They had something like this in the Netherlands during the 80s. Basically everyone was out of a job back then so it didn't really matter. Worst recession since 1929.
Artists had to make a buch of art which was then given to the government. The state ended up with entire warehouses filled with crap.
Sweden introduced a similar scheme in 1964, in which artists (broadly defined, having since come to include one clown and one chess player) have been given a basic income, supplementing their other incomes up to a specific level.
Artists couldn't apply for this, but were officially selected. The program was stopped in 2010, meaning no new recipients have been selected since. As far as I know, there's been no studies surrounding any measurable increase in artistic quality or artistic output.
It is of course easy to point out how deeply unfair such programs are on multiple levels. Unsurprisingly, many recipients have utilized loopholes in order to receive the grant despite having incomes and wealth well above the threshold.
Edit to clarify: Sweden still grants long-term stipends to various artists, sometimes up to a decade. What's described above is a guaranteed, life-long, basic income.
People have seemed critical of the presentation, scope, and goal of this program. (e.g. It's not "universal" basic income, the number of recipients is limited to 2,000, and why are artists being subsidized instead of essential workers?)
Now it seems that we'll get some real world answer to those questions/concerns.
> and why are artists being subsidized instead of essential workers?
There are far more than 2,000 real, paying jobs for schoolteachers. And for grocery clerks. And for nurses. And for fire fighters. And for drivers of rubbish lorries. And for ...
Not so much for the folks who hope to be the next James Joyce or Louis le Brocquy.
With the modest size of the monthly checks, most of them may need to do that anyway.
But the obvious point is to help "artists" in Ireland. It's pretty normal for small nations to want to cultivate / protect / subsidize their arts / culture / language / whatever. The Irish gov't isn't trumpeting this program because they think it'll annoy Irish voters.
But I think people who benefit from this won’t be artists. But people who are good at making money off artsy projects.
I’d see much more value in investing in supply and demand. First, provide free studios with arts supplies, music instruments and so on. Next, force government agencies to hire local artists. Make municipalities have live music for local events and hire local musicians. Make gov agencies buy local art for decorations etc.
325 Euros/week sounds like basic rent & food & transportation. Not artsy projects with enough spare Euros for someone to skim serious money off from.
Providing "free" studios, supplies, instruments, etc. sounds like a scheme to give politicians more photo ops and bureaucrats more jobs. Why can't the artists just source exactly what they think they need from existing supply chains?
If they think this is good/important then fine but what they've created is a grant programme, not a UBI.
Personally I would have thought this money would have been better spent getting people on the margins the stability to retrain into in-demand skilled careers (e.g. single, unskilled parents training as electricians or plumbers). That feels like it would be a more durable, multi-generational benefit.
Who said it is a UBI that this "rebuttal" even makes sense to appear here? The Irish government isn't calling it a UBI. The article doesn't call it a UBI. Even the FAQ for the program says it is not UBI:
>> Why this is not a Universal Basic Income
>> It is important to note that that the Basic Income for the Arts Pilot is not a Universal Basic Income. This is a sectoral intervention to support practicing artists and creative arts workers to focus on their creative practice. This policy is separate to the Universal Basic income as outlined in the Programme for Government.
Basic Income and UBI are colloquially synonyms, people use them interchangeably, and the Irish government are almost certainly using it to endear themselves to supporters of UBI and to get more coverage for their policy than media would give them if they just called it a grant.
This happens all the time. For example, in the UK there was a push for a "living wage" in the 2010s, which the government responded to by rebranding the minimum wage the "National Living Wage" and bumping it a little for over-25s.
All these places use the word UNCONDITIONAL instead of UNIVERSAL because they are scared of printing money and paying all their citizens, while jacking up pigovian taxes on the other side.
You can't solve real world social and economic problems with hare-brained cryptocurrency schemes. If you want to support local artists then just buy their art, or give them donations in real currency.
It's not universal if only selected individuals get it. And you can't live on 325 euros in a place like Ireland. So it's not even basic income. But it's a nice temporary subsidy.
Proper basic income has never really been tried. It would have to be universal (for the entire population) and be enough to live on.
Most countries have non universal basic income in the form of benefits, state pensions, food stamps, and various social security insurance programs. One way or another people that can't or won't work still get enough to survive. Mostly, countries don't let their citizens starve. They mostly don't put them out on the streets. And if people get sick, generally hospitals/doctors will help. You won't necessarily get a very nice version of all that in most countries.
If you think of basic income like that, UBI is actually not that much of a departure from that status quo. It just establishes that as a bare minimum that everybody gets one way or another. The reason that the idea gets a lot of push back is that people have a lot of morals about having to earn stuff which then results in complex rules to qualify for things only if you are unable to earn a living. Which then turns into a lot of complex schemes to establish non universal income that comes into a variety of forms and shapes. But it adds up to the same result: everybody is taken care off.
A proper UBI would have to award it to anyone. That's what universal means. It would be a simplification of what we have now. If you are employed, you would get a chunk of income from UBI and the rest from your employer. Basically, you work to add income on top of your UBI and it's between you and your employer to sort out how much you work and how much you earn. If you get unemployed, you fall back to UBI. UBI would be untaxed. But if you work or earn income you pay taxes. Company earnings are taxed as well. And you pay VAT when you buy stuff. Those revenue streams are what already fund things today.
People think of UBI as extra cost but it could actually be a cost saving if done properly. There's a lot of bureaucracy that's no longer needed. You could still layer insurances and benefits on top of course. But that would be more optional. And you could incentivize people to work that are currently actively incentivized to not work (e.g. to not lose benefits or get penalized on their pensions).
People forget that the status quo is not free either and that it requires an enormous, convoluted bureaucracy that also costs money. UBI could end up being simpler and cheaper.
The hard part with UBI is balancing fairness and financial viability and implementing it in a way that isn't massively disruptive and complicated. You'd need to incentivize most people to still want to work while making the system generous enough that people can opt not to. That's not a solved problem and the key show stopper. Many people that work object against anyone getting anything for free. But if you consider the status quo, we already have a lot of people not working anyway. And we all pay for that already. That is actually a rather large percentage of people that are allowed to vote in many countries.
Mostly the moral arguments against UBI are what perpetuates the very inefficient and costly status quo. We just keep on making that harsher, more complicated, and more expensive. Effectively if you work, you are paying extra for all that inefficiency. Worse, you can work your ass off your whole life and still have to worry about having enough to retire, the affordability of housing, or being able to afford essential health care.
And "proper" UBI will never actually be tried, at least not on any significant scale. Because if you actually run the numbers you'll see that the level of taxation required plus the inflationary effects make the whole scheme unworkable.
Taxation and inflation are 2nd order effects. There's a deeper underlying reason.
The point of work is to produce the things we need to live. Somebody's gotta grow the crops, drive the trucks, mop the floors, crunch the numbers, process the paperwork, write the code, whatever.
If you offer enough UBI for people to live without working... the work won't get done, and things we need won't get made.
The trouble is that paying a few people to not work is very very different from paying everyone to not work.
We need people to work to produce the things they need to live. As long as this remains true, UBI can never happen. This fantasy of being able to live without working is out of touch with the cold hard reality.
> As long as this remains true, UBI can never happen.
New Zealand pays a pension to everyone over 65, whether or not they are working. No means testing and little political will to move the age upward.
About 25% of those over 65 work, and the percentage is growing.
There are multiple reasons this could be true (eg, limited savings forcing work).
The lack of means testing obviously saves money and shenanigans working out who is entitled, though the ‘universal’ nature limited how much a needy recipient can get.
not in this case though. as explained elsewhere, the artist is a dying career choice in ireland owing to economic reasons. no artist == drub society therefore the incompetent government intervenes the only way incompetence approves: free money. making the state function is much harder, and that’s not what these politicians signed up for. reducing electricity bill by 50% is a herculean task so how about jacking up taxes in one place and giving it back as free money in another? this is the modus operandi of the irish government.
The problem is soon (and to some extent currently) there won't be enough work for everyone, and there definitely won't be enough to support them at a historical lifestyle level.
I guess those people continuing to live (or live semi-well) would be fantasy to you. I'm not sure where society will go at that point.
The western world has sold a 'we are improving your life' story to get buy in from the masses. What do you propose? Other options used in the past were typically state provided bread and circuses and/or waging war.
As more and more work is automated, the lifestyle level increases rather than decreases. Automation lets you produce more with the same amount of labor, increasing productivity and raising the standard of living. This is the sole reason we're not subsistence farmers right now.
War does not help the masses; it is purely destructive and one of the worst things you can do for the economy in the long run.
And yet my kids standard of living is worse. Their optimism about their employment is worse. I never used to know people working multiple very menial part time jobs to survive other than people restarting their lives. When I was young people working second jobs were saving money for a vacation or using them to pay for a fancy car, not as part of their basic budget/means of earning an income.
"Ray Dalio says America is developing a ‘dependency’ on the top 1% of workers, while the bottom 60% are struggling and unproductive"
War is unproductive and a destructive use of resources but that doesn't change that it has historically be an outlet for unused labor. My point was that if we don't approach things intelligently/intentionally we can end up with crappy unwanted/unintentional outcomes.
How soon is "soon"? I don't know about Ireland but the US unemployment rate remains near record lows. We still don't have robots that can snake out a plugged toilet.
This is such a bad faith argument. Society has largely agreed that welfare is a valuable thing to do, from disability to social security. Calling taxation theft just says that you aren't able to be rational about this.
From reading their comments here, it seems to me that they are saying the theft occurs when labor is sold for a pittance in foreign markets so that things produced by said labor can be sold at a lower price (as compared to when more expensive labor is hired) in domestic markets. ("Basic income" = other people work as slaves in a factory somewhere so you can sit at home and "discover yourself.") The UBI would logically be an extension of that whereby the UBI program itself can only be funded by this disparity and therefore any beneficiary of such a program must be participating, however indirectly, in that theft. (Perhaps especially if one is a loud proponent of such a program.)
Ostensibly, from this perspective, one might consider whether the laborers should benefit more from their labor, rather than the consumers of products which are produced by said labor. It doesn't seem a particularly disagreeable or irrational perspective, at least on its face, though the seemingly disparaging mention of Marxism looks out of place given this perspective is rather Marxist.
Of course, whether one refers to that as "theft" is up to them; I'm just offering this alternate perspective since I didn't read it the way the parent did.
Not sure how you reconcile this take with "People don't like being robbed, PERIOD, especially not to pay for a bunch of weed smokers to sit at home relaxing on their dime. There will be blood."
Jesus Christ didn't like taxation either. He preached that it was theft also. That's one big reason why they murdered him, then sent Paul (aka Saul) along to invent a new 'explanation' of the Parable of the Coin more favorable to the Roman viewpoint.
Regardless of whatever pretense you put on, you are in fact a member of a gang of thieves plotting to rob your next victim, just as Lysander Spooner explained in the 1800s:
"If any man's money can be taken by a so-called government, without his own personal consent, all his other rights are taken with it; for with his money the government can (and will) hire soldiers to stand over him, compel him to submit to its arbitrary will, and kill him if he resists." - Lysander Spooner
"If taxation without consent is robbery, the United States government has never had, has not now, and is never likely to have, an honest dollar in its treasury. If taxation without consent is not robbery, then any band of robbers have only to declare themselves a government, and all their robberies are legalized." - Lysander Spooner
"The Rothschilds, and that class of money-lenders of whom they are the representatives and agents -- men who never think of lending a shilling to their next-door neighbors for purposes of honest industry, unless upon the most ample security, and at the highest rate of interest -- stand ready at all times to lend money in unlimited amounts to those robbers and murderers who call themselves governments, to be expended in shooting down those who do not submit quietly to being robbed and enslaved." - Lysander Spooner
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner
Hint: We are now in the "raising of the spirits of the dead" phase of prophecy; the above being an example of what is meant by that phrase. You Are Here.
Ah, missed that. For what it's worth, I can kinda read that sentence both ways but it does seem easier to read as being anti-tax. Actually, taking the two quotes juxtaposed like this, their take reads quite a lot like "think of the third-world laborers" in defense of billionaires.
> What is it about robbing one group of people to pay another that you would expect to "work"?
Well, let's say we get one or two more breakthroughs in AI, and it succeeds in automating literally every job that can be done at a computer. And then it starts investing heavily in robotics. This would render human labor as uncompetitive as horse labor is today.
At this point, you have two basic scenarios: something like UBI, or (if the machines are less cooperative) John Conner.
This actually seems at least as likely these days as a warmed over libertarian argument that, "Taxes are really just slavery!"
> At this point, you have two basic scenarios: something like UBI, or (if the machines are less cooperative) John Conner.
Well, there is a third basic scenario; where the billionaires who control the AI use it to help get rid of all the poors once they're no longer necessary.
If that were true though, we'd probably see them all frantically scrambling to control AI, buying private islands and blackmail networks, getting heavily involved in pandemic preparedness programs, genetic engineering, virus research, instigating massive wars, buying up all the media and politicians, creating massive surveillance programs and building deep underground bunkers. Stuff like that.
Does the government get equity in the artist's work? If one of the recipients turns out to be the next Picasso, and makes say $1 million selling a painting (either as an NFT or a traditional art auction), does he have to give the $1 million to the government?
That's an interesting idea. One has to test things to see if they can be made to work.
I think the amount is something that can be disputed, but the underlying idea is, IMO, a sound one. Similar to the "unconditional basic income" idea - again, the amount can be contemplated, but the idea is sound, even more so as there are more and more superrich ignoring regular laws or buying legislation in a democracy. That means the old model simply does not work. Something has to change - which path to pick can be debated, but something has to be done.
That's the best way to do it. Otherwise all the money will go to the rich brat children of politicians/etc who are socially connected to whoever they put on the selection committees.
Mostly because the kind of people who run and advocate for programs like this are actively hostile to the idea of merit. Prioritizing talented people would be antithetical to them.
Prioritizing merit would be fine if there was some way to measure merit empirically, and if that measure couldn't be gamed by anybody with money and/or connections. But this is for artists, so...
> Ireland's Culture Minister Patrick O'Donovan said the scheme was the first permanent one of its kind in the world [...] The randomly selected applicants will receive the payments for three years, after which they would not be eligible for the next three-year cycle.
So it's permanent, but the recipients don't get it permanently?
The program was run as a trial (time limited, not permanent). They've now made it a permanent program (no time limit, not temporary).
So to answer your question: Yes, it's permanent (or as permanent as any gov't program can be), but the recipients don't get the money for an indefinite span of time (permanently).
Do they have to be unemployed during the grant period? They could still find commissions and other stuff during that time or sell their art. And I guess for an artist either way you have a lot of new portfolio entries?
> Do they have to be unemployed during the grant period?
No, they're allowed to have other work or earn money from their art. The intent is to subsidize their income, not be their exclusive income for those three years.
> The randomly selected applicants will receive the payments for three years
Budgets are limited so they can't give to everyone all the time. They give each batch of artists money for 3 years and then move to the next batch. Interesting to see if there's a chance they start looping over.
the irish government is adept at misplaced priorities, (very) short-term thinking, pursuers of feel-good vibes, basically everything besides running a state. incompetence here has bred the need for more and varied welfare programs just so we can have a variety of careers that cater to the needs of life. of course, necessity of the arts is undisputed. but can the artist make a career here when the money you make from a show, including tips, can’t pay your utility bills? when your income can’t afford you decent accommodation?
Dublin's Grafton Street with it's buskers is and was so unique to this American. I wondered if anywhere else in the world matches the musicianship heard on that street and in Dublin's bars? Music is engrained in it's culture in a way I have not experienced before(tho the weird looks I received wearing my baseball cap in Dublin was off putting as I had not experienced that in Berlin, Paris, Reykjavik, Amsterdamn, etc).
Overall It's a bit sad going to American bars and not hearing the whole bar singing along to the musician up on stage. Amercia's culture I feel is way more focused on celebrity then musicianship.
In Dublin's best music venues, nobody is singing along because it's brand new material from brand new artists. If you're singing along to well known songs in Temple Bar then I'm afraid you're missing some of the best music the city has to offer, in venues like Whelan's, Workmans, Sin É, The Grand Social etc.
Grafton St buskers at their best are really really good, but there are also some very average buskers there every day too. New Orleans is a stand-out in the US where you can find world-class jazz bands playing on the streets.
Nashville has plenty in the evenings, and then you can find hot spots in some cities. I've seen regular buskers in Boston, Seattle, Sarasota, and Boulder - usually in pedestrianized touristy quarters.
Guess it's Dublin's bar culture and vibe that really stood out to me. I've been to the French Quarter yet don't recall almost everyone in each bar there singing along to their local musicians. Musicians who are really good to great like in Dublin's bars I experienced in December.
I heard Emily Blunt say on Graham Norton, "We know your American with your baseball cap." I know that's the UK but maybe it holds true for Dublin too.
The looks were strange and from women in their 20s as I walked around Dublin. Im not much to look at yet do not receive such looks or rude behavior (one purposely did not hold the bathroom door at starbucks as I waited my turn 25 feet away waiting to get in rather she purposely pushed the door to close) at home in the DC region or my travels throughout the US and Europe. Another American mentioned a similar experience too. My friend traveling with me he was not wearing a hat & did not experience any such thing.
Busking and live music is definitely still around. Especially in larger cities. I agree that the neighborhood bar scene sucks but that's more an issue that everyone has to drive home. Once you get to a place with good transportation or a downtown hub it all comes roaring back.
They had something like this in the Netherlands during the 80s. Basically everyone was out of a job back then so it didn't really matter. Worst recession since 1929.
Artists had to make a buch of art which was then given to the government. The state ended up with entire warehouses filled with crap.
[flagged]
Your mind will be blown once you discover rent seeking behaviour.
or what 'passive income' is.
Surely you mean a worker owned factory.
Marxists don't like Basic Income and it's incompatible with Marxist ideology.
"Marxism" has just become thought-terminating shorthand for "thing I don't like".
[flagged]
Back in soviet times i have waited in breadlines with my parents when i was ~5 but hey we were just doing it wrong...
I said nothing about USSR, I just stated that obviously the parent commentor hasn't read Marx.
[flagged]
What an amazingly unhealthy way to have a conversation. Almost a spectacle in itself to witness.
>Downvote right back at ya.
You don't even have enough karma to downvote comments though..?
The people with green names almost certainly have alternate, primary accounts with that capability.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Sweden introduced a similar scheme in 1964, in which artists (broadly defined, having since come to include one clown and one chess player) have been given a basic income, supplementing their other incomes up to a specific level.
Artists couldn't apply for this, but were officially selected. The program was stopped in 2010, meaning no new recipients have been selected since. As far as I know, there's been no studies surrounding any measurable increase in artistic quality or artistic output.
It is of course easy to point out how deeply unfair such programs are on multiple levels. Unsurprisingly, many recipients have utilized loopholes in order to receive the grant despite having incomes and wealth well above the threshold.
Edit to clarify: Sweden still grants long-term stipends to various artists, sometimes up to a decade. What's described above is a guaranteed, life-long, basic income.
Previous discussions:
3 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45590900
4 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29977176
People have seemed critical of the presentation, scope, and goal of this program. (e.g. It's not "universal" basic income, the number of recipients is limited to 2,000, and why are artists being subsidized instead of essential workers?)
Now it seems that we'll get some real world answer to those questions/concerns.
> and why are artists being subsidized instead of essential workers?
There are far more than 2,000 real, paying jobs for schoolteachers. And for grocery clerks. And for nurses. And for fire fighters. And for drivers of rubbish lorries. And for ...
Not so much for the folks who hope to be the next James Joyce or Louis le Brocquy.
I hope to be the next Rothshild, give me a trillion!
Why just one trillion? Give everyone 10 trillion so we can ALL be mega-rich.
Those can go and do normal jobs like grocery clerks. While doing their art in free time. Like many famous artists were doing.
With the modest size of the monthly checks, most of them may need to do that anyway.
But the obvious point is to help "artists" in Ireland. It's pretty normal for small nations to want to cultivate / protect / subsidize their arts / culture / language / whatever. The Irish gov't isn't trumpeting this program because they think it'll annoy Irish voters.
I’m all for encouraging people to create art.
But I think people who benefit from this won’t be artists. But people who are good at making money off artsy projects.
I’d see much more value in investing in supply and demand. First, provide free studios with arts supplies, music instruments and so on. Next, force government agencies to hire local artists. Make municipalities have live music for local events and hire local musicians. Make gov agencies buy local art for decorations etc.
> ...I think people who benefit...
325 Euros/week sounds like basic rent & food & transportation. Not artsy projects with enough spare Euros for someone to skim serious money off from.
Providing "free" studios, supplies, instruments, etc. sounds like a scheme to give politicians more photo ops and bureaucrats more jobs. Why can't the artists just source exactly what they think they need from existing supply chains?
Many people who work as schoolteachers, grocery clerks, etc. at one point might have had ambition to be the next James Joyce.
Joyce did work as a schoolteacher. Maybe he would have written better books if he hadn’t had to do this.
If they think this is good/important then fine but what they've created is a grant programme, not a UBI.
Personally I would have thought this money would have been better spent getting people on the margins the stability to retrain into in-demand skilled careers (e.g. single, unskilled parents training as electricians or plumbers). That feels like it would be a more durable, multi-generational benefit.
But again, this is just a grant programme.
> not a UBI
Who said it is a UBI that this "rebuttal" even makes sense to appear here? The Irish government isn't calling it a UBI. The article doesn't call it a UBI. Even the FAQ for the program says it is not UBI:
>> Why this is not a Universal Basic Income
>> It is important to note that that the Basic Income for the Arts Pilot is not a Universal Basic Income. This is a sectoral intervention to support practicing artists and creative arts workers to focus on their creative practice. This policy is separate to the Universal Basic income as outlined in the Programme for Government.
https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-culture-communications-a... - C-f for "universal"
Basic Income and UBI are colloquially synonyms, people use them interchangeably, and the Irish government are almost certainly using it to endear themselves to supporters of UBI and to get more coverage for their policy than media would give them if they just called it a grant.
This happens all the time. For example, in the UK there was a push for a "living wage" in the 2010s, which the government responded to by rebranding the minimum wage the "National Living Wage" and bumping it a little for over-25s.
This seems to be the same thing.
The first word of UBI is universal. The entire concept relies on that characteristic.
>pledging to pay 2,000 creative workers 325 euros ($387) per week
>The randomly selected applicants will receive the payments for three years, after which they would not be eligible for the next three-year cycle.
Is it really correct to call this UBI? It is hardly universal if it applies to only 2000 selected artists.
Seems more like a 3-year grant, similar to the art grants awarded by the national endowment for the arts.
The term universal isn't used in the article.
All these places use the word UNCONDITIONAL instead of UNIVERSAL because they are scared of printing money and paying all their citizens, while jacking up pigovian taxes on the other side.
Here is how to do it properly without waiting for the federal government and currency: https://community.intercoin.app/t/rolling-out-voluntary-basi...
You can't solve real world social and economic problems with hare-brained cryptocurrency schemes. If you want to support local artists then just buy their art, or give them donations in real currency.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
They've re-branded for the release, and removed "Universal".
It's not universal if only selected individuals get it. And you can't live on 325 euros in a place like Ireland. So it's not even basic income. But it's a nice temporary subsidy.
Proper basic income has never really been tried. It would have to be universal (for the entire population) and be enough to live on.
Most countries have non universal basic income in the form of benefits, state pensions, food stamps, and various social security insurance programs. One way or another people that can't or won't work still get enough to survive. Mostly, countries don't let their citizens starve. They mostly don't put them out on the streets. And if people get sick, generally hospitals/doctors will help. You won't necessarily get a very nice version of all that in most countries.
If you think of basic income like that, UBI is actually not that much of a departure from that status quo. It just establishes that as a bare minimum that everybody gets one way or another. The reason that the idea gets a lot of push back is that people have a lot of morals about having to earn stuff which then results in complex rules to qualify for things only if you are unable to earn a living. Which then turns into a lot of complex schemes to establish non universal income that comes into a variety of forms and shapes. But it adds up to the same result: everybody is taken care off.
A proper UBI would have to award it to anyone. That's what universal means. It would be a simplification of what we have now. If you are employed, you would get a chunk of income from UBI and the rest from your employer. Basically, you work to add income on top of your UBI and it's between you and your employer to sort out how much you work and how much you earn. If you get unemployed, you fall back to UBI. UBI would be untaxed. But if you work or earn income you pay taxes. Company earnings are taxed as well. And you pay VAT when you buy stuff. Those revenue streams are what already fund things today.
People think of UBI as extra cost but it could actually be a cost saving if done properly. There's a lot of bureaucracy that's no longer needed. You could still layer insurances and benefits on top of course. But that would be more optional. And you could incentivize people to work that are currently actively incentivized to not work (e.g. to not lose benefits or get penalized on their pensions).
People forget that the status quo is not free either and that it requires an enormous, convoluted bureaucracy that also costs money. UBI could end up being simpler and cheaper.
The hard part with UBI is balancing fairness and financial viability and implementing it in a way that isn't massively disruptive and complicated. You'd need to incentivize most people to still want to work while making the system generous enough that people can opt not to. That's not a solved problem and the key show stopper. Many people that work object against anyone getting anything for free. But if you consider the status quo, we already have a lot of people not working anyway. And we all pay for that already. That is actually a rather large percentage of people that are allowed to vote in many countries.
Mostly the moral arguments against UBI are what perpetuates the very inefficient and costly status quo. We just keep on making that harsher, more complicated, and more expensive. Effectively if you work, you are paying extra for all that inefficiency. Worse, you can work your ass off your whole life and still have to worry about having enough to retire, the affordability of housing, or being able to afford essential health care.
And "proper" UBI will never actually be tried, at least not on any significant scale. Because if you actually run the numbers you'll see that the level of taxation required plus the inflationary effects make the whole scheme unworkable.
Taxation and inflation are 2nd order effects. There's a deeper underlying reason.
The point of work is to produce the things we need to live. Somebody's gotta grow the crops, drive the trucks, mop the floors, crunch the numbers, process the paperwork, write the code, whatever.
If you offer enough UBI for people to live without working... the work won't get done, and things we need won't get made.
And? that's what "rolling out" is about, to test and gradually use the scheme if it works
The trouble is that paying a few people to not work is very very different from paying everyone to not work.
We need people to work to produce the things they need to live. As long as this remains true, UBI can never happen. This fantasy of being able to live without working is out of touch with the cold hard reality.
> As long as this remains true, UBI can never happen.
New Zealand pays a pension to everyone over 65, whether or not they are working. No means testing and little political will to move the age upward. About 25% of those over 65 work, and the percentage is growing.
There are multiple reasons this could be true (eg, limited savings forcing work). The lack of means testing obviously saves money and shenanigans working out who is entitled, though the ‘universal’ nature limited how much a needy recipient can get.
I argue this is a test case on UBI.
> paying a few people to not work
not in this case though. as explained elsewhere, the artist is a dying career choice in ireland owing to economic reasons. no artist == drub society therefore the incompetent government intervenes the only way incompetence approves: free money. making the state function is much harder, and that’s not what these politicians signed up for. reducing electricity bill by 50% is a herculean task so how about jacking up taxes in one place and giving it back as free money in another? this is the modus operandi of the irish government.
The problem is soon (and to some extent currently) there won't be enough work for everyone, and there definitely won't be enough to support them at a historical lifestyle level.
I guess those people continuing to live (or live semi-well) would be fantasy to you. I'm not sure where society will go at that point.
The western world has sold a 'we are improving your life' story to get buy in from the masses. What do you propose? Other options used in the past were typically state provided bread and circuses and/or waging war.
Your entire idea of economics is backwards.
There is more than enough work for everyone right now, and (outside of recessions) we will not run out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
As more and more work is automated, the lifestyle level increases rather than decreases. Automation lets you produce more with the same amount of labor, increasing productivity and raising the standard of living. This is the sole reason we're not subsistence farmers right now.
War does not help the masses; it is purely destructive and one of the worst things you can do for the economy in the long run.
And yet my kids standard of living is worse. Their optimism about their employment is worse. I never used to know people working multiple very menial part time jobs to survive other than people restarting their lives. When I was young people working second jobs were saving money for a vacation or using them to pay for a fancy car, not as part of their basic budget/means of earning an income.
"Ray Dalio says America is developing a ‘dependency’ on the top 1% of workers, while the bottom 60% are struggling and unproductive"
https://fortune.com/2025/10/27/ray-dalio-america-dependeny-t...
"Millions of Americans Are Becoming Economically Invisible " https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45374779
War is unproductive and a destructive use of resources but that doesn't change that it has historically be an outlet for unused labor. My point was that if we don't approach things intelligently/intentionally we can end up with crappy unwanted/unintentional outcomes.
How soon is "soon"? I don't know about Ireland but the US unemployment rate remains near record lows. We still don't have robots that can snake out a plugged toilet.
I'm not sure the exact trajectory but it's going pretty quickly now.
"Ray Dalio says America is developing a ‘dependency’ on the top 1% of workers, while the bottom 60% are struggling and unproductive"
https://fortune.com/2025/10/27/ray-dalio-america-dependeny-t...
"Millions of Americans Are Becoming Economically Invisible " https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45374779
[flagged]
This is such a bad faith argument. Society has largely agreed that welfare is a valuable thing to do, from disability to social security. Calling taxation theft just says that you aren't able to be rational about this.
> Calling taxation theft
From reading their comments here, it seems to me that they are saying the theft occurs when labor is sold for a pittance in foreign markets so that things produced by said labor can be sold at a lower price (as compared to when more expensive labor is hired) in domestic markets. ("Basic income" = other people work as slaves in a factory somewhere so you can sit at home and "discover yourself.") The UBI would logically be an extension of that whereby the UBI program itself can only be funded by this disparity and therefore any beneficiary of such a program must be participating, however indirectly, in that theft. (Perhaps especially if one is a loud proponent of such a program.)
Ostensibly, from this perspective, one might consider whether the laborers should benefit more from their labor, rather than the consumers of products which are produced by said labor. It doesn't seem a particularly disagreeable or irrational perspective, at least on its face, though the seemingly disparaging mention of Marxism looks out of place given this perspective is rather Marxist.
Of course, whether one refers to that as "theft" is up to them; I'm just offering this alternate perspective since I didn't read it the way the parent did.
Not sure how you reconcile this take with "People don't like being robbed, PERIOD, especially not to pay for a bunch of weed smokers to sit at home relaxing on their dime. There will be blood."
This person doesn't like taxation. Tough.
Jesus Christ didn't like taxation either. He preached that it was theft also. That's one big reason why they murdered him, then sent Paul (aka Saul) along to invent a new 'explanation' of the Parable of the Coin more favorable to the Roman viewpoint.
Regardless of whatever pretense you put on, you are in fact a member of a gang of thieves plotting to rob your next victim, just as Lysander Spooner explained in the 1800s:
Hint: We are now in the "raising of the spirits of the dead" phase of prophecy; the above being an example of what is meant by that phrase. You Are Here.Ah, missed that. For what it's worth, I can kinda read that sentence both ways but it does seem easier to read as being anti-tax. Actually, taking the two quotes juxtaposed like this, their take reads quite a lot like "think of the third-world laborers" in defense of billionaires.
> What is it about robbing one group of people to pay another that you would expect to "work"?
Well, let's say we get one or two more breakthroughs in AI, and it succeeds in automating literally every job that can be done at a computer. And then it starts investing heavily in robotics. This would render human labor as uncompetitive as horse labor is today.
At this point, you have two basic scenarios: something like UBI, or (if the machines are less cooperative) John Conner.
This actually seems at least as likely these days as a warmed over libertarian argument that, "Taxes are really just slavery!"
> At this point, you have two basic scenarios: something like UBI, or (if the machines are less cooperative) John Conner.
Well, there is a third basic scenario; where the billionaires who control the AI use it to help get rid of all the poors once they're no longer necessary.
If that were true though, we'd probably see them all frantically scrambling to control AI, buying private islands and blackmail networks, getting heavily involved in pandemic preparedness programs, genetic engineering, virus research, instigating massive wars, buying up all the media and politicians, creating massive surveillance programs and building deep underground bunkers. Stuff like that.
So, nothing to worry about.
> robbery: the action of taking property unlawfully from a person or place by force or threat of force.
The language of Shakespeare and Seuss deserves better than this mindlessness. It is not robbery because it is not unlawful.
Does the government get equity in the artist's work? If one of the recipients turns out to be the next Picasso, and makes say $1 million selling a painting (either as an NFT or a traditional art auction), does he have to give the $1 million to the government?
That's an interesting idea. One has to test things to see if they can be made to work.
I think the amount is something that can be disputed, but the underlying idea is, IMO, a sound one. Similar to the "unconditional basic income" idea - again, the amount can be contemplated, but the idea is sound, even more so as there are more and more superrich ignoring regular laws or buying legislation in a democracy. That means the old model simply does not work. Something has to change - which path to pick can be debated, but something has to be done.
>The randomly selected applicants
Why would you want to randomly select here?
That's the best way to do it. Otherwise all the money will go to the rich brat children of politicians/etc who are socially connected to whoever they put on the selection committees.
I agree that it's a problem. But how do you prevent it from been overflowed by people like me that can't draw a circle with the bottom of a bottle?
Dunno tbqh. Maybe the media will police it by shaming people who abuse it.
To not have selection bias so you can measure the effects
Mostly because the kind of people who run and advocate for programs like this are actively hostile to the idea of merit. Prioritizing talented people would be antithetical to them.
Prioritizing merit would be fine if there was some way to measure merit empirically, and if that measure couldn't be gamed by anybody with money and/or connections. But this is for artists, so...
Random selection is possibly the fairest way to select almost anything, depending on your definition of fair.
here is the government report - https://assets.gov.ie/static/documents/b87d2659/20250929_BIA...
The cost benefit analysis includes a euro value to attribute to better wellbeing, using the WELLBY framework and apply £13,000 per WELLBY
> Ireland's Culture Minister Patrick O'Donovan said the scheme was the first permanent one of its kind in the world [...] The randomly selected applicants will receive the payments for three years, after which they would not be eligible for the next three-year cycle.
So it's permanent, but the recipients don't get it permanently?
The program was run as a trial (time limited, not permanent). They've now made it a permanent program (no time limit, not temporary).
So to answer your question: Yes, it's permanent (or as permanent as any gov't program can be), but the recipients don't get the money for an indefinite span of time (permanently).
Won't this kind of shaft their employment prospects as well?
Other industries don't move as fast but a 3 year layoff in tech could be a career death sentence.
Do they have to be unemployed during the grant period? They could still find commissions and other stuff during that time or sell their art. And I guess for an artist either way you have a lot of new portfolio entries?
> Do they have to be unemployed during the grant period?
No, they're allowed to have other work or earn money from their art. The intent is to subsidize their income, not be their exclusive income for those three years.
> The randomly selected applicants will receive the payments for three years
Budgets are limited so they can't give to everyone all the time. They give each batch of artists money for 3 years and then move to the next batch. Interesting to see if there's a chance they start looping over.
> Ireland began the three-year trial in 2022
Did anyone take a note of what kind of output the artists produced? Was any of it any good?
<rant>
the irish government is adept at misplaced priorities, (very) short-term thinking, pursuers of feel-good vibes, basically everything besides running a state. incompetence here has bred the need for more and varied welfare programs just so we can have a variety of careers that cater to the needs of life. of course, necessity of the arts is undisputed. but can the artist make a career here when the money you make from a show, including tips, can’t pay your utility bills? when your income can’t afford you decent accommodation?
</rant>
Dublin's Grafton Street with it's buskers is and was so unique to this American. I wondered if anywhere else in the world matches the musicianship heard on that street and in Dublin's bars? Music is engrained in it's culture in a way I have not experienced before(tho the weird looks I received wearing my baseball cap in Dublin was off putting as I had not experienced that in Berlin, Paris, Reykjavik, Amsterdamn, etc).
Overall It's a bit sad going to American bars and not hearing the whole bar singing along to the musician up on stage. Amercia's culture I feel is way more focused on celebrity then musicianship.
Why is "singing along" a relevant metric?
In Dublin's best music venues, nobody is singing along because it's brand new material from brand new artists. If you're singing along to well known songs in Temple Bar then I'm afraid you're missing some of the best music the city has to offer, in venues like Whelan's, Workmans, Sin É, The Grand Social etc.
Grafton St buskers at their best are really really good, but there are also some very average buskers there every day too. New Orleans is a stand-out in the US where you can find world-class jazz bands playing on the streets.
Nashville has plenty in the evenings, and then you can find hot spots in some cities. I've seen regular buskers in Boston, Seattle, Sarasota, and Boulder - usually in pedestrianized touristy quarters.
Guess it's Dublin's bar culture and vibe that really stood out to me. I've been to the French Quarter yet don't recall almost everyone in each bar there singing along to their local musicians. Musicians who are really good to great like in Dublin's bars I experienced in December.
I need to hear more about the baseball cap thing.
Europeans don't really play baseball, presumably they all wear football and cricket hats instead.
I heard Emily Blunt say on Graham Norton, "We know your American with your baseball cap." I know that's the UK but maybe it holds true for Dublin too.
The looks were strange and from women in their 20s as I walked around Dublin. Im not much to look at yet do not receive such looks or rude behavior (one purposely did not hold the bathroom door at starbucks as I waited my turn 25 feet away waiting to get in rather she purposely pushed the door to close) at home in the DC region or my travels throughout the US and Europe. Another American mentioned a similar experience too. My friend traveling with me he was not wearing a hat & did not experience any such thing.
Busking and live music is definitely still around. Especially in larger cities. I agree that the neighborhood bar scene sucks but that's more an issue that everyone has to drive home. Once you get to a place with good transportation or a downtown hub it all comes roaring back.
Really cool! Looking forward to the findings of that study!
[dead]