| ▲ | tomcam 6 hours ago |
| I don’t get it. Why are artists more deserving than unemployed insurance salespeople or carpet installers? |
|
| ▲ | s_dev 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Irish here. It's a cultural thing. Ireland is the only country in the world whose national symbol is a musical instrument. Art is seen as a worthwhile endeavour even if it can't necessarily support itself as a private endeavour. It's for the same reason galleries and museums are subsidised by the government. Anyone can call themselves an artist but to receive this money you would have to have a portfolio of work that is approved by the application programme. Ireland already has a competitive economy. There is more to a country than economics and that includes promoting things like art to foster a sense of identity and promote Ireland on a world stage. Milton Friedman wouldn't approve and we're okay with that. |
| |
| ▲ | Swizec 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | We have a similar scheme in Slovenia. Don't know the details but there's the concept of a "free artist". At a minimum you need a registered business, regular exhibitions or performances in your field, you have to register with the ministry of culture, and can't have a job. Contract work is allowed and encouraged. Also you are expected to apply when the government issues a Call For Creatives. I think you get paid minimum wage as long as you continue fulfilling criteria. | | | |
| ▲ | CalRobert 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This seems like it mostly funnels money to rich kids, to be honest. Nobody else can afford to already be an artist. | | |
| ▲ | Retric 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Working artists, spouses, and semi-retirees are relatively common. ‘2,000 creative workers’ would make this quite competitive, even if it’s only 20k USD/year that could easily enable people to be artists who wouldn’t make a career of it on their own. | | |
| ▲ | CalRobert 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Right, and it would be great if people who wished to become artists could avail of this, but now it only goes for people who already are artists. |
| |
| ▲ | watwut 36 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Poor people and middle class people produce art. They both work as artists or do art on the side as a hobby. It is not that expensive either. Expectation that you have portfolio does not strikes me as outrageous either. |
| |
| ▲ | pash 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Milton Friedman wouldn’t have approved of a basic-income scheme restricted to artists. He would have argued that restricting the benefit to artists would distort incentives for choosing a profession in a way likely to reduce social welfare, and that eligibility by profession is a “welfare trap”: it’s hard to stop being an artist and start being something else when it means losing your guaranteed income. But Friedman would have supported a broad basic-income scheme. We know this because he did support one. It was his proposal in 1962 of a “negative income tax” [0] (in Capitalism and Freedom) that gave rise to the movement to replace traditional social welfare programs with simple schemes that just give money to poor people. (This movement led to the Earned Income Tax Credit [1] in the United States.) Friedman’s negative income tax is equivalent to the contemporary notion of a guaranteed basic income (but not to a universal basic income, as only people earning below some threshold would receive it). Like most economists, Friedman believed that people (even poor people) can typically make their own economic choices better than a government program can make those choices for them. (He was likewise not opposed to redistributive policies per se.) That was the root of his advocacy for market-based mechanisms of organizing the economy. 0. The idea dates to at least the 1940’s, but Friedman’s book is typically credited with popularizing it. See, e.g, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit | | |
| ▲ | vintermann 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's not remotely a basic income scheme. It's a state stipend for acclaimed artists. Don't know about Ireland, but Norway has had this for over 100 years (kunstnerlønn). It's basically a court poet institution, ever so slightly broadened. |
| |
| ▲ | KetoManx64 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [flagged] | |
| ▲ | tjwebbnorfolk 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Soon: everyone is an artist. |
|
|
| ▲ | hn_throwaway_99 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's not like Ireland is getting rid of unemployment insurance. And insurance sales and carpet installation are professions where there are jobs that actually pay a living wage. A lot of societies have realized there is value in supporting art and culture. For thousands of years that activity was sponsored by monarchs, royalty and other nobility. Up until actually quite recently, most first world countries without monarchs and nobles also provided substantial support for the arts. |
| |
| ▲ | calvinmorrison 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > A lot of societies have realized there is value in supporting art and culture. Basically outlandishly rich and gaudy benefactors have always had so much money they could employ OTHERS to do trivial pursuits. Now - the average taxpayer will bear that cost. | | |
| ▲ | shimman 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm sure if you asked the average tax payer they would prefer programs like these rather than corporate welfare nonsense. So yeah, seems alright to me. I'm a tax payer. | | |
| ▲ | knowitnone3 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [dead] | |
| ▲ | calvinmorrison 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | i purchase a hell of a lot more stuff from Walmart than I do fine art. | | |
| ▲ | tropdrop 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | What's interesting is that you don't realize how much of that stuff from Walmart had artistic processes embedded into it along the production line. Did those shower curtains have a design? Did your sweater have a color and style? Probably so, but you never pay attention to how the world of "fine art" refracts into your daily life. If the products were cheap, it's likely someone unpaid is responsible for the design. See, for example, the lawsuit against Zara over theft of ideas from small-time designers [1]. In any case, cheap Chinese brands do the same thing as Zara en masse (copying designs – note the "external suppliers" bit in its defense PR), and those products then end up in Walmart/on Amazon. The artists starve but you have your shower curtains and are happy with the price. [1] https://www.grossmanllp.com/independent-artists-on-the-offen... | | |
| ▲ | terminalshort 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Artists who were paid for by willing buyers, not tax payers who don't have a choice. | | | |
| ▲ | BobbyTables2 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Even when people are paid, it’s not necessarily fair nor driving the price paid - like clothing/purse manufacturing in low income countries for high income markets. |
| |
| ▲ | shimman 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes and do billion dollar corporations really need that much government subsidies? Turns out yes they do, but sure enjoy your plastic trinkets from China I guess. Hopefully you thank a tax payer that pays for the welfare and medicaid of those Walmart workers, and the local town for cheaper property taxes and utility rates at Walmart. God knows Walmart couldn't exist with all this rampant welfare. | | |
| ▲ | testaccount28 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | walmart solves a major logistical problem: provide government subsidized goods to low income neighborhoods. the government should like to give walmart money, as it is plausibly a cost-effective way to provide these goods to people who need them. the administrators of walmart are well rewarded for providing this public good. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You can both be right. Walmart is a valuable corporation; there are useful idiots who choose not to see that. It’s also a profitable one, which means it doesn’t need subsidies; another set of useful idiots can’t seem to see that. | |
| ▲ | shimman 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The only thing Walmart solves is destroying local ecosystems both biological and human. Acting like the executives paying themselves exorbitant salaries is a virtue is frankly odd and deeply disgusting as a human being, I'm sure the lowly workers wished they could vote themselves higher salaries too. Maybe if workplace democracy was enforced upon Walmart it would be an entirely different entity, likely for the better too. | | | |
| ▲ | Imustaskforhelp 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Yes and do billion dollar corporations really need that much government subsidies? Turns out yes they do, but sure enjoy your plastic trinkets from China I guess. Hopefully you thank a tax payer that pays for the welfare and medicaid of those Walmart workers, and the local town for cheaper property taxes and utility rates at Walmart. This is not the case. Walmart doesn't have the lowest prices because they are efficient, yes conventional wisdom might dictate that but you are forgetting wholesalers exist from which conventional retailers buy from and the margin definitely tilts towards walmart but there was a time where they could easily compete against walmart and set their prices. Now what's happening is that walmart has these special deals (in this case with pepsi) where pepsi would literally surveil all marts and see which is selling cheaper than walmart (FoodLion did that) and then what Pepsi did was cut off all the promotional money of FoodLion and increase their wholesaler prices. Is this legal? Hell no. It's all completely illegal but the govt. stopped enforcing the law Then when it was released by FTC, the whole document was almost redacted and Trump signed an executive order essentially trying to stop it from going out but some journalists dug/pressured for its release. So walmart isn't the base because they are price competitive, hell-no. It's because they set the floor & have special deals with other companies to maintain that floor artificially. Which actually leads to small retailers/chains shutting down because they can't compete on price and this essentially leads to a monopoly of walmart where it can dictate prices & increase them and the people are forced to STILL go to them. And all of this while being immensely govt subsidized as you say too while paying their employees peanuts. Actually Walmart when it was launched in germany was sued quite a lot for such practices that iirc they had to take an exit. No country wants a walmart because they know that they might use their american profits (which we discovered how come from shady practices themselves) and then use it to run marts at losses until the competition dies which is still immensely bad long term for the average consumer of whole world but particularly the americans in my opinion as all other govts are more protective of such industries for this good reason and walmart fails to measure up to those standards in other countries. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odhVF_xLIQA : We Uncovered the Scheme Keeping Grocery Prices High [More Perfect Union] A lot of my points were heavily influenced by this video so I would recommend you to watch it to help understand more as well about what I am talking. The deception of walmart actually fools a lot of people but the economical margin is actually quite low. It's the artifical floor that they set which gets unnoticed by many and this is why other retailers aren't able to compete, all of which is highly illegal but once again, the govt. stopped enforcing this law. | |
| ▲ | Sl1mb0 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is where we're at huh? | | |
| ▲ | pests 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | What is cheaper? A) The government building an entire logistical supply and warehousing chain across the country for groceries to support food welfare. Cold food, meat, spoilage & waste, a bunch of federal jobs. or B) The government gives citizens a bit of money, which they then spend at existing warehouses (with existing logistical supply chains) to buy food. Some existing warehouses will accumulate larger shares of this money, as it has more customers. The existing warehouses in example B are called grocery stores, like Walmart. | |
| ▲ | testaccount28 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | do you expect that the problems walmart solves are easy? or do you think that the government could do it cheaper if they were in charge? edit: or maybe the communities served by walmart should build their own rain ponchos and bananas locally. | | |
| ▲ | ziml77 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes walmart is so cost effective huh? https://www.forbes.com/sites/errolschweizer/2025/12/18/how-w... | | |
| ▲ | testaccount28 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | if walmart unfairly used its monopolistic position to steal from consumers, then of course i support serving justice. is the point of this conversation just to proclaim you don't like some guys? what is your claim here? what action do you desire the collective to take? what is the rule that society should follow? why do you expect that rule to lead to a more prosperous, thriving society? |
|
| |
| ▲ | antonvs 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is their brain on capitalism |
| |
| ▲ | computerthings 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
| |
| ▲ | subpixel 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's funny that you put it that way, b/c I have definitely spent more money on art (not even 'fine' art) that I have at Walmart over the years. | |
| ▲ | conception 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think what you think this says about you is not what it actually says about you. | | | |
| ▲ | zeckalpha 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In Ireland? | |
| ▲ | computerthings 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | osener an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I understand your perspective. However, those trades, and most work in general, differ from art. Art is vital to our society, yet the current reward system optimizes for the worst art and the worst people. We need more art that pushes boundaries and remains controversial. Instead, we favor the type of artist who attracts the most attention through their personality, whether because of their looks or a manufactured edgy image, while producing mundane, lowest-common-denominator work. We must support contemporary artists who move us forward rather than remaining stuck in popularity contests or constant nostalgia. Under the current system, it is almost inevitable that influencers use their status to promote gambling ads and NFTs, ruining the lives of their fans. We need to break this cycle of rewarding increasingly poor behavior while making it harder for independent artists to earn a living. |
|
| ▲ | garbagewoman 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They should get basic income too, good idea |
|
| ▲ | socalgal2 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Agreed. Can just all myself an artist to get other people's tax money? |
| |
| ▲ | rpdillon 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It seems there are 2000 positions and 8000 applicants. The program cost $74M, but more than paid for itself: > It also recouped more than the trial's net cost of 72 million euros ($86 million) through increases in arts-related expenditure, productivity gains and reduced reliance on other social welfare payments, according to a government-commissioned cost-benefit analysis. | | | |
| ▲ | crossbody 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | there is art in getting other people's tax money, so yes |
|
|
| ▲ | RupertSalt an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Now look at them yo-yos, that's the way you do it You play the guitar on the MTV That ain't workin', that's the way you do it Money for nothin' and your chicks for free We got to install microwave ovens, custom kitchen delivery We got to move these refrigerators, we got to move these Color TVs... Dire Straits, Money for Nothing, 1985 Guest artist: Sting https://www.musixmatch.com/lyrics/Dire-Straits/Money-for-Not... |
|
| ▲ | assaddayinh 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| These guys are less stubborn when it comes to ruining your life for some vision? |
|
| ▲ | cousinbryce 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Unemployed artist still make art |
|
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | albedoa 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >I don’t get it. Your bio says: > I'm not trolling. I actually want to know the answer, although my comment may feel less than diplomatic. And so here is the real test. After reading the numerous responses to your question, do you get it? |
|
| ▲ | GaryNumanVevo 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Because any modern unemployment insurance program (which Ireland has) will be a percentage based on salary. Struggling artist aren't exactly making regular money like a formerly employed salesperson or carpet installer would be. |
| |
| ▲ | lan321 19 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Note that many carpet installers and other handyman also do work (partially) under the table so their salary isn't representative of their regular income either. This also fluctuates a lot based on season. It's the cost of being (partially) self employed. |
|
|
| ▲ | bummy_commenter 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I hate to reply with a joke but you are one, so: 1. Nobody likes insurance salespeople
2. Unemployed carpet installers do not exist ...and I'm done commenting on Hacker News. What a group of interesting forumusers this is that yours is the top comment. |
|
| ▲ | m3kw9 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| they do deserve, but looks like this is a pilot for UBI. |
| |
| ▲ | vintermann an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | If anything, it's a pilot to confuse people about UBI and hopefully make it unpopular. It's not basic, and it's not universal. | |
| ▲ | spankibalt 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > "[...] looks like this is a pilot for UBI." Did you have to be the party pooper? People were trying to indulge one of the most noble and timeless of pursuits: pissing on the poor! >( |
|
|
| ▲ | uoaei 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What kind of undervalued labor do unemployed salespeople and carpet installers perform during unemployment? |
|
| ▲ | crossbody 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Anyone can become an artist with no skill and minimal effort while being a carpet installer requires skill and effort. If you are a carpet installer just call it art and get the money |
| |
