Hacker News Reader

Comment by onion2k | Hacker News Reader

It will be part-time but eventually they will get better and can start making money out of it, and if not then well it can just be their hobby right?

Except that's not what actually happens. People working a full time job (or more than one job) don't have the time or energy to also be a part-time artist until they make it. This is especially true for people who have other responsibilities like raising children or caring for elderly relatives. Leaving it up to "the market" only works if a single part time job is enough to live on, and it isn't.

UBI for artists means they can work a little less to make time for making art. Society is essentially paying them to make art. That makes society better. Ireland has decided it's a worthwhile investment.

I'd love to live in a society where everyone is paid to do something they love, to make society better, but doing it for artists to start with is a great first step.

View on HN

I think you're missing the point here. It's great to have cultural heritage, but it's much better to get people out of poverty and hunger first, I think we should mainly focus on more important tasks at hand if we already have the resources to do that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm an art enthusiast myself but I think that if someone is really passionate, they will go out and look for a sponsor themselves that's how it worked over the ages and our cultural heritage as a civilization is quite rich I'd say.

This is especially true for people who have other responsibilities like raising children or caring for elderly relatives.

But that's how every side hustle works, you have to get organized and manage your time well, having children is not an excuse.

If their skills aren't marketable in free market, why should other people subsidise them? I would much rather the money to be spend on something actually productive or physical. And not wasted entirely on art...

Why does the city/country not invest that money in affordable housing first?

Handing out a few bucks to artists will not fix the main issues of why artists and all low wage workers can't survive anymore in today's cities, namely, unaffordable housing.

Europe's biggest cultural centers (London, Paris, Amsterdam, etc.) have turned into the playground of foreign billionaires, real estate speculators and >six-figure income law-, management-consulting-, finance- and tech- bros, with rents skyrocketing, so how are artists or anyone else low on funds supposed to survive in these environments?

This artist-grant money will not fix the core issue as it's like trying to stop a flood with a paper tissue.

Why does the city/country not invest that money in affordable housing first?

You're representing this as a dichotomy. It's not though. Governments have enough resources to do more than one thing at a time.

>Governments have enough resources to do more than one thing at a time.

They have resources, but reality has show they lack the will to properly use them as those in charge are more concerned about winning these popularity contests called "elections" rather than taking radical actions to do any meaningful change. So it's a lot less riskier for their careers to sit back and kick the can down the road while starting projects that sound good on paper and wins them sympathy ("new law wants to help struggling artists") but accomplish nothing meaningful in the end (CoL, inflation and wealth inequality will keep rising, wages will stagnate). Rinse and repeat.

If their skills aren't marketable in free market, why should other people subsidise them?

Lots of things that society has collectively decided are they would like to have aren't possible in a free market. Roads are a good example. If people had to buy their own roads you might have freeways but towns would be dirt tracks. Roads would be wildly different around the country. Signs wouldn't be unified by design. It'd be awful. The military is another example. If people actually had to buy military things in a free market you'd have a fragmented market of tiny militias and absolutely no national defence infrastructure. The list of things that are only possible to pay for in a socialized way is very long.

There's no reason why increasing the supply of art beyond the limited amount that the free market will provide isn't another thing that would make society better.

For small countries like Ireland, culture is a useful resource to promote abroad that generate interest and in turn other benefits to the island.

Because if the only culture you have is the marketable one it will be McDonalds, Disney and Marvel

>Because if the only culture you have is the marketable one it will be McDonalds, Disney and Marvel

And giving a couple of bucks to individual artist will somehow make them able to go toe-to-toe with the Disney juggernaut how exactly?

If marketability is what's missing, then why not give free airtime to all artists on national radio/TV broadcasters instead, this way the whole county can hear/see them, and then the audience will decide if they like them or not.

You can apply your argument to european SW companies. Because local companies lacked "marketability" we are now all dependent on US tech for everything despite having some local alternatives. However, the governments giving free money to local tech companies (which many received through various EU grants) wouldn't have improved the outcome much as the customers voted with their wallets (or with their private data) to use those US tech products and not local alternatives (like how many now use iPhones and not Nokias, Blackberrys or Ericssons).

I feel it's the same with art. Consumers will vote with their wallet or their attention and consume content that they enjoy or gives them dopamine hits regardless of its origin or financial backing. So if no consumers and no patrons like your art, why should the government just give you free money except for reasons of national pride and sovereignty maybe?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com