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.
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.
> Also you are expected to apply when the government issues a Call For Creatives.
I love the idea of having a list of "Registered Artists", where you get a basic income as long as you're prepared to Answer The Call of Your Country when needed.
"We need a nice cartoony figure for this public safety film! Find me some artists!"
"Here you go, boss"
"Naw, not those guys, have you got anything in a more Shel Silverstein-y kind of look? How about those ones?"
You don't actually get paid, but you don't need to pay taxes and social security fees (around 650€ per month) that you would otherwise have to pay as a self employed person.
Interesting concept, seems like it is a way to pay less taxes as an artist, not really a pay but it will make it easier to live. Not sure about the selection process though..
> Self-employed in culture can be given the right to pay social security contributions from the state budget.
The link is totally irrelevant, it's about filing taxes and the right to pay to the social security fund not about the income you receive while you have the status. Yes, you get an extra tax break (taxes aren't paid on the money you receive from the state), but that's not the main point.
If there are other ways artists get support do you have a better definition one can search for? Considering it talks about supporting artists I feel it is relevant to the situation in my country. Getting help with social insurance is pretty important in many countries, and something I know many artists have problem with.
I'm an Irish artist, living in Ireland. I'm very far from a rich kid. Like most Irish artists, I make some of my living from my "artistic" work, and some from what others here might call "real work". Sometimes there's not a clear division between the two, and anyway the ratio of one to the other changes every year.
Because of the cost of living here, particularly in Dublin, there is no way that the Basic Income would provide me with anything like what most people here would consider a decent standard of living. (It would currently leave me with about €200 left over every month, after I pay just my rent. That's before any bills or groceries or anything.)
Plenty of people find a way to continue to make art that other people value, even if the cost of living continues to spiral ever upwards. This payment is simply a buffer to make making art a little easier, for a fraction of the many people who contribute to the social, cultural, and intellectual life of this country. For some it pays their rent or mortgage, for some it pays for childcare so they have time to work, for some it facilitates research or purchase of materials, for some it allows them a workspace outside their home.
It's not perfect, as no public arts funding is perfect but, to me, the kind of cheap cynicism displayed in this comment comes from a place of deep ignorance and bitterness.
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.
Many people who are artists can’t afford to stay artists.
Pulling a 80 hour workweeks at 24, supporting yourself while doing something else is not sustainable. Similarly someone supporting themselves as an artist + a kid is suddenly a very different situation.
Exactly. A sketchbook and pencils cost next to nothing. But being able to take that and turn it into an oil painting on a giant canvas costs real money.
Writing a few songs on a guitar from Facebook marketplace is cheap. Turning that into a live show is expensive and time consuming.
Writing some Irish language poems on your lunchbreaks is cheap. Doing public readings as an unknown poet is not.
> Writing some Irish language poems on your lunchbreaks is cheap. Doing public readings as an unknown poet is not.
How is doing public reading of poetry not cheap?
I have friends who do standup comedy and they just show up at open mic nights and it doesn’t cost them anything. One is good enough that now the venues are paying him a little bit.
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.
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.
Ireland's economic statistics are so badly distorted by US companies routing money there that there is an entire subfield of economics dedicated to trying to figure out what Ireland's real economic state is, called "Leprechaun economics". A common adjustment made by economics researchers when studying the EU is to just subtract Ireland entirely.
> The key to understanding this disconnect is a number few outside Ireland pay attention to: Modified Gross National Income, or GNI*. Unlike GDP, which counts all activity happening within Ireland’s borders, GNI* adjusts for the distortions caused by the huge presence of foreign multinationals. And the gap is enormous. In 2023, GNI* was just €291 billion — meaning more than €219 billion of Ireland’s reported output never truly flowed into the Irish economy at all.
When looking at Ireland's own economy without the influence of US tax transactions, the economy shrinks by nearly half.
I'm 38, I was fully aware of this when I was 15 years old in Economics class. This is simply a problem for people who go around measuring everything with GDP and demand the world adjust to that. You've run in to the limitations of GDP.
There is no single indicator of wealth, measuring wealth requires a number of measures to provide context and contrast. The Irish economy is largely comparable to the Danish economy. I'd say the Danes sneak in just ahead of us but well behind Norway and Switzerland.
Ireland for example is wealthier than either the UK or France on a per capita basis. The GDP of Alabama and Bavaria, Germany per capita is largely the same, yet you would be insane to think Alabama was in anyway wealthier than Bavaria.
I stand by my comment.
The Irish economy is competitive and your little 'gotcha' that is a common trope across various shallow sub reddits, increasingly at an alarmingly peevish rate simply doesn't persuade me or others who are interested in understanding these things at a deeper level. There is a time and place for that discussion and it really isn't this thread.
However, that assumes the modified GNI measure is accurate. If you believe these numbers the Irish became nearly 40% wealthier between 2020 and 2023. That would be a truly unprecedented spike in wealth never before seen in history, and I don't think anyone believes it. It's much more likely that their attempts to subtract the distortion of American corporate success from the Irish numbers aren't successful. Tech firms did great during the COVID period whilst the average person... not so much.
To need to already have a portfolio of work kind of defeats the purpose, no? It kind of proves you didn't need this money to make art. I would have thought the point was to unlock potential artists who hadn't the time to develop their practice.
Can you name a government-subsidized Irish artist who has been successfully promoted on the world stage?
I don't give a shit about Milton Friedman. I do give a shit about wage earners in Ireland who are being forced to pay for an artist welfare program. Ireland has a competitive economy.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
I do. My aunt is a pattern designer for ... Shower curtains at Walmart. Yup she works for a supply house in NY that designs shower curtains and her main customer is walmart
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Seems like the it IS cheaper for the government to do it, odd how much better prices can be when you don't have to worry about making sure the fat cats stay fat.
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?
I wish more intellectuals had their "brain on capitalism".
It is dismaying to find out how many American academicians take Marxism seriously - unless they stem from countries like Cuba that had the misfortune to actually let Marxist ideas rule them. It is mental fentanyl for certain kind of collectivist mind.
It's possible to criticize one thing without endorsing another. Your comment reads like a response to someone criticizing what the current US administration is doing by saying "yeah but the Democrats..."
Binary thinking is analogous to quantizing an LLM to 2 bits (worse, actually). You're not going to get good results.
Most countries that tried experimenting with various systems settled on a combination of a relatively free market with a welfare system supported by taxation of the resulting economic surplus. Which indicates that this is what the population at large finds most acceptable.
In theory? The most obvious is labor theory of value, plus false consciousness and the division of the society into exploitative class and exploited class.
In practice? For example, nationalization of businesses and collectivization in rural areas, including suppression of "kulaks".
Walmart is an insanely profitable business that pays most of its employees well under a living wage.
Maybe we should have a structure in place that taxes companies based on how many benefits their employees claim, say five times the total amount of money claimed.
I come from Quebec, a cultural island in North America. You need to create infrastructure for your culture, so that it’s not swallowed by American culture. Funding culture protects our language, and to an extent our history and our perspective. There are books, art, movies and shows about us, in our language. It makes us a people.
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.
What you describe is not a real choice that is being made. The unemployed in Ireland get unemployment benefits, so this isn't favouring one over the other. The Artist's UBI is not enough to live on (neither are most countries' unemployment benefits to be fair) but in general a salesperson or carpet installer when in employment will make a decent living, whereas artists don't. Society tends to under value the arts and overvalue commerce (and any free market arguments about this consistently fail to reflect reality), and this address some of the balance. They did an analysis (probably generously) and found that there would actually be an ROI for this UBI.
I suspect it's a mix of trying to keep the arts (including music) alive, especially with all the big streaming services taking what would have been some of their profits in the past and - the likes of sales people don't directly do good for society (or at least, not all/most of them) - the world has more than enough sales people trying to get people to spend money, where as there's good research to show the value of investing in the arts.
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
Steal from the rest of society? Would you cop yourself on. Governments levy taxes and use that tax money to fund things that they think will benefit society. A la carte funding of the bits you think are worth funding is not a workable proposal. The Irish government funds lots of things I don't agree with but characterising that as theft is ludicrous.
I mean 20-50% on top of income tax. Putting your money where your mouth is. That percentage should not be too much for anyone truly passionate and willing to make some sacrifices.
I can't afford a painting. Noone in my neighbour can afford one. Together, we might, and we could put it on a wall in a communal building. Let's call it a museum.
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.
No, I can figure out how to build a shelter. But I can't figure out how to be an artist.
So if you are so grossly incompetent that you can't figure out how to build a shelter to save your life, sure take your carpet installer and enjoy your hundred years of boredom.
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.
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.
Why should the government be asked to cover income that wasn't reported / taxed by an individual? There's a clear process to report income that's non W2 (or equivalent)
Mentioning it since it's mostly the same with small artists. You'll always only report the bare minimum which results in the unemployment $ being rough issue.
I'm not in Ireland but it's the same everywhere. No one likes paying taxes.
Not saying that anything should be done about it. TBH I'd even like to have unemployment benefits be an optional insurance to reduce my taxes since I haven't gotten a cent out of it yet, but that's separate.
Just noting that artists aren't in some unique situation.
Nothing is stopping them from opening a company and giving themselves a fixed salary or doing some mix of salaried, freelance and under-table work.
None of these 2000 artists will create anything close to a single piece of art having any sort of effect on society. I can guarantee it.
I worked in "culture" for a while when I was younger. 90% of it is just disguised unemployment benefits for those that consider it a dirty word barely good enough for the hoi polloi.
