3 ms·

I don't know, they went from productive work (someone paying them to do it) to unproductive work. This is the old Keynesian argument I never bought that you ca

by bko 2y ago

I don't know, they went from productive work (someone paying them to do it) to unproductive work. This is the old Keynesian argument I never bought that you can pay people to dig ditches and fill them back in and it would stimulate the economy.

h2zizzle 2y ago
"still make revenue close to what they earned on their job by selling art." Read more closely.
ludston 2y ago
To be fair, there is a massive percentage of non-productive jobs that are mostly security guards for goods and locations, and many inefficient roles related to ticket clipping, inefficient distribution and marketing that all stimulate the economy without being productive.
toss1 2y ago
>>went from productive work (someone paying them to do it) to unproductive work. Umm, that is literally wrong, by your own definition. >>work something different and still make revenue close to what they earned on their job by selling art. I.e., they went from an employer paying them to do work to a variety of clients/customers paying them to do different work of nearly the same value. OFC, if everyone did it, the price of art might decline. Or demand might go up. Or both, or neither. We don't know. But either way, the example subject did NOT convert from productive to unproductive work.
- floxy 2y ago
  Was it: $X from old job ~= $Y from art-gig or: $X from old job ~= $Y from art-gig + $Z from UBI
  - toss1 2y ago
    Good qstn. The phrasing does leave room for ambiguity, but "make revenue close to" certainly indicates meaning closer to "$X from old job ~= $Y from art-gig" >>work something different and still make revenue close to what they earned on their job by selling art
specialist 2y ago
Arts & entertainment is (at least) 1% of USA's GDP. Roughly $1 trillion / year. Production of culture seems important and worthwhile to me. Probably apocryphal: UK's (then generous) dole led to the British Invasion (eg The Beatles).

by bko 2y ago

h2zizzle 2y ago

"still make revenue close to what they earned on their job by selling art." Read more closely.

ludston 2y ago

To be fair, there is a massive percentage of non-productive jobs that are mostly security guards for goods and locations, and many inefficient roles related to ticket clipping, inefficient distribution and marketing that all stimulate the economy without being productive.

toss1 2y ago

>>went from productive work (someone paying them to do it) to unproductive work. Umm, that is literally wrong, by your own definition. >>work something different and still make revenue close to what they earned on their job by selling art. I.e., they went from an employer paying them to do work to a variety of clients/customers paying them to do different work of nearly the same value. OFC, if everyone did it, the price of art might decline. Or demand might go up. Or both, or neither. We don't know. But either way, the example subject did NOT convert from productive to unproductive work.

floxy 2y ago
Was it: $X from old job ~= $Y from art-gig or: $X from old job ~= $Y from art-gig + $Z from UBI
- toss1 2y ago
  Good qstn. The phrasing does leave room for ambiguity, but "make revenue close to" certainly indicates meaning closer to "$X from old job ~= $Y from art-gig" >>work something different and still make revenue close to what they earned on their job by selling art

specialist 2y ago

Arts & entertainment is (at least) 1% of USA's GDP. Roughly $1 trillion / year. Production of culture seems important and worthwhile to me. Probably apocryphal: UK's (then generous) dole led to the British Invasion (eg The Beatles).