist) actually endorsing these kinds of welfare-mislabelled-as-UBI; to specifically shit in the pool when everyone's looking and say see? UBI doesn't work.

At best, this is a way to waste some political capital of UBI supporters, and at worst, will be used to push UBI back another decade in Ireland. For this reason I think any communists and socialists who support UBI should refuse to acknowledge this as UBI, and use the vulgarism "welfare" instead exactly as you suggest.

Kbelicius2• 5 years ago

It irks me when people confuse news headlines for news. Ireland is not launching a UBI for artists, it is launching BI for artists. The only place you could find "universal" mentioned is this article.

nix23• 5 years ago

Is "artist" even a occupation? No really, is that a quality thing or so? Is a NFT-Gorilla Creator a artist? The 3 star Cook? The aerobatics Pilot? Musician...the Haskell programmer?

Would Banksy count as an artist from the beginning or just when he already sold stuff for millions?

rsynnott9• 5 years ago

Artists' income from art in Ireland is tax exempt up to 50k/year (this used to be a lot looser until someone noticed that _U2_ was benefiting from it), so Ireland has prior experience with determining what is and isn't art for tax purposes, anyway...

timeon2• 5 years ago

Would Banksy count as an artist from the beginning or just when he already sold stuff for millions?

Selling stuff for millions makes you businessman not an artist. He was recognized as an artist before that. But I guess that just confirms your point about occupation.

telxosser4• 5 years ago

Exactly. Just go around collecting old toilets and make some Duchamp inspired masterpiece then collect your UBI.

3pt141592• 5 years ago

The hard part is that UBI is extremely, extremely expensive. The variant I'm in favour of goes something like:

1. $12k / year to everyone

2. 50% flat tax (on non-UBI income)

3. Small federal land value tax on non-wilderness properties

4. Tax on non-resident property owners

5. UBI for citizens only (to mitigate people traveling here just to not work)

But try passing that ^ in any major democracy. You can't. The reason is that the winners of the current system (most seniors, top half of wage earners, the international elite) are the ones that either vote, or set political agendas. They like being able to hire [personal helpers, maids, warehouse workers] for $12 an hour.

For a true UBI we need to raise taxes and prices a lot and that will have downsides (at least in the short term) for probably 50 to 60% of the population. We will lose workers. Real output will fall. Taxes will have to go up and we will lose some people to other job markets.

So instead people nibble around the policy edges.

Retric5• 5 years ago

Implementing social security in the first place took massive social upheaval. UBI as a thought experiment is never going to happen, it would take a massive political movement or economic apocalypse.

pydry4• 5 years ago

Passing a flat tax in a major democracy is difficult because it's a tax designed to be heavily regressive whilst sounding vaguely fair if you dont pay too much attention.

It's equally hard if not harder to pass a well run progressive tax (e.g. a land value tax).

Instead we get a hodgepodge of progressive and regressive combined to reflect the power struggle between oligarchy and democracy that makes up most western power centers.

Also we get mollified with political pipe dreams designed to be easy to murder in their sleep (e.g. UBI) to take the heat off more "dangerous to profit" policies like minimum wage hikes.

DocTomoe3• 5 years ago

If you raise taxes and prices a lot, UBI will become basically useless, because it's effects will be eaten up by inflation.

Hell, why wouldn't I increase rent to the UBI amount?

leeroyjenkins11• 5 years ago

If the government takes half of what I make it would probably be time for a revolution. I make a good living, but having half of what I make support 3 other people that are not my family and just giving them cash. Like being on the afternoon of Wednesday and realizing that all the work I did in the week so far was taken away to give to someone else without my input is insane. And I give over 10 percent of what I earn to charity, but I decide what causes to support and who to help.

The nibbling around the policy is because they know what you proposed would mean they get tared and feathered so they just use it as an excuse to buy votes.

dagw4• 5 years ago

The problem with a high flat tax on the first dollar earned over UBI is that it creates stronger disincentives to work.

As to point 5, I would exclude citizens not living full time in the country and possibly include non-citizens who have qualified for permanent residency and have lived full time in the country for N years.

snidane• 5 years ago

UBI can work if and only if you can curb monopoly private taxes (real estate rents, fees, tips). Otherwise any money handed out freely to people end up immediately eaten up by monopoly private taxes for having no competition to level prices down.

Case in point: give out $1000 dollars in UBI, expect rents increase by about that amount within the next 2 years as current leases expire.

To implement UBI you must first get of private taxes one by one, then reduce the public income and consumption taxes and then with much of the costs lifted up off the middle class you realize you have a society that is freed up of (feu)dal taxes again and doesn't need any welfare nor UBI anymore.

jeroenhd• 5 years ago

I suppose an art subsidy with no selection criteria whatsoever is open to anyone, so it's close to UBI at least.

Kbelicius2• 5 years ago

This is marketing for the artforum. I couldn't find anywhere else that talks about this as UBI, certainly not the government.

jillesvangurp• 5 years ago

It's not basic income if it is only for some people under certain conditions. That implies bureaucracy to get in and policies. It's basically just yet another benefit program that some people may or may not qualify for.

We have basic income programs for the elderly (state pensions). For children (child care money). For students. For veterans. And for unemployed people. The only people not receiving anything are the employed. And for those people we have tax thresholds, minimum wages, sick leave, etc.

Basic income doesn't have to be that complicated. Most countries end up choosing to not let people starve on the streets. That means that there's a minimum cost per individual that is covered one way or another. In most countries that means a combination of free health care, food stamps, housing and typically at least some benefits (though usually with lots of strings attached) for the most poor in society and a lot of complex programs for everybody else. Of course some countries really do dump their problems on the street, which creates its own set of problems in terms of crime, poverty, etc.

If you just accept that there's an X cost per citizen in terms of them not starving, having shelter, etc. there are multiple ways of getting organized on that front. The way most countries ended up doing that (i.e. with a lot of bureaucracy, tax complexity, and a very hard to navigate program of benefits, rules and exceptions) is not cheap.

The main issue with basic income is not that it is hard but that it is controversial. Basically, it flows from a value system that dictates that people must pretend to be useful (by having a job). Never mind that many of those jobs are bullshit and make people miserable. Even though everybody ultimately gets what they need, we'd like to have lots of strings attached to that privilege. When you hear unemployment statistics that are ridiculously low (like 4%), just think for a second which people are not part of those statistics. That's a rather large group. In many countries that is close to or actually more than half of the population. It's not a problem. These people are being taken care off already. We don't call it basic income but these people are not working and they are definitely not poor.

Basic income just formalizes that status quo.

Zababa• 5 years ago

I don't understand. If you want to be "an artist", why not work at a regular job doing part-time, and doing your artist stuff part time? Lots of people in STEM have creative aspirations that they pursue in their free time, why should the people that didn't pay attention to how to organize your life be the one that get help?

lou1306• 5 years ago

If you want to give money to artists, why don't you, er, pay them for doing their thing? Like, enlarge art schools, support exhibitions or festivals, whatever.

Of course just raining money on (some of) them requires way less effort, but it makes it seem like art is just a money sink and cannot create tangible value (spoiler: it can).

ploika2• 5 years ago

That's also done.

"Funded by the Arts Council" is a phrase commonly seen on posters for all sorts of artistic endeavours. "Funding Opportunities" is front and centre on their website too:

https://www.artscouncil.ie/home/

bryanlarsen4• 5 years ago

Semi-related:

Given that royalty rates are set by quasi-governmental organizations (BMI, ASCAP) I'd love to see music royalties be "fairer".

In other words, Spotify, Youtube et al should pay more per play at the lowest levels and less at the higher levels. Essentially the rich artists end up subsidizing the poor artists a little bit. Given that most rich artists were poor artists once, hopefully most of them would be supportive of such a scheme.

anonu• 5 years ago

I am not sure how you enforce this - and that seems to be the sticking point in the article. UBI should be universal to everyone so you don't create incentives problems where you have charlatans claiming they are artists.

idiocrat• 5 years ago

City of Munich regularly buys up paintings from local artists (through an art jury). Not sure the price paid.

Because they have collected many paintings, the city has an Artothek, similar to a library, where you can step by, borrow ant take with you any painting for a nominal price (3 EUR / period of time).

nineparts2• 5 years ago

You can look at the state-financed "art programs" in ex-communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe. As artists in these countries were left with nothing to "propagandize" for (their sole qualification, by design) they slowly mutated into non-productive radical leftism and work-for-hire for anybody willing to invest into non-beauty. I hope that Ireland will fare better, although in the last few years their foreign policy seems to have been re-focused onto a domain that also involves LGBT type outbursts.

badrabbit• 5 years ago

Let's say an irish artist draws a painting that paints ISIS terrorists as freedom revolutionaries and inspires actual acts of terror, will the line be drawn there? I ask because whenever money is involved an adult conversation about incentives and power balances should be had. Would art be influenced by fears of their income which they have come to rely on being cut off?

tommiegannert• 5 years ago

Related to artists in Ireland...

If you're thinking of going to Dublin, I can highly recommend People's Art [1], which is an outdoors gallery (literally) around St Stephen's Green on weekends with good weather in August. Great variety and talent showing off. Sadly, it's been cancelled for CoVID. Hopefully they can get it going again.

[1] http://peoplesart.ie/ (not updated since 2020)

Ireland to launch basic income program for artists

Related Stories