As Ireland's $1,500-a-month basic income pilot program for creatives nears its end in February, officials have to answer a simple question: Is it worth it?

With four months to go, they say the answer is yes.

Earlier this month, Ireland's government announced its 2026 budget, which includes "a successor to the pilot Basic Income Scheme for the Arts to begin next year" among its expenditures.

Ireland is just one of many places experimenting with guaranteed basic income programs, which provide recurring, unrestricted payments to people in a certain demographic. These programs differ from a universal basic income, which would provide payments for an entire population.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 24 points 1 year ago (28 children)

The question is: Who or what determines if you are an artist?

  • source
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    This is why universal* basic is the proper way. We're heading toward a world where there will never be enough existing jobs for everyone who wants to work, let alone those who can't work, and finally the smallest cohort, those who don't want to "work" at all.

    The administrative burden of means testing so many people is absurd. And when you do and they fail then what?

    People who are against looking after the unemployed rarely say the quiet part out loud. That they don't care about homelessness, disease, violent crime, or whatever, since they can isolate themselves away from it. The law works for them, and so does the system, so they're safe. So let the peasants who refuse to tow the line figure it out on their own.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I agree with this, but I want to ask a question as this has come up in topic recently in a friend group. Do you not worry that “universal” becomes “stipulated”?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago*

    I don't think there's a meaningful difference. If you're a citizen or permanent resident of a country with UBI you should get the UBI if you're of working age. No exceptions.

    It's not the only progressive policy that's needed. Certain regulations over the cost of basic services and commodities is essential too. Housing/rent, food, and healthcare prices to name a few need to be controlled or there's a risk those dependent on the UBI will be priced out of the market. That's the biggest challenge to making it work, next to of course taxing the wealthy their fair share.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    They’ve been saying this for decades and this was the birth of bullshit jobs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    You mean in Ireland?

    So far I am unaware of a UBI policy having been appropriately implemented anywhere in the world.

    It would be the end of "bullshit jobs" and make employment outside of specialist roles people actually want to do a sellers' market.

    You'll have to raise the pay, benefits, and other working conditiona until it actually becomes a job people want to do, rather.

    Right now there are enough desperate people, particularly immigrants in many countries, willing to do anything. That should be an ethical problem for all of us.

    Immigrants probably wouldn't get the UBI and would still be more likely to take up unwanted jobs, so there would still need to be instruments like minimum wage (or better, guaranteed minimum income) that apply to all people engaged in full time work. The GMI should only be needed in industries with low profits or no profits so these employers can offer attractive and fair wages.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Here's the prior guidelines. You generally had to show your membership in an art organization and that you made an income selling art. Then they just randomly picked names of those people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    Hmm, a rather random approach, then.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    What? How is it random? Having sold your art makes you a professional artist, by definition. Then they sampled at random because it's a pilot program

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    How is it random?

    Then they sampled at random because it's a pilot program

    Well, I see a connection here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Then you're daft.

    You have to be a part of an art organisation (as in a governing body that requires paid membership to join), and to have proof of being paid, multiple times, for making art

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    And yes, in your own words: Then they [sic] sampled at random (emphasis added)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    for the initial trial period, also in my own words.

    It's no longer in the trial period. No random samples. Just have to be a member of the governing body (which does take effort and a nominal fee to join)

    You do know the definition of Pilot Program, right?

    Here it is;

    Pilot Program: To test the feasibility of a path of action that is aiming to become more widespread, by choosing a smaller subset of the eligible people and then using the program on only that subset and analysing the results. If results are positive, then the program is approved and becomes widespread, if the results are negative or no change, then the program is not approved

    The document linked is about the Pilot Program, the details of the Full Program are not yet known, but it can be presumed that it will be the exact same as the Pilot Program minus the Random Sampling (as the point is to cover everyone that is eligible)

    Edit: spelling

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    You yourself?

    Are you using most of your day being creative, or do you have steady employment? You don't need an authority to determine who is an artist

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    That would lead to loads of self-proclaimed "artists".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (8 children)

    No, it would lead to loads of self-proclaimed artists. Successful and real are not the same thing

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    Wishing to be an artist does not make it so. There is a lot of human slop in "arts".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    Here it is guys, found who's the authority on what is art and what is slop

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    Everyone is his or her personal authority on what is art and what is slop. That's what makes art subjective. Which also makes defining who is an artist subjective.

    For my PERSONAL perception, quite a lot of what is sold as art is slop. If you consider randomly splattered paint or rusty heaps of steel "art", fine, that is also your PERSONAL decision.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    So you are saying that no single authority can define who is or isn't an artist because art is personal? I agree.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    And that was the very reason why I asked how an "Artist" is defined under that rule.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yeah, I guess we disagree on what that means. From my understanding, the fact that such an authority can not exist means to you that the system will be corrupt or unfair, because someone ultimately needs to decide whether you qualify or not. I disagree with that and think you can just skip the authority altogether. Just verify they are not employed and have sold some threshold amount of art, or made performances, over 6 months or something

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments