5 ms·

The frustrating thing about this program is that it is not possible to avail of this unless you are ALREADY an artist. So if you gave up art because you had bil

The frustrating thing about this program is that it is not possible to avail of this unless you are ALREADY an artist. So if you gave up art because you had bills and kids and needed to support yourself or a family, you're SOL. The only person I know getting this money was already semi-retired after selling their house in London and retiring to the Irish countryside, and basically just noodles around on the guitar now and then.

krisoft 8mo ago
> The frustrating thing about this program is that it is not possible to avail of this unless you are ALREADY an artist. Frankly we don’t know the selection criteria for the program this year. It will be only released in April. But we know the selection criteria for the pilot program, and for that this was not true. > So if you gave up art because you had bills and kids and needed to support yourself or a family, you're SOL. Again we don’t know the full program’s eligibility criteria yet. Under the pilot program there were two separate streams. Those who were recently trained, and those who were “practicing artist”. Your hypothetical “artist who gave up art” might fall into the “recently trained” stream and thus be eligible. Or if they gave up on art a long ago (more than 5 years), there are ways they can get back to it. They can start practicing their art on the side again, produce a portfolio of work and thus become eligible again. They don’t need to be full time artist for this. > The only person I know getting this money In the pilot program they randomly selected 2000 participants from those who where eligible. So to get the money in the pilot program you both needed to be eligible, have applied for it, and be lucky enough in the lottery. Because of this lottery whoever is getting it today is not representative of who is all eligible for it.
- Azrael3000 8mo ago
  Additionally i would argue that in every such programm there will be people that abuse the system. Just because gp knows one such person, does not mean that everybody will be doing that. The article also mentions that overall the program had a positive impact.
  - Griffinsauce 8mo ago
    There is generally a heavy bias to focusing on abuse instead of outcomes. Who cares that there are some false positives if there is a net benefit, it's just noise.
    - bobim 8mo ago
      Then make it an universal income, because deep down everyone is an artist waiting to be revealed.
    - inglor_cz 8mo ago
      Every special interest will claim that "give more money to us" leads to better societal outcomes.
      - joe_mamba 8mo ago
        This. I've never met anyone in any setting that complained about receiving too much money. If you ask pensioners if they should get higher pensions, they'll say YES. If you ask students if they should get more subsidies, they'll say YES. If you ask unemployed people if they should raise unemployment benefits, they'll say YES. If you ask people on minimum wage if they should raise the minimum wage, they'll say YES. Everyone is quick to be very generous when it's from other peoples' money without accounting for the second order effects of those decisions, which is especially a big problem of the extended welfare state, since everyone pays taxes and so then everyone wants more and more subsidies so they can feel they're getting their money's worth out of the system, or else they feel cheated.
        jasonkester 8mo ago
        I'm pretty sure I'm on record here on HN complaining about receiving covid relief checks that I don't need, and that I would much rather that money went to people who were actually struggling. Personally, I want people on the high end of earnings (such as myself) to be taxed more so that a basic income scheme like this can be available for anybody who wants it. Charge me an extra $300/month and give it to some random 24 year old so that he can smoke weed and play his guitar. He'll get more use out of it than I will. One day, that kid will decide that living in a crap shared apartment is getting a bit old and he'll grow some ambition, get a real job, and eventually start earning enough to help sponsor the next round of deadbeats.
s_dev 8mo ago
>The frustrating thing about this program is that it is not possible to avail of this unless you are ALREADY an artist. Correct, the programme is FOR artists. How could this possibly work otherwise? By somebody stating they intend to become an talented artist? How else would you gauge merit if not through their portfolio of prior work?
- wooger 8mo ago
  Everyone is capable of creating art. We're not objectively deciding what is art and what isn't, up front. Who decides what counts? Who's to say an AI generated self-published vomit novels on Amazon aren't as valid as anything else.
  - s_dev 8mo ago
    I don't find your comment particularly insightful. These aren't good questions but I'll attempt to answer in good faith. >Who decides what counts? Clearly for this scheme the people approving the applicants and those setting the criteria for those reviewing the portfolios. A better line of questioning might be who decided on these people and what makes them qualified to judge but you'll find yourself going down a 'Who guards the guardians' conundrum. Your comment reminds me of when some member of the audience challenged film critic Robert Ebert on who made him the 'boss' to decide which films were good and which were bad. He simply answered with the name of the owner of the building since he authorised the production of his film review show.
- PepperdineG 8mo ago
  If someone was in college this could be a way for them to get going right after they graduate without having to take some other non-art job instead.
keepamovin 8mo ago
> So if you gave up art because you had bills and kids and needed to support yourself or a family, you're SOL. Lacks real courage. Not committed. Next!
george11119 8mo ago
i swear I've seen this comment about a guy who sold his house and getting basic income before edit: found it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45590900#45591439 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45590900#45591439
- y7 8mo ago
  That's also CalRobert's post, so it refers to the same person.
fiftyacorn 8mo ago
Id commented on reddit a few weeks back that this type of scheme sounds great - but ends up being taken up by middle/upper classes as a bit of pocket money, and doesnt widen the pool or access to arts The UK has this with lottery funding for athletes - it started really positive - but is now a lottery funded gap year for private school kids
PakistaniDenzel 8mo ago
If they didn't have this restriction everyone would suddenly be an "artist" and would claim the money.
- shiandow 8mo ago
  Oh no! Seriously though, having a basic income that is not basic was bound to give issues.
  - thomasz 8mo ago
    It's not _universal_. A truly UBI would be handing out a fixed basic income to everyone, irrespective of individual wealth, income or needs.
    - k2enemy 8mo ago
      Is that even possible? Someone has to pay for it. If I'm rich and I get $40,000 a year from UBI, but my direct or indirect taxes go up by $60,000 in order to fund the program, am I really receiving UBI? At some point UBI has to involve transfers between income or wealth levels. The particulars of how the program is funded determines how progressive or regressive the policy is in net.
      - int_19h 8mo ago
        Yes, you're receiving UBI in that scenario. The whole point is that paying everyone a fixed $X amount regardless of anything else is extremely easy to manage, so you can drop all the bureaucracy that builds up around welfare. But, yes, in practice it also acts as a progressive income tax of sorts even with an otherwise flat tax rate (which allows for further simplification) because delta between UBI check and taxes is going to gradually decrease as income rises and eventually becomes negative. That said even with just personal income tax it's viable. I once crunched the numbers on what it'd take to have everyone in US receive the current federal min wage as UBI payment, assuming a flat surface tax (i.e. relying solely on that UBI check to make it progressive), and it was somewhere in the ballpark of 50%. Of course, you can get there much easier if you go for the sacred cows such as capital gains. Raising that to the same level as regular income alone would bring a lot of tax revenue. We could also start taxing AI, since it is (or at least positioned by those deploying it) the immediate cause why so many people are going to find themselves out of jobs.
specialist 8mo ago
Becoming a working artist requires sacrifice and commitment. Joshua Citarella (Doomscroll podcast) often talks about the practicalities of producing art. In 1970's a (starving) artist worked part-time job (eg waiter), enabling them to focus on their craft most of the week. Today, typical artist has to hustle, juggling 3 jobs, and can only focus once per week on their one day off work. Further, "entry level" jobs are unpaid / underpaid. Such as internships at a museum or newspaper. Ditto teaching positions. Consequently, only affluent persons are able to break into the creative disciplines (production of culture). Trust funds, nepotism, and other lottery winners. -- I, for one, enthusiastically support heavily subsidizing both creative and caring work. All those "not-for-profit" gigs and unpaid labor. They're the grease that keeps society working. Despite not being tabulated in someone's payroll accounting system.

krisoft 8mo ago

> The frustrating thing about this program is that it is not possible to avail of this unless you are ALREADY an artist. Frankly we don’t know the selection criteria for the program this year. It will be only released in April. But we know the selection criteria for the pilot program, and for that this was not true. > So if you gave up art because you had bills and kids and needed to support yourself or a family, you're SOL. Again we don’t know the full program’s eligibility criteria yet. Under the pilot program there were two separate streams. Those who were recently trained, and those who were “practicing artist”. Your hypothetical “artist who gave up art” might fall into the “recently trained” stream and thus be eligible. Or if they gave up on art a long ago (more than 5 years), there are ways they can get back to it. They can start practicing their art on the side again, produce a portfolio of work and thus become eligible again. They don’t need to be full time artist for this. > The only person I know getting this money In the pilot program they randomly selected 2000 participants from those who where eligible. So to get the money in the pilot program you both needed to be eligible, have applied for it, and be lucky enough in the lottery. Because of this lottery whoever is getting it today is not representative of who is all eligible for it.

Azrael3000 8mo ago
Additionally i would argue that in every such programm there will be people that abuse the system. Just because gp knows one such person, does not mean that everybody will be doing that. The article also mentions that overall the program had a positive impact.
- Griffinsauce 8mo ago
  There is generally a heavy bias to focusing on abuse instead of outcomes. Who cares that there are some false positives if there is a net benefit, it's just noise.
  - bobim 8mo ago
    Then make it an universal income, because deep down everyone is an artist waiting to be revealed.
  - inglor_cz 8mo ago
    Every special interest will claim that "give more money to us" leads to better societal outcomes.
    - joe_mamba 8mo ago
      This. I've never met anyone in any setting that complained about receiving too much money. If you ask pensioners if they should get higher pensions, they'll say YES. If you ask students if they should get more subsidies, they'll say YES. If you ask unemployed people if they should raise unemployment benefits, they'll say YES. If you ask people on minimum wage if they should raise the minimum wage, they'll say YES. Everyone is quick to be very generous when it's from other peoples' money without accounting for the second order effects of those decisions, which is especially a big problem of the extended welfare state, since everyone pays taxes and so then everyone wants more and more subsidies so they can feel they're getting their money's worth out of the system, or else they feel cheated.
      - jasonkester 8mo ago
        I'm pretty sure I'm on record here on HN complaining about receiving covid relief checks that I don't need, and that I would much rather that money went to people who were actually struggling. Personally, I want people on the high end of earnings (such as myself) to be taxed more so that a basic income scheme like this can be available for anybody who wants it. Charge me an extra $300/month and give it to some random 24 year old so that he can smoke weed and play his guitar. He'll get more use out of it than I will. One day, that kid will decide that living in a crap shared apartment is getting a bit old and he'll grow some ambition, get a real job, and eventually start earning enough to help sponsor the next round of deadbeats.

s_dev 8mo ago

>The frustrating thing about this program is that it is not possible to avail of this unless you are ALREADY an artist. Correct, the programme is FOR artists. How could this possibly work otherwise? By somebody stating they intend to become an talented artist? How else would you gauge merit if not through their portfolio of prior work?

wooger 8mo ago
Everyone is capable of creating art. We're not objectively deciding what is art and what isn't, up front. Who decides what counts? Who's to say an AI generated self-published vomit novels on Amazon aren't as valid as anything else.
- s_dev 8mo ago
  I don't find your comment particularly insightful. These aren't good questions but I'll attempt to answer in good faith. >Who decides what counts? Clearly for this scheme the people approving the applicants and those setting the criteria for those reviewing the portfolios. A better line of questioning might be who decided on these people and what makes them qualified to judge but you'll find yourself going down a 'Who guards the guardians' conundrum. Your comment reminds me of when some member of the audience challenged film critic Robert Ebert on who made him the 'boss' to decide which films were good and which were bad. He simply answered with the name of the owner of the building since he authorised the production of his film review show.
PepperdineG 8mo ago
If someone was in college this could be a way for them to get going right after they graduate without having to take some other non-art job instead.

keepamovin 8mo ago

> So if you gave up art because you had bills and kids and needed to support yourself or a family, you're SOL. Lacks real courage. Not committed. Next!

george11119 8mo ago

i swear I've seen this comment about a guy who sold his house and getting basic income before edit: found it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45590900#45591439 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45590900#45591439

y7 8mo ago
That's also CalRobert's post, so it refers to the same person.

fiftyacorn 8mo ago

Id commented on reddit a few weeks back that this type of scheme sounds great - but ends up being taken up by middle/upper classes as a bit of pocket money, and doesnt widen the pool or access to arts The UK has this with lottery funding for athletes - it started really positive - but is now a lottery funded gap year for private school kids

PakistaniDenzel 8mo ago

If they didn't have this restriction everyone would suddenly be an "artist" and would claim the money.

shiandow 8mo ago
Oh no! Seriously though, having a basic income that is not basic was bound to give issues.
- thomasz 8mo ago
  It's not _universal_. A truly UBI would be handing out a fixed basic income to everyone, irrespective of individual wealth, income or needs.
  - k2enemy 8mo ago
    Is that even possible? Someone has to pay for it. If I'm rich and I get $40,000 a year from UBI, but my direct or indirect taxes go up by $60,000 in order to fund the program, am I really receiving UBI? At some point UBI has to involve transfers between income or wealth levels. The particulars of how the program is funded determines how progressive or regressive the policy is in net.
    - int_19h 8mo ago
      Yes, you're receiving UBI in that scenario. The whole point is that paying everyone a fixed $X amount regardless of anything else is extremely easy to manage, so you can drop all the bureaucracy that builds up around welfare. But, yes, in practice it also acts as a progressive income tax of sorts even with an otherwise flat tax rate (which allows for further simplification) because delta between UBI check and taxes is going to gradually decrease as income rises and eventually becomes negative. That said even with just personal income tax it's viable. I once crunched the numbers on what it'd take to have everyone in US receive the current federal min wage as UBI payment, assuming a flat surface tax (i.e. relying solely on that UBI check to make it progressive), and it was somewhere in the ballpark of 50%. Of course, you can get there much easier if you go for the sacred cows such as capital gains. Raising that to the same level as regular income alone would bring a lot of tax revenue. We could also start taxing AI, since it is (or at least positioned by those deploying it) the immediate cause why so many people are going to find themselves out of jobs.

specialist 8mo ago

Becoming a working artist requires sacrifice and commitment. Joshua Citarella (Doomscroll podcast) often talks about the practicalities of producing art. In 1970's a (starving) artist worked part-time job (eg waiter), enabling them to focus on their craft most of the week. Today, typical artist has to hustle, juggling 3 jobs, and can only focus once per week on their one day off work. Further, "entry level" jobs are unpaid / underpaid. Such as internships at a museum or newspaper. Ditto teaching positions. Consequently, only affluent persons are able to break into the creative disciplines (production of culture). Trust funds, nepotism, and other lottery winners. -- I, for one, enthusiastically support heavily subsidizing both creative and caring work. All those "not-for-profit" gigs and unpaid labor. They're the grease that keeps society working. Despite not being tabulated in someone's payroll accounting system.