3 ms·

That’s not an accurate paraphrasing; many social programs actually cost less than the alternative. Sounds like you live in the UK, so maybe you take the NHS fo

That’s not an accurate paraphrasing; many social programs actually cost less than the alternative. Sounds like you live in the UK, so maybe you take the NHS for granted. It would be a vast improvement from what we have in the US, where we have amongst the most expensive health care system in the world with far from the best outcomes. Group insurance is generally negotiated by employers; access to affordable healthcare is a huge obstacle to pursuing anything other than a traditional job. Even loftier goals like ending homelessness don’t turn out to require the financial tradeoffs you’re talking about. Study after study, we’ve seen that simply giving people homes is costs less than shelters, police raids and a Kafkaesque system of requirements to prevent people who Don’t Deserve Help from getting it. Consider that US workers are taxed in order to subsidize the dreams of the second wealthiest man in the world, for not one but two of his businesses. Would SpaceX or Tesla have succeeded without government handouts? We’re never asked to question that, but as soon as we suggest that people be able to make art without worrying about medical bankruptcy or homelessness, people start looking at the balance sheet with a magnifying glass.

AussieWog93 4y ago
[dead]
robocat 4y ago
You appear to be introducing three new tangential topics, and I don’t think you are addressing the point you originally raised. Your original comment says that we should take a system that is there to provide insurance for the unfortunate (social safety net) and use that system to fund people’s desires (art, open source, or whatever). I very strongly disagree with that idea: different systems have different purposes and commingling a safety net with creative goals will likely lead to very unfair outcomes.
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  That’s not really what I meant, but I suppose I can see why you’d infer it. I’m saying that a social safety net decreases the risk of pursuing art rather than a more traditional job, not that we should repurpose it to give people additional income to fund specifically artistic goals. So I’m not really introducing any tangential topics. In the US, medicine and healthcare are expensive and usually tied to employment; by providing those to everyone for free or cheap as part of a social safety net, it becomes less risky to dedicate your time to producing art.
  - robocat 4y ago
    Ahhhh, that makes more sense. I did jump to the conclusion you meant UBI, or full-time “welfare” benefits for artists (à la https://wikipedia.org/wiki/UB40 https://wikipedia.org/wiki/UB40 — the eight musicians formed a band, deciding on the name 'UB40' after a friend suggested it was an appropriate name given the unemployed status of all of the band members). But you are still implying some cost to the rest of society to support creatives in their cups. And I am saying that many people who are working don’t like that. Plenty of people think artists should have to worry about their own balance sheet and society provides them plenty already, as opposed to your special-status-for-artists comment “people be able to make art without worrying about medical bankruptcy or homelessness”. Instead, Western society’s usual deal is supposed to be: work 40 hours a week and you get your needs met, plus some disposable money to use as you wish, and the rest of your week (evenings, weekends) to do whatever you wish (art, open source, whatever). Alternatively society provides ways to monetise your interests. Those deals actually work in some countries, and don’t work in many others. I understand why you feel that the 40-hour deal might be broken in the USA. Many people from other countries look at the deal given to the median American with envy, and that is perfectly reasonable too. I have multiple artistic and musician friends where the jobs-for-money deal seems to work for them and they mostly own their own homes (however I am a ~50 year old in New Zealand and the majority of my artistic friends are 40 or over). I also have arty friends that get government benefits! And yeah, the USA medical system is rather perverse: hopefully you guys can fix that for all of yourselves (not just artists etcetera).
    - jakelazaroff 4y ago
      To be honest, I would support some form of UBI, but I think there are many more modest reforms we can talk about before we get there. > But you are still implying some cost to the rest of society to support creatives in their cups. And I am saying that many people who are working don’t like that. You’re inferring this, but I’m not implying it. Let me try to be a little clearer: Public services do not necessarily cost taxpayers more than the alternatives. Again, with healthcare we have a concrete example of privatized systems costing more and delivering worse outcomes than universal public ones. Many people who are working might prefer the former so they don’t have to subsidize others, but ultimately they themselves receive worse care (on average) as a result of this; they are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Relatedly, a significant amount of US taxpayer money subsidizes the business ventures of billionaires like Elon Musk. There are plenty of other examples, like the almost eight trillion USD we give to the military every decade. This doesn’t directly address your point, but I do wonder why we only start talking about these tradeoffs when it’s the poorest receiving subsidies from the government, rather than the most powerful.
- asdff 4y ago
  The U.S. used to in fact commingle the social safety net with creative goals during the WPA era. There would be funding provided to employ artists, musicians, writers, actors, stage hands, etc. I think this is one of the many great ideas from the progressive era that could use reinstatement today. What a shame so many of our excellent social programs were cut during WWII as we shifted to a centrally planned war economy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration#Federal_Project_Number_One https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration#...

AussieWog93 4y ago

[dead]

robocat 4y ago

You appear to be introducing three new tangential topics, and I don’t think you are addressing the point you originally raised. Your original comment says that we should take a system that is there to provide insurance for the unfortunate (social safety net) and use that system to fund people’s desires (art, open source, or whatever). I very strongly disagree with that idea: different systems have different purposes and commingling a safety net with creative goals will likely lead to very unfair outcomes.

jakelazaroff 4y ago
That’s not really what I meant, but I suppose I can see why you’d infer it. I’m saying that a social safety net decreases the risk of pursuing art rather than a more traditional job, not that we should repurpose it to give people additional income to fund specifically artistic goals. So I’m not really introducing any tangential topics. In the US, medicine and healthcare are expensive and usually tied to employment; by providing those to everyone for free or cheap as part of a social safety net, it becomes less risky to dedicate your time to producing art.
- robocat 4y ago
  Ahhhh, that makes more sense. I did jump to the conclusion you meant UBI, or full-time “welfare” benefits for artists (à la https://wikipedia.org/wiki/UB40 https://wikipedia.org/wiki/UB40 — the eight musicians formed a band, deciding on the name 'UB40' after a friend suggested it was an appropriate name given the unemployed status of all of the band members). But you are still implying some cost to the rest of society to support creatives in their cups. And I am saying that many people who are working don’t like that. Plenty of people think artists should have to worry about their own balance sheet and society provides them plenty already, as opposed to your special-status-for-artists comment “people be able to make art without worrying about medical bankruptcy or homelessness”. Instead, Western society’s usual deal is supposed to be: work 40 hours a week and you get your needs met, plus some disposable money to use as you wish, and the rest of your week (evenings, weekends) to do whatever you wish (art, open source, whatever). Alternatively society provides ways to monetise your interests. Those deals actually work in some countries, and don’t work in many others. I understand why you feel that the 40-hour deal might be broken in the USA. Many people from other countries look at the deal given to the median American with envy, and that is perfectly reasonable too. I have multiple artistic and musician friends where the jobs-for-money deal seems to work for them and they mostly own their own homes (however I am a ~50 year old in New Zealand and the majority of my artistic friends are 40 or over). I also have arty friends that get government benefits! And yeah, the USA medical system is rather perverse: hopefully you guys can fix that for all of yourselves (not just artists etcetera).
  - jakelazaroff 4y ago
    To be honest, I would support some form of UBI, but I think there are many more modest reforms we can talk about before we get there. > But you are still implying some cost to the rest of society to support creatives in their cups. And I am saying that many people who are working don’t like that. You’re inferring this, but I’m not implying it. Let me try to be a little clearer: Public services do not necessarily cost taxpayers more than the alternatives. Again, with healthcare we have a concrete example of privatized systems costing more and delivering worse outcomes than universal public ones. Many people who are working might prefer the former so they don’t have to subsidize others, but ultimately they themselves receive worse care (on average) as a result of this; they are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Relatedly, a significant amount of US taxpayer money subsidizes the business ventures of billionaires like Elon Musk. There are plenty of other examples, like the almost eight trillion USD we give to the military every decade. This doesn’t directly address your point, but I do wonder why we only start talking about these tradeoffs when it’s the poorest receiving subsidies from the government, rather than the most powerful.
asdff 4y ago
The U.S. used to in fact commingle the social safety net with creative goals during the WPA era. There would be funding provided to employ artists, musicians, writers, actors, stage hands, etc. I think this is one of the many great ideas from the progressive era that could use reinstatement today. What a shame so many of our excellent social programs were cut during WWII as we shifted to a centrally planned war economy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration#Federal_Project_Number_One https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration#...